Katy Abram is a symptom of what the Becks of the world are creating

Completely intellectually incurious.

Low IQ.

Low level of education.

Extremely gullible and malleable.

She's a blank canvas that guys like Beck can paint any opinion they want onto.


But....but.... when the light is shone on them, the sheer idiocy of their viewpoints causes them to collapse into a pile of goo.


Lawrence O'Donnell wasn't even tough on her. And she came off as a dimwitted, uneducated, idiot. A less-intelligent version of Joe the Plumber.


Putting these ignorant, misled folks on TV is a great thing.



Every time the independents start to drift away from us, a Joe the Plumber or Katy Abrams comes along as a gift to move them back toward us.

Even a small explanation would suffice. Was she on Beck's show?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She doesn't even understand the issues she's arguing about.

that was crying at Specter's town hall meeting saying she "wants her country back" and then yesterday she was shown to be the idiot she is on Hardball as hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell-who should have his own MSNBC show and I think he's being groomed now for it.

Lawrence O'Donnell is such a fabulous journalist, especially the part he said about the president never supporting single payer. That stupid dolt Katy Abrams should watch this to get her facts straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE



Oh wait...

Obama has been against single-payer in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.


ONE statement... made in 2003, before he even held a federal elected office, does not make that his viewpoint.


He ran against single-payer throughout the entire campaign last year and has consistently been against it for 6 years.


Longer than Katy Abrams has been "aware" of politics.

I love the smell of granite tombstones in the morning.

that Katy idiot. I think he fell in love with her. :rofl:

to make some signs questioning Obama's birth certificate or comparing him to Hitler?

She doesn't know the family income. She was unaware that Medicaid is a single payer system. She doesn't think about America being at war. (thanks a lot, Katy. My son is Marine with 3 combat tours). She wants to return to what the founding fathers wanted. Which means, no voting for Katy. Not in the Constitution, sweetheart.
If this is the person you want representing you, fine.
But forget about America being divided by blue states and red states. We're divided between informed and uninformed.
And Katy is living proof of the saying "dumb as a box of rocks."

single payer for a long time and has actively ran against it. But Lawrence did say "he never said that". That was in error. The poster was trying to make a flippant point but we should be sure our facts are straight. Kind of like the President saying the AARP endorsed the health care plan. It did not endorse anything and the M$M is riding that horse all the way to the barn.

I could almost feel sorry for her except she set herself up for this. If you want to be a voice for your cause, Katy, then at least learn something about it! She came across as completely uninformed about any issues & is just pissed off, but can't or won't articulate why.

Thanks for posting the link.

:hi:

"she was brilliant" to "he was brilliant" and you're on the right track...

I haven't heard that word in years. I sure do miss home.:(

She was a disaster. She knows how to yell at a U.S. Senator about an issue, and then can't answer simple questions from a journalist. She also laughed during the times when he asked her a question that stumped her. That laugh is a sub-concious sign of being uncomfortable. She wasn't even schooled on the repub talking points. She couldn't think fast enough on her feet.


This is because Beck doesn't really inform his listeners. I listen to him on the radio. What he does is start the show with a little fiction and then end the segments in such a fantasy, with his voice raised, that everyone is agitated and misinformed. Complete fantasy, with no fact.

I also listen to Littleballs. He has more interest in the details and can weave the facts into something much more believable. They are still outright lies, but he only changes one or two things.

I listen because these guys are extremely dangerous to the U.S. To me they are calling for domestic terrorism.

Don't worry though, I also listen to the good guys:

The Stephanie Miller Show
Tom Hartman
Ed Schultz

I used to listen to Randi, but schedules change.

edit: spelling

:hi:

:rofl:

"Suburban Warriors" is a very good history of that movement.

And yes, they were also Stepford Wives

She's another little distraction from the failures of unregulated capitalism.

it begs the question, if these people are essentially "...a blank canvas that guys like Beck can paint any opinion they want onto," why aren't advocates on our side able to paint on that canvas?

I suspect there are some on our side that are, too, like a blank canvas that somebody has taken advantage of... but I am sure it is a much, much smaller portion of the progressive block. That is probably because our side has very few who are "completely intellectually incurious."

It seems to me that they don't really collapse into a pile of goo, but rather dig in their heels. Oh sure, they get flustered when put in front of the cameras and are made to answer for the lies, but if they were really collapsing, they would come around... ain't happening.

The confounding factor to me isn't that there are plenty of these malleable people out there. It is that it appears most of them are so gullible that they are militantly supporting positions that are unquestionably against their own economic interests.

BTW, as a friend of the Sarnoffs I can assure you that this generation of the family are staunch progressives. I believe The General understood the potential of the mediums he helped create, but I suspect he would be shocked to see the gullibility of such a large segment in the U.S..

The wingers control 99.99% of TV and radio. And probably 90% of the newspapers, though the words are probably way too big for Limbeciles.

I am neither democrat or republican... I am an American. I know some media figures have said this in the past several months, but I have been saying it for about a decade now. I've voted democrat in every election since I was 18 years old, which was oddly enough 18 years ago. So I'm just a kid really. I'm white and married to a multiracial woman and have been for 12 years now, we have a 7 month old son. I do IT work and make about 42K per year. It's not a huge salary, so my wife has to work as well to provide our boy with a promising future. I alternate my news media viewing between FOX and MSNBC. I do this because I like to know both of my potential enemies, the extreme right and the extreme left. I volunteer this information because I fear my words will be met with knee jerk labels and rhetoric claiming that I am a right wing radical racist upper class elitist. Given that you believe my "bio" to be true, which it is, it would stand to reason that you would not characterize me as "a right wing radical racist upper class elitist", and I hope this is the case. Now to my post...

I was watching Hardball last night and what bothered me most about it was not the young ladies inexperience or political ignorance, which was evident. What bothered me was the misrepresentation of the fact presented by Mr. O'Donnell. He asked Mrs. Abrams why she was concerned with HR 3200 and when she pointed to the fact that she opposed the single payer system. He insisted that the president had never said that he supported a single payer system, which he has. I believe he supports it now, but that is my assessment of the facts and not the one divine truth. If he does not now support a single payer program, that does not change the fact that he once said that he did support such a plan. This is the crux. Another thing that concerned me was Mr. O'Donnell's suggestion that Mrs. Abrams must also want medicare and social security to be dissolved. My response to that would have been that they should have never existed in the first place and that both programs have proven to be nothing more than elaborate ponzi schemes. One generation of investors pays for the next generation's care and security. This is what a ponzi scheme is, and it is not a viable prolonged option. If you do not believe this is the case where are the funds that have been accumulating since the inception of social security and medicare? They do not exist. The funds being used for these programs now are being generated by the working age members of society. By the time I retire neither program will likely exist, but that is ok with me. I save and invest 35% of my income, so when I retire I will hopefully be able to pay for my own care. I've never needed the government for anything but to build decent roads and defend our country from external threats. I will gladly do without medicare and social security, if my son will have the opportunity to live in a nation that does not handle its finances so foolishly. That is all I have for now. I have plenty of work to do today. If you will allow me I would like to continue my participation in the discussion.

Is that you appear to be very lucky, very cloistered, and even though you may be a democrat, you are pretty much following the "civil talking points" that the CATO and Heritage Foundation members are pushing to their upper middle class followers. You're almost word for word following the format my FIL's Orange County Republican (TM) fifth wife uses in her commentary on Social Security and Medicare, especially when she gets back from her church foundation work or from the social events she organizes for the "less fortunate". She also voted for Ron Paul. No clue as to what government actually is supposed to do, she thinks government is a business....

Look, I can give out my bona-fides, too. I'm a long-time Democrat, 50, retired military (reserves, so I don't see anything for another 10 years), with a 100% disabled husband and a teenager, in a high COL location (due to my job) with an annual household income of around $50K after taxes. I pay 5% of my salary into a 401K, I am maxed out on a $5K per year medical pre-tax FSA and I have a pretty decent company medical benefit that I pay $480 a month for premiums on the three of us. I'm going through menopause, so my medical requirements now include cancer screening. Our family medical costs - copays, procedures, prescriptions, and life-saving equipment after the $5K FSA ran out are now sitting at just under $10K out of pocket. I expect that if there are no emergencies, I'll end up with around, oh, $15K out of pocket this year just on medical bills.
And due to the disabilities, that pretty much is going to be the way our family finances will be until I can apply for the government-run TriCare for Life in 10 years that I am entitled to as a military retiree.
That makes it, what - an average 20% of my income goes to medical on an annual basis, through no fault of my own or my family's.
You also don't seem to know how much of the health care business is taking the money you are giving them to protect your families and spending it on Viagra Ads, bonuses for company officers, PR, sales, lobbying, and lawyer firms - and junkets for the high-end "stakeholders". It is estimated that only 80cents on every dollar paid to a private for-profit health care product actually goes to health care. 20% of every dollar my family spends through my plan goes to administration, legal, marketing and profit.
When I get on TriCare, only 3% of every dollar I'm going to be spending through my plan will be going to administration and marketing. TriCare, because it's a government plan, is not supposed to make a profit. It's supposed to break even. And it does, even though privatization of some of it's function has increased costs instead of decreasing them, because that middleman is now in the system.

You say your wife just had a baby. How much did that cost you? Were you like me when it happened, did you start feeling your age creeping up on you while you stayed up for weeks without sleep wondering how your spouse is going to recover from critical life-saving surgery - as well as still having to go to work and take care of the household? Did you fear you might lose the job that enabled you to be lucky enough to have a comfortable salary and comprehensive health care as you've gotten nearer to "retirement age"? ('cause it's hard to get a job that pays more than a cashier or bus driver when you're over 45 in this market) Do you clue one as to why medical issues can cut the ability for an otherwise good, hard productive worker to be able to support their families? Health care is critical when you need it. It's easy to say "I'm going to make sure the government doesn't have to care for me because I've got bootstraps" - but damn, that's naive. And I know that for a fact: My 68yo FIL and his wife pull down over $250K between them a year with investments and retirement. If they didn't have TriCare and a Medicare supplemental to dramatically cut their costs, they would spend pretty much 3/4 of their annual income in medical costs if they had to pay for it strictly through "private insurance", what with her blood issues and his relatively minor cancer issues. That's if they can get a decent plan that will cover them other than TriCare or Medicare. Of course, Loretta still clings to the idea that it was "bootstraps" that got them were they were, rather than luck, and opportunity and networking provided by the government programs (FIL was a retired Air Force Colonel who got his Master's through the military)
My 72yo retired Dad recently had two emergency heart surgeries, with post-surgical therapies and follow-ups; he's got Medicare and it costs him around $7K a year because he's got good retirement income rather than living on Social Security. When he turned 65, he checked - because of his pre-existing conditions and age, private insurance wouldn't touch him for under $25K in premiums/deductibles a year - and they still won't cover half of the procedures he needs to survive that Medicare provides. Talk about death panels - $25K is more than half the annual income of my parents - without Medicare, they would have had to have sold their house - and Dad still might have died 6 years ago because private insurance would have considered it a profit risk to keep him insured.

The Chicago School of Economics Conservatives have claimed that Social Security was going insolvent since it began. First projection - insolvent by 1948, because of all those old folks that were pulling from the program when it first got started. That was because when Social Security began, we were in a depression, and there were more people - the elderly, widows, children, and the disabled - that qualified and were collecting it than there were people working. At that time - and up through the 70's the Military did not pay Social Security. So all those WWII draftees did not pay into the system. Nor did, at that time, people who were living off rents, remittances, investments, farms - unless you were an employer or employee, you didn't pay into Social Security. In the early 80's Reagan claimed it would go insolvent by the late 90's, which is why the age for the elderly to qualify was bumped up to 67 - the first time. Now, it's, what, - 2070's, and the age is bumped to 68? That we're going to have to start dipping into principle around 2045?
Actually, only real problem with Social Security, and by extension, Medicare, started when the massive surplus of funds that were collecting compounded interest began to be pulled in a scheme to "balance the budget" when paying for executive office projects such as, oh, Oil Development projects, Iran-Contra, or "Star Wars" or other pro-monopolistic business programs that didn't go through Congress.
You do realize that surplus was supposed to be what keeps the program going in the lean times; even if the amount of workers paying into the system decreases while beneficiaries increased, it is expected that due to historical example, medical costs would decrease as innovation increases. Fair Practices regulation would allow the system to compensate for the costs any implementation of new, improved medical technology to come down after the initial bump due to the engineering and patents costs.

Now...as answered by several posters above, from everything official I've heard and read Obama has encouraged public option, but not Single Payer. The few times he's mentioned Single Payer when he was discussing the various options in the bill, and my understanding of what I've heard from him in speeches is that he was describing the only way he would accept Single Payer is if it followed specific guidelines. And his criteria is such that Single Payer, the way it runs in Canada or Great Britain, would not be acceptable to him. Not because of "the long lines" or anything like that, but because frankly, he doesn't like turning over the applecart, and doesn't want to put a corporate target on his chest.
Which is a pity, because, frankly, Single Payer such as they have in Canada or Great Britain are really quite good for working people and small and medium sized businesses - and to increase jobs. It's not good for Health "Care" corporations that are caught up in the shareholder's trap of Wall Street, but since they're the ones that support campaigns, they have to be pandered to.

Again - Public Option is not Single Payer.

As for your final comments - about what you think government should do, have you read the preamble for the constitution where it outlays the responsibility of government? Accessibility to health care is "promoting the general welfare" - just as much as roads, providing the post, common currency, military, education, judicial/regulatory systems, commerce...
The government isn't supposed to be a business. The government is "We the People".
And since we are a democratic republic with representative government instead of feudal system, we have the freedom to move within our society and be protected from those who would prey on us, instead of being forced to live our lives under some wealthy family's whim.
Businesses are supposed to stand and fall on their own merits. They are not individuals, no matter what that Judicial Clerk snuck into a Supreme Court comment on the corporate rights vs. personal rights.
If you are injured, or otherwise be unlucky (lose your job, get scammed by a Ponzi schemer), is it better for you, your family, and your community that you not end up selling everything until you're homeless and starving, when you have to resort to foraging to survive?
I believe it's a strong tradition in Christian circles that when there are problems, to support an individual, an accepting community should be involved - be it outright charity, be it providing an opportunity to support the individual through his or her travails, be it simply kind words.

Good luck with your family, and I hope you never have to go through what so many others in your situation find themselves going through. All it takes is one illness, one accident...

And there's a lot of money being spent out there - at least 1.4 Million a day by a coalition of "Health Care Lobbiests" in this case - to try and convince people that haven't had to face financial ruin through no fault of their own that they would be better off not trusting the government, which is "by the people, for the people", but trusting entities that live and die by a profit margin and have no concept of the individual other than as something to make mo' money from.

Y'know It's easy for a well dressed guy or gal claiming to have "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" to scam you into thinking that you can do that "if you just try hard enough" - and, of course, keep the status quo that allows them to sell you a load of cheap toxic waste labled as fillet mignion with impunity. And if you can keep their noses so far into the grindstone that they can't see where they're going by allowing money to be legally viewed the same as "free speech", it's even easier.

Too many people don't understand that Mammon dresses up as "King Christ" to get his way in the world...and there is a really good financial reason that those who have leadership roles in American Society have replaced the saying "The Love of Money is the Root of Evil" with "Greed is Good" since the Reagan era.

Haele

I believe I said that I was neither a democrat or republican. Nonetheless, I am not familiar with any of the people or organizations that you mentioned in your initial paragraph. So maybe I inadvertently see many things as these people and orgs see them. I cannot say for certain because I am not versed in their ideology. As far as your physical shortcoming are concerned, I have compassion and regret your lack of overall health as much as I can for one I've never met. I am not sure that it has anything to do with our discussion, but I was diagnosed with diabetes at age twelve. Concerning the birth of my child, I frankly feel that I have given enough personal information out but I'll bite anyway. We waited until we were financially stable, had our own home, had some money in the bank, and had decent health insurance before we even considered conception. Had these prerequisites not come to fruition, we would have not chosen to have a child. As it is we ended up waiting until I was thirty-five and my wife was twenty-nine before we conceived. The cost was three hundred dollars including delivery and prenatal and my wife had twelve weeks off while I had six weeks off, both paid. We each still have a significant amount of paid leave sitting on the books, but that is because we never take vacations. The things you categorize as "promoting general welfare" don't seem very general to me. On the contrary they seem very specific, but that's not a hanging offense. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I said that the constitution only provides "good roads and defense from external aggressors" but rather those are the only two things I've ever needed the government for. My grandparents are seventy-five and they claim that these two items are all that they have ever needed the government for as well. I hope I go to my grave feeling the same way. If my income tax was not so high, I am quite confident that this would be the case because the 40% or so that I save out of my salary would amount to much more money. This money would also help you pay your vast medical costs. One should not live beyond his or her means. By the same token, if you have a surplus of resources, expand as my wife and I choose to.

how Obama is in favor of single payer, Daddy.

Tell me that one, and tell me which part of your butt you pulled that one out of.

I love your stories, Daddy, but I smell pizza...............................

Since you have already implied that I am a liar regarding being a father, which I find offensive, I don't see the point in trying to explain my point of view to you. I suspect that if I did give you a logical and linear run down of why I feel the way I do regarding the single payer system, you would respond with more accusations. The only question I have for you is why do you ask a question of one you believe to be a liar? This is not logical.

so you reserve your fairy tales for people you deem worthy?

That's not a good Daddy, Daddy. You're supposed to tell your fairy tales to all - didn't you know that?

And you thought I asked a question?

Hmmm. Clearly, another brain trust .................................

I why you'd expect anybody to believe any of that bullshit.

Either English is a second or third language for you, which is excellent, or you need to slow down and stop your knees from jerking. Your post can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, which is less a result of my being dimwitted and more a result of your poor diction and grammar. Keep in mind that poor diction and grammar are not inherently indicative of low intelligence and more often are signs of an extreme emotional state or impatience. However, some people are just ignorant, or worse even, stupid. I suspect that you are attempting to imply that I am a liar. I would ask what you think I'm lying about, but it doesn't matter. I believe everything I have said to be true.

...One, MSNBC is not "far left." There is scant little progressive representation in America and while most folks here might want to believe that MSNBC represents "liberalism." on a truly objective scale, they fall pretty close to the center. FOX, on the other hand, is unabashedly hard right.

In America, there are two major parties, one (Democratic) is basically the party of the status quo with a few liberal bones tossed in for effect. They have a moderately sized tent and while there are folks like Dennis Kucinich in there, when push comes to shove, they're pretty mainstream. The other party (Republican) is the regressive party. They have a shrinking demographic characterized by a desire to turn back the clock on civil rights, environmentalism, corporate control, what have you. The progressive party? Not really there in any way the rest of the industrialized world might recognize.

Secondly, Medicare is responsible for my survival due to medical disability. So, thanks for the death wish.

Third, while I have no idea where you stand on other social issues, what you have described thus far makes you a conservative. You might have voted Democrat in the past, but the things you express here sound pretty much like they're from the right.

"Morning Joe", anyone? "Way Too Early with Willie Geist", "Morning Meeting"...? Yah, those are "far left" for sure.

I picked up on your sarcasm, but thanks for spoon feeding me that detail. I'm really slow sometimes <-----(sarcasm). Your supposition is logically invalid. If you don't see how, I will explain it to you. You have essentially suggested that it is not possible to watch MSNBC and feel that it a "far left" broadcast. I am happy to inform you that you don't get to dictate to me what a valid perception of MSNBC is, nor are you in any way qualified to determine how one thing or another should be interpreted for anyone but yourself. I do watch both FOX and MSNBC on an almost nightly basis and occasionally I'll watch CNN. I feel it is unwise to watch, or listen to, a single news program on a constant basis. In today's news media everyone has an agenda and all modern news media is designed to alter your perception of the facts.

I agree that FOX commentary is predominately from the far right. However, I disagree with your assessment of MSNBC and believe that they are as far left as FOX is far right. This disagreement is not a huge issue for me. Reality is not so much the truth as it is how the individual percieves the truth. I am a conservative American and party affiliation means about as much to me as picking a football team to cheer for, which is not even worth mentioning in my opinion. I personally blame the fiscally irresponsible nature of both parties for the predicament our economy is now in. The Bush admin started the fire with the bailouts and the Obama admin adds fuel and fans the flames with the stimulus and cash for clunkers. Printing money and destroying resources in order to stimulate the economy is a recipe for disaster. I am sorry you have significant medical costs and, as of yet, I do not have ill will or a "death wish" for you. However, medicare is not responsible for your survival. Your fellow taxpaying citizens are. Medicare is just another bureaucracy, which would be meaningless without taxpayers to foot the bill. Do you not have friends and family that would help you with your medical costs, if they had more money? If so, cutting down on income tax would put more money in their hands thus allowing them to be more helpful to you. It may be controversial for me to say, but I would rather my people take care of me than my government. Friends are inherently less evil than government. Otherwise, you are hanging with the wrong crowd. If you want to know where I stand on other social issues, simply ask about a specific issue and we can talk about it. Thanks for not implying that I am a liar or resorting to name calling.

You know how we don't let the pasty white guys decide what is racist and what isn't? You know how they think some things are perfectly innocuous but in actuality, these things (could be jokes, could be pictures, could be ideas) ARE racist and are hurtful to the minorities that they are about.

Likewise, don't be telling far left progressives that a tv news station accurately represents their beliefs - because they don't. I am pretty far left in my ideas - MSNBC does NOT speak for me, nor does it represent my beliefs accurately.

You are free to believe that MSNBC is far left - but those of us who are ACTUALLY far left have a different opinion. I think I can recognize a news organization that reports with a bias I agree with.

I have YET to find this so called liberal media.

It's not something you get to have an opinion about... it's a fact.

Hopefully eventually you'll do enough research to figure it out for yourself.

...My meds alone run over $130,000 per year, and that's with the negotiated cut for groups. How much the nursing service costs, I have no idea. I come from a lower rung in society where we just don't have that kind of dough. Not to mention, considering the emotional manipulation and extortion common in my family, I'm not so sure I would want that anyway.

Friends? I have few of those these days. The people I've known through the years have sunk into lifestyles and mindsets that strained our relationships. The few true friends I have left have moved away from this place.

You can say what you want, but without the existence of Medicare, I would be up a creek.

any discussion with you would be a gross waste of time.

I said that all I have personally needed government for was to build/maintain good roads and defend us from external aggressors. I'm thankful that I don't depend on the government for more. I understand that there are people that depend on the government for much of their resources and that is unfortunate because the government is unreliable and has been for quite some time.

How about the Army? Don't you appreciate the freedom and security you have?

Oh and this internet you're posting on right now... you realize it was started by the government, right?

*sigh*

So fucking tiring, disabusing people of decades' worth of right-wing brainwashing.

Indeed the internet was started as ARPA.net, but the internet is no longer controlled by the government. The army would be the "defense from external aggressors" to which I was referring. I have been to a library, yes. I have called the police, yes. However, I have not called the fire department. If given the opportunity, the good people of this nation can take care of themselves and each other.

I do need other services that are now provided by the government and it's really easy for me to admit when I am wrong, which I just did. However, these services must not necessarily be maintained by the government. The money and man power used by the government in all cases comes from the citizenry.

So my stance has changed. I need many services provided by the government, but these services need not be provided by the government, but rather through the organization of the citizenry. I suppose acknowledging my error is a sign of weakness or stupidity and my new stance on the matter is loony? Let's hope you are all better than that.

than the US Army, right?

He's a Marine with 3 combat tours. Yet Katy doesn't think about America being at war. It's "commonplace" to her. So, is the military a government institutation? And does it protect you? Are my son and his fellow Marines "unreliable" your words)?

Let me guess. You proudly support the troops.
Just like Katy. Who never thinks about them.

I need, nay we need, the government to protect us from outside aggressors. Absolutely not do I intend to suggest that your son and his fellow marines are unreliable. The government they serve is, but that is no reflection of their service and honor. Please don't compare me to Mrs. Abrams. Had I been interviewed by Mr. O'donnell, he would have been the one crying the next day ;)

But based on your posts here, O'Donnell would have you as exposed as poor Ms. Abrams.
But the way, the 3 tours my son spent in Iraq were hardly against "outside aggressors." The attack on 9-11 came from terrorists from Saudi Arabia. Not from Iraq. Remember, those hate radio guys you listen to are fact deprived. They rely on their listeners not knowing facts, like who attacked us on 9-11.

First, the tag name you chose is appropriate. " Hamartia is often referred to as tragic flaw and has many examples throughout literature, especially in Greek tragedy. Bible translators may reach this conclusion, according to T. C. W. Stinton, because another common interpretation of hamartia can be seen as a “moral deficit” or a “moral error” (Stinton 221)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia

Who ensures our produce and meat products meet certain levels of hygiene and healthiness.
Who keeps our cities, towns and states safe.
Who incarcerates criminals
Who prosecutes criminals
Who ensures that drugs released for sale to the public are safe
Who responds for disaster relief
Who sent humans to the moon and safely back to earth
Who regulates or did regulate the financial systems until deregulation. That worked so well getting goverment off our backs didn't it.
Who insures your bank account against bank failures
Who provides student loans
Who preserves our National Parks and Forests
Who protects all citizens from age, race sex and religious discrimination.
Who provided the opportunity for higher education for our military through the GI Bill
Who patrols our coastlines and risks their lives to save lives.

The government that who... Men and women doing a thankless job by your reckoning.
And I could list hundreds of other examples where the government(local, county, state national) touches your life in one way or another that you and so many others just take for granted. But remove those safeguards, remove those underlying services and you would have a nation in chaos.

Does everything work 100% perfect every time. No. But to say "I understand that there are people that depend on the government for much of their resources and that is unfortunate because the government is unreliable and has been for quite some time." Is just downright stupid, ignorant and dumb.

Have a pleasant day. :eyes:

Medicare and Social Security are ponzi schemes, and should have never existed in the first place.

Pon·zi scheme (pŏn'zē)
n. A fraud disguised as an investment opportunity, in which initial investors and the perpetrators of the fraud are paid out of funds raised from later investors, and the later investors lose all funds invested.

Initial investors = the citizens incapable of working and/or that are of retirement age.

Later investors = the current citizens that are capable of working and have not reached retirement.

The perpetrators of the fraud = the government, which does not provide any sort of return on the "investment" and actually suffers an annual loss due to bureaucratic paper shuffling and the like.

You will not see the benefit of the dollars that you are "investing". If you are lucky you will only see the benefit of those citizens that are still working when you retire.

The money deducted from your pay would provide an actual return, if it were actually invested in a legitimate commodity. Expecting one to survive on social security is an insult. The statement I get from social security says if I retire at age 65, I will be able to draw less than $1K per month. In 29 years, when I reach 65, $1K will maybe have the buying power of $500 today. That's if we are all very lucky.

I invest 15% of my pre tax income in commodities and I put 25% of my take home in an interest yielding savings account. My financial adviser states that at this rate my investments will likely grow to exceed $800K by age 65. And my wife will have ~$750K. If the market really recovers and the shares we are currently buying for a fraction of what they initially cost, we will have far more money to retire on. If the market does not recover, we won't have anything. Some may suggest that if the market does not recover, wouldn't it be better to have good ol' uncle sam and social security to help you out? If the market does not recover, social security and medicare will be something my son reads about in history class.

I'm the first in my family to receive a formal education beyond high-school. I've always been taught that I should always save as much as I spend. Sadly I don't quite do that, but I get better at it every year. If the government didn't steal so much of my income, I would easily be able to add 10% to my investments/savings and thus making it an even 50%.

steal Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

The government has no right to tax my income nor have I given them permission to do so. Hence the stealing.

I hope my position is more clear to you now. I took you at your word when you said that I lost you on the ponzi scheme aspect of my post. If this was not an accurate assessment and you were being sarcastic, I am sorry for wasting our time.

Mr hamartia, you are doing quite well for yourself with just $42k, many people have a hard time making it on that amount. I would suspect your wife is adding more than that.

Secondly, you sound more like a libertarian than either a dem or repub. I would suspect that you live in one of those blue dog areas, the one where the dem is right of center and is riding on the coattails of the W backlash.

If from where you sit you think MSNBC is left of you and Fox is right of you, I would suggest that you are far to the right of the country.

No offense intended I just feel that your opinions aren't reflective of the current mood of the country.

My opinions are reflective of my mood only. I cannot speak for the rest of the country, nor would I if I could. My wife makes about $32K, I think, and she saves a smaller percentage of her salary than I do. My position is far far right on many topics, but far far left on others. I am conservative, and yes I have considered the libertarian perspective.

I'm far far left on reproductive rights. My wife and I both think abortion is wrong in all cases, so we have agreed not to have one. It's none of our business, or anyone else's, what another couple or woman does with her insides or her outsides.

I'm far far right on gun control. Making guns illegal across the board means that only the civilian criminals will have firearms. Police will have guns as well but this only serves the citizenry, if the police are there when a well armed civilian criminal assails an unarmed law abiding citizen. Criminals don't care if firearms are illegal... because they are criminals!!!

I thought bush was scum just as I think obama is scum. There is nothing patriotic about the patriot act and spending our way out of debt is not feasible. Obama is just more of the same big government with a different face. My biggest problem with obama is that I voted for him.

I appreciate your civility, which seems uncommon to outsiders around here.

Jump in anytime... please :)

Might want to re-orient your political compass... you've allowed the M$M to distort it.

If by M$M you mean "main stream media", I see both sides claim the other controls it constantly. This is one of the many reasons why I do not restrict myself to any single news source. You can tell me that MSNBC is not extreme left as much as you want, but do you really think you can convince me that my good sense and senses are mistaken and that I should rather trust your perception? Don't kid yourself. You must show me evidence rather than only repeat your mantra.

Like I said, I hope you do enough research to figure this out for yourself one day.

....and is looking for an 8th grade civics textbook and the new Michelle Malkin best-seller to review. This woman is just stupid enough and self-absorbed enough to have a real future in neo-fascist politics....

She was doing her level best; which does not rise to the occasion, to make her master/husband proud of her for actually memorizing that gibberish and so Lo! Yea Verily! It *was* good in his eyes! He-was-proud...of his goody wife concubine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6291561&mesg_id=6291878

I would nix the "She's a blank canvas" angle before someone pulls up Obama's "I serve as a blank screen,” Obama writes, “on which people of vastly" etc, etc ...

We all see the effects of such an ascendancy to blank screens, pages, looks and stares with a bit more clarity these days, the same old days really, over & over & over again

I'm just average, common too
I'm just like him, the same as you
I'm everybody's brother and son
I ain't different than anyone
It ain't no use a-talking to me
It's just the same as talking to you.

So yeah, I still think that when the matter is flushed out of the bush (maybe no pun intended) Katy will end up being way more scary than her topsy little bobble-head even seems to suggest for the moment though likely if *I* see her in *my* Safeway well...

Let me just say I am confident I'd be able to find a way to reduce the likelihood of me crashing my cart into her Achilles Tendon

I'd be interested to know if she belongs to a "christian" group who travels to poor nations of people of color.

If these fake christians are ever exposed for being the racists they are traveling will start to get very unpleasant.

as is beck

She is not Mormon. They are easy to spot if you are a Mormon. I am a Mormon. I thought she was one but as she spoke it was obvious to me. She was also wearing a cross. We do not wear crosses.

I didn't see the fox interview...for some reason my teevee shows every channel but that one. Can't figure out why.

Many who would agree with Katy would see her as being made fun of in the O'D interview, condescended to. Every time anybody points out a fact in my local newspaper blog the morons think they are being belittled and don't hear the fact.

(on edit) Lord, I just did it... I belittled. Afraid to say anything anymore.

Another point is the thing that's going around about Obama and the single payer clip. While we see someone who changes his mind as a good thing, their mentality sees it as a weakness and a dishonesty. Don't forget, they liked the idea that W was a pig-headed fool.

(on edit) And there I did it again. Why can we not call an idiot an idiot when it's deserved? The rude pundit really has it right about the gun-toter.

Mr. O'Donnell claimed that obama never said that he supported a single payer system, when he actually did some years ago. This means that Mr. O'Donnell is either lying or ignorant of the facts, both of which make him under qualified to practice journalism in my opinion. If I give you that obama no longer supports a single payer system, this does not change the fact that at one time he said that he did. Nor does this change the fact that Mr. O'donnell was out of line. If I tell him the sky is blue and he either doesn't know that it is or he knows that it is and says otherwise, he is unfit to hold his position. Unless of course he recants. Has he done that?

Tempest in a teapot... but it sure is good for distracting people.

My initial post was only regarding a "journalist's" treatment of a guest. Has he corrected his error yet? I didn't watch anything last night but Mr. Beck and Mr. Obermann.

I'm glad I posted, because it has evolved into something more than a discussion about an inept journalist and guest. I'm glad only a few people have called me dumb or idiot. Name calling is for children and evidently the news media.

The statusquoers (for lack of a term) have established a position...like W did with Iraq.

They search thru everything that has ever happened in history to look for a fact that satisfies that position. If there is, they note it and use it. If it does not, they determine how to frame the fact to make it fit their position (see the global warming arguments). If they cannot frame it to make it fit their purpose, they try to attack or discredit the messenger (Gore, Dean, Michael Moore, Move-on) or figure out a way to redirect the argument.

That has been the strategy since Rove first sat on Atwater's knee. By now they have it almost perfected.

The next thing they do is make sure all their players follow that detailed script (see the those talking point memos I can't remember the name of). Anyone who doesn't believe that Boner, and that smarmy senator from the third world state aren't reading the same script hasn't been paying attention.

And they just repeat them over and over and over. Lord, I every time I hear a question (the same ones cause the snooze people get a list of "approved" questions) I can repeat the answer.

Meanwhile, over here on the left it's like trying to herd cats. Can't get the same comments out of two guys who share an office.

How can these talking points get to the people? I see comments pop up in different threads in different forums that are identical -- down to spelling and grammatical errors so obviously cut and paste. These comments match the Goopers' comments.

How do they do it? I know there is an email dissemination, but... how?

And how do we combat it?

Lord, this tinfoil is soooo uncomfortable.

how she thinks all those "conflicts we always seem to be in" get paid for.

I mean, she watched CNN with her Dad back in 1991 and saw all the infrared missiles going back and forth on the screen! Did the Founding Fathers envision THAT? Does she understand that she pays for THAT with her precious tax dollars?

"Our high lord was just so much brighter than Abram! It was truly a pleasure to see.

But this brings us to a basic question about American politics.

Abram was a pleasant, smiling presence throughout. But she’s unsophisticated, unlettered, about public affairs. She doesn’t talk politics with her parents, she told O’Donnell at one point. She doesn’t know her own family’s annual income. “Maybe I’m just not that smart,” she said at another point in the segment. But here’s the problem, a problem that is especially acute for the kind of upper-class pseudo-liberals who went to Stanford or (Cornell), became Rhodes Scholars, and like to mock and name-call their lessers:

The vast majority of American voters are unsophisticated, unlettered, about politics! They aren’t as brilliant as our high lords. But uh-oh! They get to vote! And there are many more people like Katy Abram than like our high lord O’Donnell.

(If we had to guess, we’d guess that Abram is the nicer person.)

Make no mistake: Our highest lord is one of the biggest buffoons in recent history too."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081309.shtml

His post the day before on the "joy of liberalism" was instructive too, but I doubt if DU would listen

"In short, we liberals have done a miserable job over the past fifteen years. But we remain very good at one thing; we’re very good at telling everyone else how stupid and foolish they are! Those who disagree with us are “wing-nuts”—and now, they’re “tea-baggers” too. We call them names every chance we get, then marvel at the wing-nutty way they reject our advanced ideas.

Let’s face it: This has always been the principal “joy of liberalism.” Among a certain type of white pseudo-liberal, the very point of being a liberal is the opportunity it gives us to name-call working-class whites. This is our one undeniable skill—and it reaches its fullest flower when we get to call them racists. Indeed, a certain type of white pseudo-liberal lives for the pleasures this practice provides. It’s the only political play we seem to know. We’re like a football team which runs off right tackle every play—then wonders why it can’t score."

His head is completely up his ass, if he thinks liberals being nicer is the answer to all our problems.

This is why his readership has declined over the years... there's usually no reason to bother with him.

the GOP is mostly mean to people like Clinton or some liberal pundit/writer. The thing is, most people do not really identify with them. When you slap around a Katy Abram, many people are gonna think - that could be me getting slapped around by that smug know-it-all. But if we want to turn into them in order to beat them, then what have we won?

Somerby was good when he focused on meaningful things that weren't discussed seriously by the media.

Now he goes off on these dumbass tirades about stupid shit all the time.

although I think he favored Clinton in the primaries and I was ABC, and I still am not that fond of Bill.

I don't watch a lot of rightwing shows. I used to listen to Randi Rhoades, and generally liked her, except that she would be brutal with callers who seemed to agree with her. It was like nobody could be right except the amazing Randi.

I am wagering that the RW hosts are being brutal to perferssers rather than plumbers. Are there leftwing equivalents of Joe The Plumber and Katy Abrams? People don't identify with professors when they know they are not that smart. (edit: so they don't mind seeing one of those "arrogant eggheads" get berated). They do identify with ordinary people who are concerned about where this country is headed.

I also enjoyed KeithO and Rachel for the short time I had cable TV, but when he lays into them, I think he has a point too. I never did care for Wonkette or Gene Robinson though. Robinson has a history, that I was made aware of by Somerby. He was part of the group of cowards and career advancing shills who helped elect Bush. I don't think that should be forgotten.

No, there are no leftwing equivalents of those idiots, because the M$M will never elevate anyone who doesn't share their bias to that status.

But these blowhards have trashed relatives of 9/11 victims, for fuck's sake. Do I really need to dig up examples for you? Stop 'wagering' and do some research. Or don't, I don't care really.

As for Somerby's little crusades against journalists, I don't care for them. I appreciate their work when they're good... and when they're not, well it's hardly a surprise, considering their line of work.

I'm glad you find something useful in his blogs, still. You're one of the few. Enjoy.

"I don't care really."

Okay, whatever. I wager my opinions on issues that are not that important to me. Like whatever the rightwing hacks are doing that we are supposed to imitate. Because we will win that way.

I do care really. So we seem to have some fundamental disagreements.

the "Becks" of the world ARE them


Beck, Hannity, J the P...Michelle Bachman, PALIN...

incurious, uneducated, blank canvas

IMO the difference is 1) opportunity and 2) shrewdness

the existence of the Katy Abrams of the world does not frighten nearly as much as the Katy Abrams that become the Sean Hannitys...

$23M a year for Beck gets to lie his ass off daily. Ever seen A Face in the Crowd?