BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM

But nevermind that stuff...

This is about unpopular views of Obama which the corporate media seems to have down pat...

I mean, even Obama reducing the annual budget deficit by $100B got headlines in the Charlotte Observer that were negative against Obama... They read something like this... "Debt Plagues Obama, Repubs Pounce"... Now if you were to compare the headlines with the story you'd have to go, Huh?" so I guess that having the annual budget deficit fall by $100B must not have been to popular with the corporate media... Maybe they would have been happier if the deficit went up, I donno???

Couple weeks ago when the Dems were closing the gap in the polls the "liberal' (ha) Washington Post did about the same thing with the headline which went kinda like this: "Repubs Still Zeroing in on Taking Back the House"... Huh??? The rest of the story was about the dems closing to within 4% points... Why not, "Dems Closing Gap"???

That is why this election cyle is so frustration... I mean, Obama could find a cure for cancer tomorrow and the headlines would read, "Obama Trying to Put Doctors Out of Work"...

So, it seems that the only folks who are going to find good news welcoming when it comes to Obama are just folks who go stright to page 17 in the newspapers where some truth can be found...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

"That is why this election cyle is so frustration... I mean, Obama could find a cure for cancer tomorrow and the headlines would read, "Obama Trying to Put Doctors Out of Work"..."

Brilliant, Bobert. Couldn't have been put better.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM

"...Obama reducing the annual budget deficit by $100B got headlines in the Charlotte Observer that were negative against Obama..."

One could get a headache trying to expalin the difference between "budget deficit", "public debt", "intergovernmental debt", "budget items", "off-budget items" and the "National Debt", but here is a fact: The National Debt has gone up by 3 trillion dollars in the last two years and finding some way to say that Obama has reduced it is just plain horsepuckey.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:21 PM

". . . is just plain horsepuckey."

Doug, is that YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM

CBS News is hardly a source of Republican-biased reporting, so here is their take on the...
                                                                     
                                                                                             Obama's 3 trillion dollar deficit

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:44 PM

No, pdq, only righties get a headache figuring out exactly what an annual deficit of surplus means... It's the easiest of all of them because all it is is like yer check book: debits and credits... In other words: Revenuse - expenditure...

But then their is the national debt which is "carried over" mush like a small business might carry a debt over... That get's real tricky because the bonds that the government has sold come due with various rates of interest and so there is this constant influx of new cash coming in to buy new bonds or notes and another steady stream of cash goin' back out... So, yeah, the national debt can go up becaause of these factors in a year where the government reduced the debt from the prvious year' debt but in the long run...

...we do need to get a grip on debt...

I give Obama credit for reducing the annual deficit... Esecially in these times of less revenues coming into the government and increased costs of unemployement... Hey, I really wouldn't care if the anti-Oama folks didn't get up and cheer but a begrudging, "Ya got lucky" would at least acknowledge the facts on the ground...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:08 AM

Actually, Bobert, the medical profession is (in my opinion) absolutely terrified that someone might find a real cure to cancer, and they would move heaven and Earth to prevent that from happening, because THINK of the money they would lose!

There already are (in my opinion) real cures out there for cancer, and they don't involve radiation, chemotherapy or surgery. They don't involve drugs either. You ain't gonna hear a peep about any of them from mainstream medicine, except for various attacks upon anyone proposing such cures.

So you're darned right that if Obama found a cure for cancer, they would attack him for it. You betcha. They'd destroy him if he dared to do such a thing, because it would threaten a multi-billion dollar racket that is presently being practiced by the MDs and the drug companies and the AMA.

They will one day be seen the way the medieval doctors who bled everybody are now seen....as quacks. In my opinion.

I am glad I am not in Mr Obama's shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM

No, Guest 999, that's not me. I guess it's a copy cat.

Bobert: I think it's hilarous that you are trying to convince folks that Obama is a deficit hawk. The only thing that would be more unbelievable would be if you believed it.

The only consolation defenders of the Obama administration might have is; they brought it on themselves. Can't blame Bush for it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM

I don't know why you would find it "hiaroius", Dougie, seein' as Obama has just done with his 1st budget as president what George Bush was able to do in any year of his administration...

That might not make Obama a "deficit hawk" but it seems if we look at those folks out there who define themselves as deficit hawks all we are seeing is chin music and no action... In other words, it's one thing to talk the talk but quite another to walk the walk... Right now yer side is hopelessly stuck in the talk stage of the deal...

B~

BTW, LH... You absolutely correct about a cure for cancer... The health-care/industrial complex is quite dependent on cancer... The bills for my late wife Judy's treatment were almost $400,000... That's on shit load of cash...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM

That's incredible, Bobert! In Canada the treatment would have been free...no charge to you....but the Canadian medical establishment would still make all that money, of course, they would just draw it from the collective tax pool, because the government would pay them. Be that as it may, the load is tremendously easier on the individual citizen that way, because the cost gets spread around evenly among 22 million people, and we aren't all sick at the same time!!! Thus it costs me WAY less a year to have full medical coverage through public health insurance than it costs the average American to get it through buying private health insurance. Americans spend MORE per capita on health costs than citizen of any other nation in the world....17% of the whole yearly budget!, and yet, the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world. You never hear an American politician say "peep" about it, except for Dennis Kucinich. They'd rather perpetuate the popular myth that the USA has the best health care in the world...and the best everything else too, of course. And people believe it!!!!!! All that proves is that if a lie is told often enough, as the Nazis discovered, it will be believed by nine of out ten citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM

Now, there ya go again, Bobert- as Senile Ronnie used to say- trying to change Douggie's mind with facts.

In the throes of his regular delusions, he wouldn't recognize a fact if it reared up on its hind legs and bit him on the ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM

"...the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world..."

That is an opinion, not a fact.

I'm sure Abu Dabi has the finest health care in the world because they have enough oil money they could divide it evenly and every citizen would be a multi-millionaire.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

"I won't accuse you of stalking me."

LH: If my question about prostitution bothered you, it was not personal, just designed to hit home.

I was just trying to point out that there are limits to freedoms.

You are quite obviously a Libertarian which is fine. But there are limits even for libertarians just like there are limits on Government, how fast you can drive, how much taxes you can pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM

Yoo Hoo Little Hawk. I thought you were not speaking for Canada.

Why are people smuggled out of Canada to the US for medical treatment if everything is free and easy?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:20 PM

People go both ways across that border for medical treatment that they can't get at home, Sawzaw. They go to the USA from Canada and to Canada from the USA. They also go to Mexico, France, and Cuba to get treatments they can't get in Canada or the USA. All these people have their own specific reasons for seeking treatment in some other country, those reasons may be good ones, and each one has a unique story. If you wish to find out all the reasons involved, you will have to speak to those individuals, not to me.

The only part I can tell you about is my part, which is: In Canada I can get full medical treatment from a doctor or a hospital at no additional cost, and I pay quite a modest sum in my yearly taxes for that privilege, so I happily choose Canada over the USA when it comes to that. I can't get absolutely anything here, but I can certainly get most of the things I need, at a cost I can easily afford.

As I've pointed out before, I will compliment the USA on what the USA does well, just as I will compliment Canada on what Canada does well. I am not speaking for Canada, I'm simply observing what's happening around me. Both countries do certain things very well. Both countries do certain things not so well. Canada is also far down the list for medical treatment in the world. I think we are at number 35 or around there. France is number 1.

I'm well aware that there are limits on freedoms, and I would not describe myself as a Libertarian, because I most certainly do not believe that "the least government" is necessarily "the best government".

The necessary limits on freedoms in any society are the limits set to prevent people from harming others and/or harming the property of others. Those limits would apply to behaviours such as:

assault
slander
fraud
murder
rape
theft
dangerous driving
property destruction
kidnapping
arson
vandalism
slavery
etc...

I am entirely in favor of a government limiting people's freedom to commit such harmful and offensive acts. Any society places some necessary limits on freedom, and that suits me fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:46 PM

Yer figure is off, LH... We are spending way more that 17% of our budget on health care.... It's 17% of our entire Gross National Product!!!

This is one reson why the US is no longer competetive with it's industrialized countyerparts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:08 PM

Yes, you are right, Bobert. I used the wrong terminology. It is pretty astounding that the country which spends the largest percentage of its yearly budget in the entire world, 17% on health care!, ranks 37th in the quality of health care given. What that indicates is that there's something terribly wrong with that health care system and that your public is being ripped off.

Here is a color chart which shows at a glance the comparative level of quality of health care in nations across the world:

quality of health care around the globe

It ranges from the best (dark blue) to the worst (red). As can easily be seen, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Greece, Saudi Arabia (surprise!), and Japan have the best health care. The worst are mostly countries in southern Africa (no surprise there). The USA is about at the same level as much of Latin America, although Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Cuba are all somewhat better, as is Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:10 PM

Excuse me....not "yearly budget"...GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:34 PM

Yeah, and that is a lot of money... Ike might have warned US of the militray/industrail complex but the health-care/industrial complex makes the militarty/industrial complex folks look like kids scamblin' for crumbs...

And yer right... For what??? Crappy health care???

The righties will come along and say, " Obamacare this, Obamacare that"... That just a bunch of crybabies who rmember well what Gingrich told his buddies back in the 90s and that is if the Dems get health care reform into place that the Repubs would suffer for years... Well, it's not in place yet and we expect the Repubs to try to sabatouge it in any way they can but Gingrich's warnings still hold true... When we are insuring everyone and costs come down Obama is going to look the Dems are going be seen as heros...

(But, Boberdz... It going to bankrupt the government...)

No, it isn't... The cost of the program for 10 years is less than half of the pile of cast that Wall Street has just sitting collecting dust...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM

"The USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world"

Canadian official Danny Williams opted to have his heart surgery in the U.S. instead of in his homeland

Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, apparently needed surgery on a leaky heart valve, a problem discovered when doctors detected a heart murmur. According to news accounts, he chose to have the surgery done in Florida, where he could take advantage of a minimally invasive through-the-armpit procedure that promised to leave no scar on his chest and would allow for a speedier recovery

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:21 AM

Not even in the Top 20 in infant mortality...

I mean, lets get real here... Our health care sysytem is way too expensive and, unless we are part of the upper 5%, then it get rationed out to the rest of US...

Dick Cheney wake up feelin' poor and he get's eeen... Me??? Call the doctor and it's maybe next week unless I want to sit in the waiting romm of the emergency room for 6 hours to be seen and every possibly misdiagnosed... Been there and done that and the Tee-shirt reads "6 hours in ER and I'm sicker now"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:19 AM

As I told you, Sawzaw, we have Americans who come up to Canada for medical aid too. And they also go to France, Mexico, Cuba, Italy, all over the place for medical help they can't possibly get in the USA.

But you'll never hear about any of those people on your media, because your media are in denial just like the rest of you seem to be, and their main job is dispensing false propaganda to keep you that way.

There's a multi-billion dollar medical industry lobby group in your country that desperately seeks out the very, very few Canadians they can find who go to the USA for medical help and they publicize those few cases in your media....and they probably pay some of those Canadians a hefty bribe to give a testimonial about an incident like that one you posted. We don't do that in Canada because, frankly, we're not that insecure about our own situation that we feel we need to bribe anyone to prove to anyone else how good it is. But...we're still not near as good as France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Japan or Saudia Arabia...and I'm not a bit afraid to admit that. I KNOW Canada isn't number one in the medical field. Canadians face reality and aren't devastated by it. Americans seem unwilling to do that one simple thing, because they simply can't bear it, having been raised to believe they live in "the greatest country on Earth". Your country has a serious ego problem. It thinks it's "the best" at everything. It's not. Neither is any other country. We are all very good at some things, less good at other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM

Perhaps its only the imagined fear of the 2% wealthy and the .03% ultra wealthy but they are the only ones who are claiming CLASS WARFARE by Obama.

Its been the FOX talking point for months now.

The rest of us are either fighting to survive what is left of the economy after the successful robbery of the treasury by Bush Wall St. cronies, dealing with health care costs, foreclosures, robbed pensions or hunger.

The right wing responds with abolish social security, abolish unemployment insurance, abolish minimum wage, abolish the Education Dept. and a host of other similar wonderful ideas.

If there is any class warfare the rich apparently got in the first strike.

It reminds me of the Bush doctrine of preventative war.

For gods sake tell me why the rich felt it necessary to attack? You might say greed is the reason but they already had more money than god.

You might say all the people on Wall St. , except a few ignored or fired whistle blowers, all felt that since everybody else was doing it (going along with preposterous schemes) it was OK. That is basicly the excuse that Germans used after WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM

Remember the chants of we're number ONE!

The US may still be near the bottom of math scores, infant mortality and a number of other measurments, but need I remind you America is STILL NUMBER ONE in other areas such as the NFL, Hedge Fund managers and NASCAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM

Yup. Number one at inflicting fatalities on Third World people too, I would think. Number one on toppling foreign governments through CIA-arranged and assisted coups. And number one in imprisoning their own citizens. Impressive!

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:05 PM

Joe Gibbs is running Toyotas, Donuel...

And, fir the record, the US is also in 1st place on inflicting deaths in non-3rd World countries...

I mean, lets give credit where it is due...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM

LH:

Why would anybody risk going to country with an inferior health care system when theirs is better?

You want it both ways bub.


Belinda Stronach seeks cancer care in US

When Liberal MP Belinda Stronach needed a mastectomy and breast reconstruction following her breast cancer diagnosis earlier this year, she headed to California.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:35 PM

Bobert: "I mean, lets give credit where it is due..."


Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.


CAPE TOWN, South Africa — In her AIDS-scarred South African township, Sweetness Mzolisa leads a chorus of praise for George W. Bush that echoes to the deserts of Namibia, the hills of Rwanda and the villages of Ethiopia.

Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America's first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease.

"It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent," says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. "It has changed so many people's lives, saved so many people's lives."

Mzolisa, 44, was diagnosed with the AIDS virus in 1999 and formed a women's support group to "share the pain." In 2004 she received a U.S. grant to set up office in a shipping container and start a soup kitchen from the group's vegetable garden. She stretches her $10,000 in annual funding to train staff to look after bedridden AIDS victims, feed and clothe orphans, and do stigma-busting work at schools and taxi ranks.

Hundreds of similar small grass-roots projects are being funded by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, alongside higher-profile charities and big state clinics.

Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world's estimated 33 million AIDS infections. The initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 — a goal it says was reached in 2007.

Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success.

But the task remains enormous. More than 1.5 million Africans died in 2007 (the U.S. death toll is under 15,000), fewer than one-third had access to treatment, and new infections continued to outstrip those receiving life-prolonging drugs.

In most African countries, life expectancy has dropped dramatically, and only a few, like Botswana, have started to turn the corner again.

And with no end in sight to the global financial crisis, there are fears about whether all the funding approved by Congress will be delivered.

There continue to be detractors who say the U.S. administration should have channeled the money through the U.N.; that it has placed too much emphasis on faith-based groups and abstinence; that it has trampled on women's health by shunning anything associated with abortions; that it has concentrated on AIDS treatment at the expense of prevention; and that it has diverted attention away from bigger killers like pneumonia and diarrhea.

Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for the U.N. and the World Bank, says both the U.N. and PEPFAR have failed disastrously on prevention by preaching abstinence until marriage and failing to recognize that in some African cultures it is the norm to have several simultaneous long-term relationships.

Critics say money could be better spent
She says the money would be better spent on strengthening African health care systems rather than focusing on a single disease.

Johanna Hanefeld at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says her research in Zambia indicated that the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was more effective in using HIV programs as a lever to improve health care and staff training, rather than scattering cash among many non-governmental groups, faith-based or other.

PEPFAR ambassador Mark Dybul dismisses criticism that the funding is too narrowly focused.

"In Africa you can't tackle development goals unless you tackle HIV/AIDS," he says, citing the devastation wreaked on professions like nursing and teaching.

Besides PEPFAR, Bush has launched a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative to cut malaria deaths in 15 African nations by half.

Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years.

Some critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers.

"The Bush regime has been divisive ... created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.

"The administration and Bush himself deserve a lot more credit than they received for getting this job done," says Josh Ruxin, assistant professor of public health at Columbia University.

Desperately poor Rwanda, where Ruxin runs a health care project, now has more than 100 centers where people can receive AIDS testing, counseling and treatment, up from just two in 2002.

"I am heartbroken overall by the Bush administration," Ruxin said in a telephone interview. "But from my perch here in Rwanda, it is impossible to deny the results and achievements of PEPFAR. Many Rwandans were made Republicans because this was the first administration that has taken an interest and done something here."

Ruxin hopes Obama will learn lessons from PEPFAR's first five years — in particular to end the emphasis on abstinence and start funding groups who work with prostitutes and carry out abortions.

PEPFAR's biggest single success story is the fortyfold increase in the number of Africans receiving life.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:44 AM

Great, Sawz... Bombs and bullets are a much more humane way of killing people than AIDS...

Me thinks you need to run yer thinkerator thru the wash... Seems to be a tad on the gummed up side...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM

Sawzaw, an individual person goes to any country where there is a specific practitioner who they think they would like to go to. It isn't necessarily a question of the country...although it might be...more often it is a question of which specific doctor...or which specific treatment the person wishes to seek.

You can't change the basic fact, already established by worldwide surveys which are well-documented, that the USA stands at about number 37 worldwide in quality of health care, Canada at about number 35, and France at number 1.

Nevertheless there are going to be French citizens who decide to go to some other doctor in some other country, just as there are American and Canadian and British citizens who decide to go to some other doctor in some other country....and there are THOUSANDS of unique individual reasons why people make such decisions.

To pick someone like Belinda Stronach to prove or disprove anything about basic health care in Canada and the USA is irrelevant. It has nothing to with anything except Belinda Stronach.

You are the guy who wants to talk in all-or-nothing terms, but cherrypick some individual case to justify an entire position. That's not rational. Look at the entire picture instead of cherry-picking some individual case and pretending that that changes the entire picture.

I don't want it "both ways"...I'm simply willing to study the entire picture rather than fixate on one detail that appears to support my argument and ignore the rest.

It's like there's an elephant standing there, Sawzaw, and the elephant is obviously gray, and I'm saying "That elephant is large and he's gray." and you're pointing at a teeny little mole on the elephant's right flank and you're saying, "No, look! The elephant is tiny and he's dark brown!"

;-) Those 2 Canadian politicians you mentioned are 2 moles on the elephant's flank. Virtually everyone living in Canada likes our health system a lot better than the American one, and gets their health care here at far less cost, and it's just as good, if not better. You can't change that, but you can rave on about the mole on the elephant's flank if it makes you feel good.

Belinda Stronach is also very, very rich. She could afford to get health care on the Moon if they had a clinic there, so I guess she'll go anywhere she wants, right? Maybe you'll hear about her going to Saudi Arabia one of these days if she hears about a doctor she likes there. Or Japan. Or France. Or Austria. Why not? It would be a fun trip, right? And if you can afford to go anywhere, you probably do. Hell, there's a doctor in Italy I'd love to see if I could afford to. He's an oncologist who doesn't believe in the conventional ways of treating cancer. I've read some stuff he wrote, and was I very impressed....so if I had need to, I'd probably go and see him....IF I could afford to.

NOT because he's in Italy. Because it's him, period. I'd go to whichever country he was located in...if I could afford to.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

"And, fir the record, the US is also in 1st place on inflicting deaths in non-3rd World countries..."

How come your record doesn't include lives saved by the US?

You are fair and balanced aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

"and yet, the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world."

If the ranking of a nation does not have any bearing on choosing a country for health care, Why do you bring it up?

Evidently 36 nations that have better health care than the US.

Maybe if you were in a country that was 68th, it would be justifiable to go higher up to the measly USA.

Methinks your ranking comment displays a superior attitude.

How many MRI machines per capita do they have in Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:51 AM

Obama's Last-Ditch Strategy

    The Daily Beast - Tue Oct 26, 12:26 am ET

Obama's Last-Ditch Strategy With the GOP riding high, the White House seeks solace in tight Senate races and the undecided vote. Richard Wolffe on Team Obama's final midterm moves and the wedge issues they'll push next year. Plus, midterm predictions from the Election Oracle.

With one week left before the midterm elections, Obama's senior advisers can now see the contours of a landscape they all concede is vastly different from the one they traversed just two years ago.

But the news, they insist, is not all bad. Despite widespread predictions of a Republican blowout, Obama's team claims that early voting data and the latest polling shows hills as well as valleys. "It's not consistent," said one senior Obama aide. "In places where we have a strong turnout operation, we'll do OK and better than expected. Pennsylvania, Ohio and even Illinois is improving. In other places, where the turnout operation is weak, we're in trouble."

"Many of the House districts," the aide said, as a matter of fact.

Sure enough, in Senate races across the country, the contests have grown closer in these final weeks. In Colorado, the recently appointed Senator Michael Bennet has closed a high single-digit deficit against Republican Ken Buck to turn the race into a technical dead heat. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak has done something similar to cut his deficit against Republican Pat Toomey.

But elsewhere, the trend seems to be running in the other direction. In Obama's home state of Illinois, his friend Alexi Giannoulias is struggling to close a small but consistent gap against Republican Mark Kirk. That race, like so many others, remains well within the polls' margin of error.

So it's no surprise that President Obama's final campaign swing next weekend takes in Philadelphia and Chicago. What's less expected: He's ending his tour in Cleveland, where Democrats hope a strong late showing by Governor Ted Strickland could help tip the balance in a handful of House races in a battleground state that continues to tilt toward the GOP.

In searching for hopeful signs on a bleak horizon, Obama's team also points to surveys showing a huge portion of the voting population that remains undecided. According to a recent Associated Press poll, as many as one third of likely voters are undecided and say they could change their mind. Of those persuadable voters, 45 percent favor Republicans versus 38 percent who favor Democrats. Two years ago, just 14 percent of voters were undecided at this point, according to another Associated Press poll....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:55 AM

Bobert: "Great, Sawz... Bombs and bullets are a much more humane way of killing people than AIDS..."

..and even more dangerous, and far more lethal, is Bobert on a riding lawnmower!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:37 AM

Anybody going to a celebratory party on election night?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM

Good ol' Douggie- inane, puerile & irrelevant, as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh....

$$$$ in = garbage out...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM

"$$$$ in = garbage out..."

YES!!

Just look at the 2008 election!

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM

Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast

By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 10/26/10 7:27 PM EDT Updated: 10/27/10 9:05 AM EDT

To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.

But the numbers tell a different story.

It's true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year's elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on.

So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.

And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning.

Of course, plenty more will be spent in this final week of the campaign.

The GOP-leaning outside groups have vowed to invest about $325 million this cycle, a sum that could be difficult to achieve with just seven days to go to Election Day. Liberal groups and unions also have pledged tens of millions of dollars more in spending.

But the David-and-Goliath tone of some Democratic messaging hardly reflects the party's own financial strength and ability to defend itself, at least tactically.

"When you look at the national party committees coupled with the state party committees, the Democrats are whopping the Republicans," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html#ixzz13ZhZcvnW

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:39 PM

Another bogus stat by one of our renouned bogas stats folks...

How much "Citizens United" $$$, bruce??? I mean, there is perhaps more of that $$$ being spent on attack ads agaisnt Dems than the entire amount of $$$ being spent combined by the parties... That means one boat load of cash but guess what???

Ya' give up???

Clarence "nice tits" Thomas and Co. think that is peachy because almost all that cash is going to their boys... And it doesn't have to be reported... No one knows how much or where it is coming from and Repubs are eating up this new brand of democracy, which of course, is no more democratic than what we in the US think about when describing corrupt 3rd World dictatorships...

Yeah, unlimited cash... Undisclosed cash... A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one...

Maybe this is the kind of government you envison, bruce - you know, with foriegn countries being able to buy up seats in Congress - but it ain't what the Founding Fathers had in mind...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:48 PM

"And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning.
"


TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

Another bogus stat by our renouned bogas stats guy: "The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East"


Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending

New York Times October 26, 2010

Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.

As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times.

It is difficult to provide an accurate, up-to-the-moment comparison that includes all three streams of campaign money — money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups — because candidates have had to file financial reports that cover only up until mid-October. Moreover, certain types of so-called issue advertisements, which do not explicitly urge voters to cast their ballots one way or another but still attack or praise candidates ahead of the general election, had to be filed with the Federal Election Commission only beginning in September, or 60 days before voters go to the polls.

While activities like television and radio advertisements and mass mailings are reported to the commission soon after they are purchased, other kinds of spending, like get-out-the-vote efforts, are not.

In mid-October, however, based upon the campaign finance data available, Democrats actually had the spending advantage in about 60 percent of the 109 competitive House races and had invested, collectively, about 10 percent more money into the contests than Republican candidates and their aligned groups had over the previous few months.

Those outside groups have proven crucial, though. Expenditures by Republican-oriented independent groups in carefully selected races have been financial difference-makers in dozens of cases, more than enough to help put the Republicans within striking distance of recapturing the majority, especially considering the political headwinds faced by Democrats.

With the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees essentially battling each other to a draw, Republican-leaning groups have used their financial heft to broaden the political map. Since July, they have put $100,000 or more into more than 80 percent of the races in play, many more than Democratic-leaning groups, who have invested $100,000 or more in about half of the competitive races.

Only in the last two weeks or so have Democratic-oriented groups finally begun to come close to matching the spending of their counterparts on the right. But in many cases they appear to be playing defense, rushing to bolster Democratic candidates in races in which Republican outside groups had been swamping them....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM

Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast

So how many dozen different threads do you inted to post the same lies and bullshit to, Brucie?

Mud Elves take Note

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

BeardedBruce: "TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert."

You mean he either can't read or spell and write correctly????
So what is he supposed to do??...be a social worker?????

(Wink to Bobert),

GfS

P.S....or is that just a co-incidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Once again, bruce... I did read your blog/op ed... Who cares??? It is bogus in that no one knows how much $$$ the "Citizen's United" folks have poured into the races... Not you, not yer buddy Clarence Thomas and maybe God ain't even keepin' track... That is reality here... Proclamations from you, Swaz or the entire right winged blabosphere doesn't change the reality that these people can spend as much as they like without diosclosure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Greg F.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh....

$$$$ in = garbage out...

B~
"


Sorry if I am trying to respond to Boabert's false statements with the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

Why does Bobert "hate" Clarence Thomas?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

Possibly because Uncle Thomas is the least qualified individual ever to hold a seat on the Supreme Court?

Or because he's a sexual predator?

Or because he's an idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

Or all three... Thomas is a mental midget who has an obsession with women's breasts...

I mean, even the righties know deep down inside that Clarence "Can I touch 'um" Thomas ain't got a lot on the ball in terms of intellectual curiosity... He always just follows the righties in his votes... I don't belive he has ever broken... I mean, not once... That has to be a record fir a justice pushin' 20 years on the bench... In other words, he is a reliable "yes" man for the Republican Party...

I mean, I think that the Supreme Court should have folks who can think for themselves...

As for false statements, bb... Your proclamations that I have made false statements are just that: "your proclamations" and nuthin' else that has any sembelence to reality... I wonder sometimes if you even bother reading all of the news or just pick and choose who and what you want to read... You seem to have lots of, ahhhhhh, gaps in yer knowledge base...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

200...BTW (the circuit court of appeals just went against Arizona's law to provide proof of citizenship, to vote!.....This is America???

GfS