American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Sorry man, and you're right we're beating a dead horse. Too many people think that nothing can be done other than what is being done, if only because anything else is impossible, for whatever reason. It's a difference between ways of thinking, each incomprehensible to the other.

We've reviewed many of the same facts and continue to each come to the same conclusion, each with the one that we started with. Which, of course, describes why we need politics.

Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right, but we can't help but doubt it.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right.[/QUOTE]I ain't in power, I'm just cheering from the sidelines and hoping along with you something that helps is the end result.

Who's Plan do you say is the best?

I know it is a tough thing to answer, but as a working man, the Union saved my ass.
You have read my Lists, am I a non productive person?

What is yours?

Have you Helped Anyone?

Where do you Stand for the Rights of your Fellow Country man?

Sorry it took me so long to watch the movie "Sicko".
Until you watch Sicko, you can not answer truthfully.

He asks questions and has no opinions of his own.

My brother does not like him for some right wing reason.

My brother watches O'Reilly, he might as well be a Moonie.

Maybe some of you have the same problem with a man of color, or woman?

They tried to discredit the Canadian, British, French systems of medical care and also the Argentina's.
In Argentina, I waited no more than anyone else as a patient. I was not treated as a special person, being an American. I had tooooo Wait the same time as everyone else did.

More to the Point is that I watched "The Life of Tommy Douglas" , on Argentine TV . "Tommy Douglas" will never be shown in the U.S. He was voted the Greatest Canadian.
.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Okay, is there anyone on this forum that actually believe this, or am I the only one who is ROTFLMAO?

No, seriously. I'd like to hear the supporting arguments from anyone who can make a case that [u]any[/u] of the Dems proposed health care bills "[I]won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront[/i]".

Alternatively, is there anyone that would like to make a bet on this?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this.

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Or perhaps it's an inconvenient truth that the Messiah is telling a bald face lie to the American people?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]I'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this. Bueller? Bueller? Jackson[/QUOTE] I challenge Jackson once he makes fun what follows to sketch out how the Cowpie plan he endorsed is consistent with his add-on requirements and how that gerry-rigged construct would work.

Let's be clear, there is no Obama bill at this time. However, he has set out a clear set of objectives for a reform program that must be turned into legislation by Congress. That's how the process works.

His objectives include a reform program that "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront."

One needs to amplify thse simple phrases - not as a dodge, but as a way to flesh out the bumper sticker statements required by the media who have predetermined the public is too stupid or lazy to understand more complex and complete phrasing of economic statements.

The phrase "will not add one dime to the deficit" translates in economic terms into a plan that will be deficit neutral. That translates in practical terms to a bill that will include provisions for increases in revenues and decreases in costs to offset one another.

The end result is a plan that "will not add one dime to the deficit." The devil will be in the details of the final bill that emerges from the several that are under consideration and will be cut and pasted together into a final one.

Obama's "will not add one dime to the deficit." goal is not impossible, nor is it difficult - except for who ever has their ox gored. The corrupting influence of private sector insurance and pharma companies may prove Jackson right, but we ain't there yet. And Obama will fight to offset that influence until the final bill is about to be sent to the printer.

Face it we have been taking it in the shorts from these companies for decades.



The US is the ONLY industrialized nation with a fee-for-service, for-profit, non-universal coverage health care system. Not coincidentally, the US pays twice as much for worse care than any other industrial democracy. Common sense tells us if we pay double and get less, the money is there to get a new and better system that "will not add one dime to the deficit."

Waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiencies and excess profits worth hundreds of billions can be tapped to create a system to meet the deficit neutral goal.

Two points of proof related to fraud!

1. A few months ago the pharma companies offered to contribute $84 billion over ten years in future savings as part of the effort to get reform. I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY HAVE BEEN OVER-BILLING CUSTOMERS $8.4 BILLION A YEAR! Why didn't they give that back to their customers earlier? Is $84 billion a stretch or pocket change? If the pharmas can throw in $84 billion voluntarily, why can't and don't other sectors in the health business do the same?

2. A few weeks ago a major pharma company settled a fraud case against them agreeing to pay $2.4 billion to using bribery of doctors and hospitals to get them to prescribe their more expensive drugs rathe than cheaper, as effective alternatives. The actual defrauding was worth $11 billion, which is the cost to the customers of the criminal behavior of just this one company. The behavior they admitted to is SOP in the pharma industry.

Looking beyond fraud, examples would include limiting insurance firms ability to spend 25% more on administrative costs - including executive compensation - than Medicare spends and / or limit advertising budgets to 5% of annual incomes if they sell their drugs or treatments to federal health care agencies.

"Be paid for upfront" means that the savings and increased revenues be pre-identified. The savings from the billions of non-care related expenditures are certainly targetable and will be identified in the new plan. A myriad of revenue options exist.

They include:

- taxing Jackson, Sidney and any mongers making over $250k a year (and if that doesn't raise the needed funds add other Americans in the same bracket)

- tax insurance and pharma company profits whenever they exceed average profits of major publically traded manufacturing firms profits by 10% two years in a row.

- divert spending from the $54 billion spent each year on nuclear arms development.

- get out of Iraq sooner and save $10 billion a month.

- completely scrap the 'Star Wars' anti missile defense program which has already cost $110 billion in direct costs and still doesn't work.

- And so on.

It will be a few months before we see a final bill. Then we can debate whether the twin objectives of "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront" have been met.

One thing we know is the Republicans will offer nothing realistic and if they succeed in blocking reform, people with insurance today will see their premium, deductible and co-pay costs rise far faster than their ability to pay, they will have coverage cancelled at a higher rate, they will lose coverage as they lose their jobs or transfer to new jobs, health related bankruptcies will skyrocket, the number of uninsured will rise faster, higher emergency room use costs will be passed on to the general public, more people will be sicker and more will die.

But if killing Obamacare keeps the health insurers profitable, its a small price and worth paying! We need to keep government out of our lives and leave it to private companies to create bubbles and busts, to destroy people's investments and savings, and to make us stupider and sicker.

The freedom of a few companies to gouge and for the super rich to get super richer is far more important for society than a wealthier and healthier general population!

Beuller signing out!

Dr. Roberts. You're on!

Last weekend, Michael Schwartz, long time conservative activist turned Chief of Staff to conservative Republican US Senator Tom Coburn spoke about pre-adolescent boys to a gathering of religious conservatives.

Schwartz said: "It is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuals. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it, and that's a good instinct"

Schwartz continued with what he called an "astonishingly insightful comment" of a formerly homosexual friend, that "all pornography is homosexual."

Holy fuck I'm gay and I didn't fucking know it. At least 99% of mongers are probably gay too. Porno is quite popular in this subset of the population.

Thankfully, Jon Stewart reminds us that Schwartz may be a bit off base when he points out - "there's one thing eleven year old boys like even less than homos ---- girls?"

U. S. Issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.

[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-issues-7-trillion-debt-rb-118622363.html?x=0&.v=4[/url]

I guess whether you believe Obama or not, regarding his "defict neutral" plans, depends on whether you trust government to do what they say.

Of course, the reason "universal health care" was not enacted before now in the "real world" is because a lot (a LOT) of people, with good reason, don't trust the government even when it has good intentions. Now that the balance of power is a bit out of whack, it becomes easier to implement something that a very large portion of the country does not want. We have an effective tyranny of the majority.

Of course, the populace has a very good reason not to trust government. To begin with, at one time, it was instilled in us by Good Ol' King George and the way he treated our ancestors. Since then, government has managed to make promise after promise and break a damned good many of them.

It's a waste of time to talk about this any more because one side thinks it's ok for the government to redistribute wealth at gun point (the government has the guns and you will be locked away forcefully if you don't comply) and the other side is convinced that allowing people to be responsible for their own actions and allowing free markets, properly managed (which they have NEVER been - they need to be fixed) will allow many more people to be better off and even healthy than a big-brother-style government.

One side will never convince the other side and after seeing the conversations in here, I am more convinced than ever that it is so and that a two-party system is probably one of the worst ways in which to represent the people as far as choosing representatives to the government for the people.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Sept. 24, 2009, 11:38 a. M. EDT · Recommend · Post:

Mass. Gov. Patrick names Paul Kirk interim senator.

Maybe next time. Keep your dick locked down![/QUOTE]I've known him since I met him in 1973 and I was working in the US Senate and he was Teddy's top staff guy.

He is a great guy, very smart, down to earth, hard working, great sense of humor, dedicated to doing good, a straight shooter, doesn't suffer fools well, no ego.

You might actually like him if you ever met him and at the time your head wasn't up your ass!

Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.

At 56% , his approval is strong compared with recent presidents. At this point in his first term Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's (53%) and Clinton's (43%) (The Bush rating was skewed by 9/11 and therefore not a relevant comparison.

In addition, Obama retains a decided advantage over Republicans on prominent issues.

THE ECONOMY.

On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.

HEALTH CARE.

On health care, he is in a commanding position. Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers. Most Americans trust Obama more than Republicans to make the right decisions on health care. The ratio of Americans who say he has better ideas about overhauling health care than Republicans is 2 to 1. And 76% say Republicans have not laid out a clear health care plan.

BI-PARTISANSHIP.

A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.



PARTY PREFERENCE.

47% have a favorable view of Congressional Democrats.

30% have a favorable view of Republicans.

_________________________________________________________________

This is Ricardo News - We Report, You Decide, Some Cringe!

They are good. Timothy Geitner says that demand has improved.

The USA economy looks to be improving.

I doubt these theories about the Chinese and India taking over the USA are accurate. They have been claiming on this site for years.

I'm sick of the female bs in the news. Obama made the USA ok. The newspaper is somewhat tolerable.

They say Obama is the star of Acorn.

[quote]In a lengthy speech on the House floor today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) declared that President Obama is "the star of ACORN, the lead, chief organizer."

Railing against ACORN, King mentioned Obama's comment on Sunday that he hasn't paid much attention to the scandal.

"Really, Mr. President?" King said, revealing the poster of Obama you see at left.

"He's not interested in ACORN? He's ambivalent about it?" King asked. "Curious."

King went on about Obama's involvement with the housing group, saying it was part of the "genesis" of Obama's political life. "He walks with them all the way through."

He then called on every committee in the House to investigate ACORN. The Justice Department's "lame little announcement" that it will investigate the group isn't enough, he said.

Lest you forget, yesterday King claimed that gay marriage is but a first step on the path to socialism. [/QUOTE][url]http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/rep-king-obama-is-the-star-of-acorn.php?ref=fpb[/url]

Pelosi: 'Trigger Is An Excuse For Not Doing Anything'

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/pelosi-trigger-is-an-excuse-for-not-doing-anything.php/[/url]

[QUOTE]Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is not ready to accept a trigger option in place of a public option, she said today at a press conference.

"And the evidence seems to point, at this caucus that I just went to, that a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything," she said, reports Greg Sargent. "But everybody is open to listening to what people have to say. The point was made over and over again that for one reason or another the trigger was not effective in the Medicare Part D bill."

But, reports The Hill, she said, "I don't even want to talk about a trigger."

Pelosi has said a bill without a public option will not pass the House. Today's comments seem to show that the trigger would not be an acceptable substituted.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) backs the trigger option, and the White House has reportedly been trying to convince progressive groups to do the same. [/QUOTE]This is good news. Every other modern country has universal health care. About time.

I do not see how universal health coverage would not solve the problem with no prostitution and all the fast food, obnoxious garbage in the USA.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Last weekend, Michael Schwartz, long time conservative activist turned Chief of Staff to conservative Republican US Senator Tom Coburn spoke about pre-adolescent boys to a gathering of religious conservatives.

Schwartz said: "It is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuals. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it, and that's a good instinct"

Schwartz continued with what he called an "astonishingly insightful comment" of a formerly homosexual friend, that "all pornography is homosexual."

Holy fuck I'm gay and I didn't fucking know it. At least 99% of mongers are probably gay too. Porno is quite popular in this subset of the population.

Thankfully, Jon Stewart reminds us that Schwartz may be a bit off base when he points out - "there's one thing eleven year old boys like even less than homos ---- girls?"[/QUOTE]It's always refreshing to see these kind people speak off the cuff about sex. It provides a window into what kind of incredibly bizarre thinking goes on in what passes for a brain. Sooner or later this Schwartz will be arrested in a men's room somewhere with an 11 year old boy, a double headed dildo, a garter snake and a can of motor oil.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Actually, I was in the sophisticated world of ''hard knocks''. I doubt that I would have fallen for the propagandized Mr Kirk, who was seeking more government solutions, after the failures of LBJ, Nixon, and Viet Nam. I was in the world of managing big institutional money during the 1968-1974 bear market. Reality seem much more relevant to me than ''suckin up'' to grubby politicians an their lackeys![/QUOTE]You were so busy making the big bucks you probably weren't paying attention when after he and Kissinger engaged in a little treason during the 1968 campaign dealing with the North Vietnamese making sure they didn't do a deal with Johnson and let Humphrey beat him, Nixon took seven more years to lose the Vietnam War, while adding Laos to his fuck ups.

Unfortunately you weren't managing big institutional money in 2008, otherwise no doubt the global economy would still be humming along.

I know all government can do is fuck up, but the good old private sector is always there to keep things on an even keel. (I'm having a Jackson moment here LOTFLMAO)

Here's a short list of the private sector managerial prowess (including the price tags in losses) mostly among big money institutions, to compare to the ineptitude of government:

This is the tip of the iceberg - adding up to losses to investors worth $1.7 trillion and counting.

FIRM LOSS.

LEHMAN BROTHERS $691 BILLION.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL $328 BILLION.

WORLDCOM $108 BILLION.

US BANKS (94 TO-DATE) $103 BILLION.

GENERAL MOTORS $92 BILLION.

ENRON $66 BILLION.

AIG $62 BILLION.

CONESCO $62 BILLION.

CHRYSLER$39 BILLION.

THORNBUURG MORTGAGE$37 BILLION.

P, G & E$36 BILLION.

TEXACO$35 BILLION.

BEAR STEARNS$15 BILLION.

MERILL LYNCH$15 BILLION.

INDYMAC$11 BILLION.

REFCO$4 BILLION.

FINANCIAL CORP OF AMERICA$2 BILLION

Ricardo you and I agree on the point of private sector CEO pay being way out of whack, but while you are beating the drum on Private Sector failures lets just look back this year on how well the Government had done after taking over GM, Chrysler and AIG. Wow what a success story those are for Government intervention! Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelyhood down the drain and will never be recovered (but it was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders) and they don't have a clue about how much will ever come back from AIG (since we lowly taxpayers now own about 60%+ of AIG does that mean I get a seat at the table?

There is certainly enough blame to go around betwee Big Private Sector and Govermennt screwups and mismanagement. Goverment maybe good as some tasks but they don't have the brains or the balls to make it in business.

I am just waiting for 2010 to 2012 when the commerical real estate market colapses when the short term debt on the construction during the boom comes due and the delta between the loan and the current value is greater than the companies have in cash to bridge the gap. A lot of high priced real esate is going into forclosure. The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate colapse.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]There is certainly enough blame to go around between Big Private Sector and Goverment screwups and mismanagement.

(THAT was my point)

Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelihood down the drain and will never be recovered.

(REMEMBER the auto companies were in trouble long before the fall of 2008 due to management stupidity; the crushing burden of the broken national health care system's ever increasing costs; and executive, worker and retiree compensation and benefit structures that were out of step with the companies' dwindling market share. When the Bush and Obama administrations decided to provide bridge funding to them there was NEVER an explicit promise that these were viable companies that would eventually repay taxpayers in full? The primary stated goal was to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation because such a prospect posed a systemic risk to the financial markets and the overall economy? A secondary goal was to advance broader goals including sustaining American manufacturing jobs at the firms and their enormous supplier networks. You may disagree with those objectives, but they have merit and may yet be proven to have been met. I admit I am less than enthusiastic about Obama's initial cozy support of Wall Street, but that is a game with a lot more innings ahead.

It was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders.

(THAT statement is factually incorrect and a myth of the right wingers. Every stakeholder execs, workers, suppliers and investors took haircuts. You can check that for yourself)

AIG.

(WAS an awkward deal structured in extreme haste last October by Paulson and Bernaeke with three later iterations. A big part of the AIG dilemma was that their investment holdings and liabilities had been designed by their wiz kids to avoid regulation and became so convoluted that no accurate valuation could be set on huge components of the business and Treasury decided to just threw tens of billions into their pot rather than see the global financial system evaporate.

The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate collapse.[/QUOTE] We agree both on the fact that all of our institutions deserve failing grades and we are nowhere near out of the woods.

More tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination of all regulation, just don't seem to me likely to turn the world economy back into a jolly soft drink commercial- but that's just because my naive understanding of political economy and socialist tendencies has blinded me to the genius of the markets!

Wanna buy a bridge?

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.[/quote]Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.[/quote]Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers.[/quote]Your statement is an absolute lie.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.[/quote]Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Jackson

Regarding GM and Chrysler, if you look at the percentages before and after the restructuring the DEBT HOLDERS took a bath and the UNIONS gained. In my original post I was specific as to whom I was referring - DEBT HOLDERS not STAKEHOLDERS and the numbers do not lie - it is no MYTH!

Since both companies seem to be continuing their downward spiral even with taxpayer money in their pockets, in the end it really won't matter the unions gained in the restructuring deal. It may even be humorous when the unions start pointing fingers for mismanagement and have to point at themselves. Sort of like who got to be at the helm on the Titanic on the last evening of the cruise!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game.[/QUOTE]This morning, my 4yr old told my 7yr old that she looked like "Bo'bama" as she headed off to school. I asked "why?"

She replied "She's wearing 'mommy jeans'!"

That really made me laugh.

[quote=]The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson]Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month[/url]

Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy[/url]

Your statement is an absolute lie.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform[/url]

Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]It's your baby you rock it.

But does this mean I will be banned from posting good jokes too?!

I could keep you busy fact-finding, but if you are Sergeant Friday with a monopoly on facts, there's not much point.

For the record, should others wish to independently vet the Obama poll findings I posted, the Times/CBS data can be verified as ACCURATE by linking to:
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-confusion-over-health-care-tepid-support-for-war#p=1[/url]

As you familiarize yourself with polling a caution. Rasmussen's methodology and findings are suspect among many polling experts. His Obama numbers have been out of synch with competing pollsters since 2007, which is why he is considered the RNC's pollster of choice. But if he's your source - go for it!

Off for the weekend!

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.[/QUOTE]It's already become a miniature version of Fox News.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.[/QUOTE]Are you going to impose this on cutting and pasting directly from unsubstantiated "news" reports, etc? Or do you only sensor those you disagree with?

That's some bullshit Jackson.

Let me get this straight, you won't let Ricardo post his opinions but you will let Sidney post his bullshit opinions, and you'll even make him separate threads where he can post his bs?

I don't see you fact checking all the bullshit that Sidney or other right wing nuts post. I understand your politics differ greatly from Ricardo's but he should have the freedom to make his points. He has been twice as civil as most of the people who have responded to him.

Deleting or trying to censure Ricardo's civil posts just means the intellectually bankrupt individuals on this forum are crying uncle.

Congratulations

BM

[QUOTE=Schmoj]It's already become a miniature version of Fox News.

Are you going to impose this on cutting and pasting directly from unsubstantiated "news" reports, etc? Or do you only sensor those you disagree with?[/QUOTE]Hi Schmoj,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every media publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication.

Thanks,.

Jackson

[QUOTE=BadMan]That's some bullshit Jackson.

Let me get this straight, you won't let Ricardo post his opinions but you will let Sidney post his bullshit opinions, and you'll even make him separate threads where he can post his bs?

I don't see you fact checking all the bullshit that Sidney or other right wing nuts post. I understand your politics differ greatly from Ricardo's but he should have the freedom to make his points. He has been twice as civil as most of the people who have responded to him.

Deleting or trying to censure Ricardo's civil posts just means the intellectually bankrupt individuals on this forum are crying uncle.

Congratulations.

BM.[/QUOTE]Hi Bad,

You and I have long since acknowledged that we have diametrically opposing political points of view.

Have I ever deleted anything you've posted in the Political threads?

Ricardo is welcome to post his opinions.

What Ricardo may no longer post are blatantly inaccurate or unsubstantiated statistics.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ricardo is welcome to post his opinions. What Ricardo may no longer post are blatantly inaccurate or unsubstantiated statistics.

Jackson[/QUOTE] Dear Editor In Chief!

Now, I don't know whether you ever worked for INDEC, so I can't gauge your professional qualifications for validating or invalidating statistics.

The basis of your complaint about my posting of the findings from the Times / CBS poll would give me pause. You cite a different pollster who at a different time asked different questions and got different results. Somehow you think that proves that I was distorting, fabricating and lying. Of course, it does no such thing.

I just reported what the good citizens of the homeland told the Times / CBS interviewers. Your problem is with those good people who gave responses that you find disturbing.

I doubt you are suggesting in the future that I private message you to get pre-approval for any statistical data I might plan to include in a post? I don't think that would work for me.

Now, do remember to go to the raw data on the Times / CBS poll using the link I sent when you get a chance!

Tienen un gran fin de semana,

Ricardo

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi Schmoj,

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every media publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]From Merriam-Webster - Censor: to examine in order to suppress or DELETE anything considered objectionable. You used the term "free-speech," not me.

Just to clarify, do your editorial policies permit free posting of cut and paste jobs from sources like Fox News without any substantiation of "facts?"

As Ricardo said, it's your baby and you rock it. But I agree with BadMan 100%.

Ricardo,

O. K. If you're going to use the dictionary definition of socialist, then Obama is not a socialist, at least not overtly. But he's doing his best to move the U. S. towards bigger government, higher taxes, higher spending, and more equality in terms of income even if equality means everyone ends up worse off. He's moving the U. S. towards a western or northern European style of government and an economy that's less dynamic.

I get the impression you may have been one of the most powerful people in the USA, a congressional staffer?

[QUOTE=BadMan]That's some bullshit Jackson.

Let me get this straight, you won't let Ricardo post his opinions but you will let Sidney post his bullshit opinions, and you'll even make him separate threads where he can post his bs?

I don't see you fact checking all the bullshit that Sidney or other right wing nuts post. I understand your politics differ greatly from Ricardo's but he should have the freedom to make his points. He has been twice as civil as most of the people who have responded to him.

Deleting or trying to censure Ricardo's civil posts just means the intellectually bankrupt individuals on this forum are crying uncle.

Congratulations.

BM[/QUOTE]I'm all in favor of letting everyone post their opinions. That said, it is a private message board, not a public square.

I should add that the description of that poll by Ricardo was a far cry from what the actual poll said. Ricardo, you didn't post a link originally. You did post a link after you were challenged. For anyone wanting to read it, you can find it here: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html[/url] I don't think it's the same link you posted, Ricardo, which is why I'm posting an alternate, in case your link doesn't work.

I'm not sure how you can quibble with Rassmussen when you place your faith in the NYTimes and CBS News. If folks are going to take issue with Fox News, then they ought to be willing to acknowledge the left-leaning bent of CBS, ABC and NBC News, and they certainly ought to be willing to acknowledge the full leftward tilt of the NY Times. I've known many journalists -- went to college with a few who became fine ones and know many of their pals. With one exception, they are all liberals. That doesn't make them bad people. But, it does color their perspective, just as it does the sole conservative journalist among them. I know there are those who will dispute this, but most of the major media outlets lean left. Fox is about the only place that will hire the conservative ones -- and the rest of the media makes sure everyone knows it. None of this makes any of the outlets bad -- just consider the source.

As for Rassmussen, I see on his website that he was endorsed by Susan Estrich, among many others. I would say that this is proof that he is not a right-wing conservative pollster, but I happen to know Susan Estrich personally. She is one of the dimmest bulbs on the planet, and I have never even talked to her about politics. So, her liberal endorsement doesn't mean much.

I did see one poll question that seems to have held true for several decades now: Congressmen (and women) are [i]the least[/i] respected profession in the country -- lower than bankers, CEOs, lawyers, used car salesmen, journalists and paparazzi. [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/september_2009/americans_now_view_congress_as_least_respected_job[/url] What are the most respected professions? Small business owners and people who start their own businesses. (See same link above) When these poll numbers reverse themselves, that's when we can be sure everything's going to he! In a handbasket. Until then, and despite what you read in the media, everything's fine.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]It's your baby you rock it.

But does this mean I will be banned from posting good jokes too?[/QUOTE]Ricardo keep your quality jokes coming.

This whole thread is very curious to a non-American member. For my money the difference between a US Liberal and a Republican is minor; disputed statistics and opposing political points of view not-with-standing. There are many more things in common than there are things that are opposed. I suspect that what concerns our Republican members is that Obama might be the thin edge of a socialist wedge. I don't see it as that and nor do I see that in Ricardo's posts. He is not exactly shilling Fox News, but as this chanel offends my intellectual ego, I see that as a plus. But then again, I am not a US citizen.

Argento

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I'm all in favor of letting everyone post their opinions. That said, it is a private message board, not a public square.

I should add that the description of that poll by Ricardo was a far cry from what the actual poll said. Ricardo, you didn't post a link originally. You did post a link after you were challenged. For anyone wanting to read it, you can find it here: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html[/url] I don't think it's the same link you posted, Ricardo, which is why I'm posting an alternate, in case your link doesn't work.

I'm not sure how you can quibble with Rassmussen when you place your faith in the NYTimes and CBS News. If folks are going to take issue with Fox News, then they ought to be willing to acknowledge the left-leaning bent of CBS, ABC and NBC News, and they certainly ought to be willing to acknowledge the full leftward tilt of the NY Times. I've known many journalists -- went to college with a few who became fine ones and know many of their pals. With one exception, they are all liberals. That doesn't make them bad people. But, it does color their perspective, just as it does the sole conservative journalist among them. I know there are those who will dispute this, but most of the major media outlets lean left. Fox is about the only place that will hire the conservative ones -- and the rest of the media makes sure everyone knows it. None of this makes any of the outlets bad -- just consider the source.

As for Rassmussen, I see on his website that he was endorsed by Susan Estrich, among many others. I would say that this is proof that he is not a right-wing conservative pollster, but I happen to know Susan Estrich personally. She is one of the dimmest bulbs on the planet, and I have never even talked to her about politics. So, her liberal endorsement doesn't mean much.

I did see one poll question that seems to have held true for several decades now: Congressmen (and women) are [i]the least[/i] respected profession in the country -- lower than bankers, CEOs, lawyers, used car salesmen, journalists and paparazzi. [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/september_2009/americans_now_view_congress_as_least_respected_job[/url] What are the most respected professions? Small business owners and people who start their own businesses. (See same link above) When these poll numbers reverse themselves, that's when we can be sure everything's going to he! In a handbasket. Until then, and despite what you read in the media, everything's fine.[/QUOTE]If you go to the raw data link I posted and go through the material I would welcome you or anyone to point out any error I made in presenting the specific results on the items I listed.

Ricardo

[QUOTE=Tiny12] I get the impression you may have been one of the most powerful people in the USA, a congressional staffer?[/QUOTE] Nah! When I worked there all us staffers did was get coffee and shine shoes!

Guys, regardless of which side of the fence you are on or even if you sit on it, how about a little respect and civility here.

This site was set up by Jackson for the enjoyment of mongering and the exchange of ideas and information. Does Jackson have the right to monitor and edit HIS SITE, yes he absolutely does. This is his "house" and his "rules". Just as you have the right to determine what occurs or is acceptable in your home, Jackson has no less the same rights in his "house" – Argentina Private.

Don't give me this "freedom of speech" BS either – go stand on the steps of the White House or Congress and vent all you want – that's freedom of speech. There are plenty of sites and chat rooms in which you may participate and express any opinion you may desire, but this site is not it. So cool your jets, take a chill pill and blow that out your bippy!

[QUOTE=Ricardo]If you go to the raw data link I posted and go through the material I would welcome you or anyone to point out any error I made in presenting the specific results on the items I listed.

Ricardo[/QUOTE]Ever hear the phrase, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.[/QUOTE]That may explain it!

In the USA. This is the webiste.[url]http://teamstormy.com/[/url].

I have never seen her porn.