Boston Rox !!

whitedevilone · Post by **whitedevilone** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:36 pm

Hawk wrote:
whitedevilone wrote:
Hawk wrote: Yet another ill-informed comment from an ill-informed pundit.

Rush was playing segments of Brown answering reporters questions. Brown stated unequivocally that HE voted FOR the Massachusetts Health Care and was proud of it. Bragging that it covered 98% of the people in Massachusetts and what a good thing they have !

His point against the current National Health Care Bill, "It doesn't do anything for MY state". NO SHIT, they already have health care.

Sorry to burst your bubble whitedevilone. Well, no I'm not.
Please brother step back.Nowhere in my post did i mention Brown's stance on staterun healthcare.I was talking about the PEOPLE!Once again like a true droid who needs the government as a guide on how to think and live you miss the will of the PEOPLE.Bill you could never burst my bubble.I like you too much and you always provide me with a laugh and a smile.
\
As Brown points out, the will of the PEOPLE in Massachusetts IS government run health care ! What PEOPLE are you talking about ? Some minority Massachusetts teabaggers ?

Teabaggers.Cute.Well not being from Massachutts i couldn't tell you first hand.However my wife's uncle is.He's a pretty level headed fellow who's not steeped into politics like us haha and by all accounts and is his own words it's a "clusterfuck".You're a liberal so somehow somewhere you'll find something positive wraped up in a clusterfuck.Eitherway the PEOPLE of Massachutts voted R into Teddy Ks seat and his lifelong dream of Goverment run healthcare.........hmmmm so dream if you want but the PEOPLE weren't happy about something.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:18 pm

Hawk wrote: The PEOPLE of Massachusetts have state run government health care already. because they love their own government run health plan.

They do not love their state run health care plan. The turndown rate (whenever a health care insurer turns down medicine, lab tests and/or procedures) is 5 times higher with the state plan vs. private insurance plans in Mass. It is also proving to be much more expensive to the state than originally planned. What a surprise, a government program going WAY over costs estimates.

The PEOPLE in Mass. voted against a government run health care plan because they know how shitty the one they have is.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:00 am

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote: The PEOPLE of Massachusetts have state run government health care already. because they love their own government run health plan.

They do not love their state run health care plan. The turndown rate (whenever a health care insurer turns down medicine, lab tests and/or procedures) is 5 times higher with the state plan vs. private insurance plans in Mass. It is also proving to be much more expensive to the state than originally planned. What a surprise, a government program going WAY over costs estimates.

The PEOPLE in Mass. voted against a government run health care plan because they know how shitty the one they have is.

Hey, I'm just going by what I HEARD Brown say. I figured he'd know. Are you saying Brown is out of touch with the PEOPLE of Massachusetts ?

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:05 am

Hawk wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
Hawk wrote: Do you really think status quo is better ?
Yes Bill, and let me see if I can make it clearer to you:

If you need a snare drum, you don't order the whole band to get new equipment.
The public option would be a snare drum for those who desperately need one. Not everyone buys one.

All I can think after reading this series of posts is that Howard Dean has Hawk bound and gagged in a corner and is frantically posting on his computer.

I guess I failed. I didn't make it very clear to you at all. Let me explain it:

The snare drum is the segment of people who actually need or want help and the band is the entire health industry.

Bill, I hate to break it to you but only a small minority of Americans agree with your party's extreme progressive views--maybe 1/5 if you are lucky.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conse ... group.aspx

Most Americans don't want the democrats' extreme neoprog programs, so they should quit trying to push them on us or face the consequences...like Martha Coakley did.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:09 am

Why are you (plural - no one person in particular) happy that people have no access to a doctor ? Why are you (plural) so greedy that you don't want to see to it that they get proper coverage ?

Why is your money more important than human life ? Honestly, I really don't get it.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:18 am

lonewolf wrote:
Hawk wrote:
lonewolf wrote: Yes Bill, and let me see if I can make it clearer to you:

If you need a snare drum, you don't order the whole band to get new equipment.
The public option would be a snare drum for those who desperately need one. Not everyone buys one.
All I can think after reading this series of posts is that Howard Dean has Hawk bound and gagged in a corner and is frantically posting on his computer.

I guess I failed. I didn't make it very clear to you at all. Let me explain it:

The snare drum is the segment of people who actually need or want help and the band is the entire health industry.

Bill, I hate to break it to you but only a small minority of Americans agree with your party's extreme progressive views--maybe 1/5 if you are lucky.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conse ... group.aspx

Most Americans don't want the democrats' extreme neoprog programs, so they should quit trying to push them on us or face the consequences...like Martha Coakley did.

I really don't care if I'm the only person in America who wants to see to it that people are properly covered.

If you ask this question in the polls I wonder what the polls would say.

Would you like to see everyone legally in the US to have proper health care coverage ?

Would you care if the government presented an insurance policy that covers pre-existing conditions and cost a bit less than most insurance companies? No one has to buy it, it's only if you want it ?

Would you mind if this government run policy was cheaper than the monopoly created by the current insurance companies ? Forcing them to cut costs to lobbying, advertising, and bonuses so that they can be competitive as well ?

Put that in a poll and see how the numbers add up.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:16 am

You would have to ask this question also.

Would you like your already high taxes to go much higher to deliver this pipe dream?

Government could not even run a small, short lived cash for clunkers program, and do you think they could run health care?

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:39 am

Hawk wrote:. The PEOPLE of Massachusetts have state run government health care already. Brown made the point that that is a good thing and Massachusetts doesn't need a Federal health plan, because they love their own government run health plan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seen to be saying the PEOPLE of Massachusetts have "been there, done that, not a good idea. I'm pointing out that according to Brown, YOU ARE WRONG.

It should read, "We already have government run health care, it is good, we don't need a federal plan."

Quoted because it needs repeating. Why would the people of MA want a fed health plan when they already have one. A govt-run health plan. Once again the minds at Fox are ignoring the obvious: People in Massachusetts skew heavily liberal Dem. They voted against Congress' healthcare bill because IT WASN'T LIBERAL ENOUGH. Surely you all don't think that there's a conservative base but no liberal base? They think it's basically a gift to Pharma and the insurance companies. Congress could have passed a law regarding pre-existing conditions and called it a day.
Scott Brown, though... I'm liking this guy a LOT. He's already being touted as a possible presidential candidate. I don't know about his experience, but I've seen a picture of his weiner, and it looks legit.

--->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:55 am

songsmith wrote:
Hawk wrote:. The PEOPLE of Massachusetts have state run government health care already. Brown made the point that that is a good thing and Massachusetts doesn't need a Federal health plan, because they love their own government run health plan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seen to be saying the PEOPLE of Massachusetts have "been there, done that, not a good idea. I'm pointing out that according to Brown, YOU ARE WRONG.

It should read, "We already have government run health care, it is good, we don't need a federal plan."
Quoted because it needs repeating. Why would the people of MA want a fed health plan when they already have one. A govt-run health plan. Once again the minds at Fox are ignoring the obvious: People in Massachusetts skew heavily liberal Dem. They voted against Congress' healthcare bill because IT WASN'T LIBERAL ENOUGH. Surely you all don't think that there's a conservative base but no liberal base? They think it's basically a gift to Pharma and the insurance companies. Congress could have passed a law regarding pre-existing conditions and called it a day.
Scott Brown, though... I'm liking this guy a LOT. He's already being touted as a possible presidential candidate. I don't know about his experience, but I've seen a picture of his weiner, and it looks legit. --->JMS

Hell, you weren't abducted by Howard Dean...

You ARE Howard Dean

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:01 am

YEEEEAAAAHHHH!!!!
Really, does any non-Fox view make me a liberal? That's okay, you can call me a liberal if you like, I'm pretty big on labeling people myself. Plus, if conservatism means buying into all the talking-points and endless self-back-pats, then I need to go get fitted for Birkenstocks.

You can deny that Dems exist, but they kinda won a big election just a little over a year ago, and the numbers of Dems joining the Tear-Party are greatly exaggerated by the, you know, Tear-Partiers. Dems wanted a Fed healthcare program, and 70% of them wanted single-payer. When they didn't get that, they deserted Obama, NOT because they woke up one day and decided they didn't want govt healthcare. According to polls, only 20% of Obama-voters voted for Brown, and of those, 80% did so to send him a message. The rest didn't like Coakley.
No conservative epiphany. The political plot-twist is undeniable as far as the balance of power, but the change in liberal minds is almost completely manufactured by the conservative media to make you feel good in advance of a very contentious midterm election.--->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:35 am

songsmith wrote:YEEEEAAAAHHHH!!!!
Really, does any non-Fox view make me a liberal?.--->JMS

No, but that theory puts you in the same company with the whacko, Howard Dean.

Your theory is essentially the same as the one conveyed by Mr. Dean when I saw him on PMSNBC's Softball with Chris "Obama gives me shivers down my leg" Matthews.

It was the first of many democrats-in-denial that I have seen trying to rationalize this election with laughable convoluted but imaginative scenarios.

Isn't it amazing how the collective consciousness of Massachusetts came together in almost Borg-like fashion to elect an admitted conservative over a prototype liberal because the health care bill isn't liberal enough?

Bassist25, is there any psychological precedent that would help to explain this kind of groupthink phenomenon?

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:39 pm

lonewolf wrote:
It was the first of many democrats-in-denial that I have seen trying to rationalize this election with laughable convoluted but imaginative scenarios.

Isn't it amazing how the collective consciousness of Massachusetts came together in almost Borg-like fashion to elect an admitted conservative over a prototype liberal because the health care bill isn't liberal enough?

Otherwise, they would have to face the truth, Obamacare was creamed in the most liberal state in the country. They can't handle the truth.

Ted Kennedy's senate seat won by a neo-con. Wow! A year after He's not Bush won. Hard Truth.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:06 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Bassist25, is there any psychological precedent that would help to explain this kind of groupthink phenomenon?

I don't know about that, but this thread has people making causal connections when there is no evidence of causal connections, making inductive conclusions from generalizing one person to an entire population, coming to empirically verifiable conclusions without any empirical evidence, attribute substitutions, and of course the Rockpage classic: the confirmation bias...not to mention a whole myriad of other stuff that makes me lose brain cells when I read a thread on here where people have psuedo-debates and try to defend their points.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:14 pm

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Bill, do you really think that a 2000 page bill in Congress is going to take care of all the problems you list?
Do you really think status quo is better ?

Look at these maps and explain to me why we Pennsylvanians should send more tax dollars to Washington DC to have it "laundered" through bureaucrats so that "citizens" in "poor" states like Texas and Florida can have health insurance.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =113042669

One thing I discovered from this election is that Massachusetts is doing the Constitutional thing for health insurance at the state level where it belongs. If rates are too high here in PA, yell at your state representative, not your congressman. What happens in Texas is
none of our business.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:33 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: Otherwise, they would have to face the truth, Obamacare was creamed in the most liberal state in the country. They can't handle the truth.
.

The truth would be that Obama didn't write a healthplan, he charged Congress to do it. There is no "Obamacare." "Obamacare" is a catchword made up for the purpose of stirring up the mouth-breathers.
Apparently, it worked.

And feel free to ignore the left. That worked in 2008.

--->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:01 pm

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote: Otherwise, they would have to face the truth, Obamacare was creamed in the most liberal state in the country. They can't handle the truth.
.
The truth would be that Obama didn't write a healthplan, he charged Congress to do it. There is no "Obamacare." "Obamacare" is a catchword made up for the purpose of stirring up the mouth-breathers.
Apparently, it worked.
And feel free to ignore the left. That worked in 2008. --->JMS

The left did not elect B. Hussein in 2008. The independents and Not Being Bush won the election.

What is this fetish you have with mouth breathers? You always seem to post about it. Are you getting professional help?

slink · Post by **slink** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:00 am

songsmith wrote: The truth would be that Obama didn't write a healthplan, he charged Congress to do it. --->JMS

No he didn't write the plan, that way he can blame it on someone else if things go wrong and take an apology tour later. He also didn't write the stimulus plan. , he's probably planning an apology tour for that one as I type.

The only thing he really did was go on vacation from all the paid speaking engagements he did.

Of course he went to Europe and Africa for his apology tour, thats one thing he did do.

Oh yeah, hows that sitting down and talking things out with North Korea and Iran thing coming along. Like all his other campain promises ( Bipartisanship, posting things on the internet before voting on them ect.)

Obama has been nothing but BULLSHIT from the start.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:04 am

slink wrote: The only thing he really did was go on vacation from all the paid speaking engagements he did. .

Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that. It gives me a chance to point out that Ronald Reagan used to travel the country as an employee of General Electric, giving speeches about whatever he felt like talking about, which was his brand of conservatism. He was known for giving the same speeches over and over again... just like Barack Obama. The conservative Messiah and the Liberal messiah.
Incidentally, would it have been better for you if Obama wrote a book like Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or any other right-wing notable?

slink wrote:Of course he went to Europe and Africa for his apology tour, thats one thing he did do..

Talking point.

slink wrote: Oh yeah, hows that sitting down and talking things out with North Korea and Iran thing coming along. Like all his other campain promises ( Bipartisanship, posting things on the internet before voting on them ect.)

Obama has been nothing but BULLSHIT from the start.

North Korea and Iran are no more a threat now than they were a year ago when the mighty Bush was effing everything up. Fox might still be scaring you with the threat of the day, but I'm not buying what they peddle. Like I said, there's an election coming up this year, and the RNC needs you to think the world's coming to an end. Just like in Sept '08, when Fox was saying there was no recession, that it was being exaggerated by the left. They knew perfectly well what the reality was, but could not face it, as it meant certain defeat.
And if you ask me, Obama has been about average in partisanship. He has many former Bush staffers in his admin, which pisses off the Dem base. Bush was completely partisan, on the other hand. Just what the wingnuts wanted.
I'm cool with you not liking Obama, everybody's entitled to their opinion. I just get frustrated with the same old tired routine: Memo goes out, rightwing media all hammer the talking points and catchwords, and the talkshow fans start parroting what they've heard, on the internet.--->JMS

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:38 am

songsmith wrote: and the talkshow fans start parroting what they've heard, on the internet.--->JMS

Really...We have parrots on Rockpage ?

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:12 am

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:16 pm

f.sciarrillo wrote:
Hawk wrote:
songsmith wrote: and the talkshow fans start parroting what they've heard, on the internet.--->JMS
Really...We have parrots on Rockpage ?
*Hands Bill a cracker*

I'll set 'em up - you knock 'em down.

BTW:
Frank still avoids questions.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:25 pm

This is what I'm getting from this thread. Please correct me if I missed something.

- Obama and Congress are trying to push nationalized health care
- Mass. has state run health care
- A republican got voted in the senate in a traditionally blue state
- Therefore, people voted for a republican because they didn't like public health care, which shows that national health care would be a bad thing

Anyone else seeing the flaws in logic and causality here?

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:16 pm

Pretty much dead-on, Paul. But, it's easier for some than to take the time and energy to connect the dots, and there are so many outlets trumpeting the same misdirect, that it seems reasonable at first glance. It's standard Fox procedure... Al Qaeda hates America, Saddam hates America, therefore, Saddam must be in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Businesses have to pay taxes, and many businesses fail, so taxes cause business failure. The Founding Fathers put the word 'God' in the Constitution, and many Americans are Christians, so America is a Christian nation. Fox News gets higher ratings than MSNBC, so more people trust Fox's view (surely, it couldn't mean that more right-wingers need propagandized validation of their views, could it?). The rightwing media is basically a border collie, making sure nobody breaks away from the herd, nipping at anyone who strays from the groupthink and chastising them. --->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:54 pm

bassist_25 wrote:This is what I'm getting from this thread. Please correct me if I missed something.

- Obama and Congress are trying to push nationalized health care
- Mass. has state run health care
- A republican got voted in the senate in a traditionally blue state
- Therefore, people voted for a republican because they didn't like public health care, which shows that national health care would be a bad thing

Anyone else seeing the flaws in logic and causality here?

That was kinda the point (except possibly in reverse) that I was making with this statement. I should have invoked the sarcasm warning:

Isn't it amazing how the collective consciousness of Massachusetts came together in almost Borg-like fashion to elect an admitted conservative over a prototype liberal because the health care bill isn't liberal enough?

Bassist25, is there any psychological precedent that would help to explain this kind of groupthink phenomenon?

PStl · Post by **PStl** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:30 pm

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _a_success

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... night_poll