Boston Rox !!

[Banned]

- Mass. has state run health care

Yes, and it sucks. See Ptl's post. Only 10% said it improved health care.

Even a state full of liberals voted against a national health care plan.

[slink]

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

Slink: I wouldn't care about Obamas speaking engagements (ego) if he was doing positive things for our country but he's not. When he was pushing his Stimulus package he said and I quote: umemplyment is 7.5% and if we don't get this Stimulus passed it could go to 8%, it is now 10.5% and climbing. The cash for clunkers ( payoff for SEIU) was a bust, as soon as it was over auto sales took a dive. If he ever gets Cap and trade implemented stick a fork in us were done.



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: This has nothing to do with me, I didn't buy their books but I'm sure Obama will write a book and I just happen to have a good name for it " The Blame Game. "

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

Talking point.

Slink: So I'll take it you thought that was stupid of him also.

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.

Slink: Really, Iraq and Afganistan didn't have nuclear weapons and look at what we got into there. If you add two more wars to what we got going on now we are in trouble.



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

Slink: Cool, I'm frustrated also. Obama promises "I'm going to have an open Presidency gonna post bills on the internet so people can read them before Congress passes them. Gonna have C-span broadcast everything and gonna work with the Republicans and get whats best for this country.
The Democrats go behind closed and draft the stimulus bill hide everything from the Republicans and us the people then force it through with their House and Senate majority. To hell with the campaing promices. They tried the same thing with Health Care.
Well remember George HW Bush, campaing promise No More New Taxes, then went right to work and gave us new taxes he was a one term president.
Obama lied to us about so much more than that, I can't wait for 2012 elections.

[songsmith]

Dubya also promised an open-book administration, and became the most opaque admin in US history, under the guise of "fighting terrorism." At the end of his reign, there were millions of e-mails that disappeared, and that's not counting the vast numbers of e-mails that went through the RNC's servers so there could be no accountability to the govt watchdogs.

The GOP-controlled Congress was the same: Medicare Part D, a gift to the the pharmaceutical industry, was passed behind closed doors... so the argument that the current congress is more secretive is just more talking-points.

Also, you've pointed out yet one more Obama/Reagan similarity: Obama's unemployment high so far: 10.5%. Reagan's: 10.7% Obama IS Reagan. Hardcore conservatives have lost their hero to...
Reality.

"Slink: This has nothing to do with me, I didn't buy their books but I'm sure Obama will write a book and I just happen to have a good name for it " The Blame Game. " "

So speaking engagements are bad, but not books? I think you're just rationalizing the same behaviors because you don't want liberals or moderates to have the same rights and benefits as conservatives. Where'd you get that idea that "we equal good, they equal bad?" From your propaganda outlets. That's why I'm here, and why I respond... I won't allow Rockpage to become a rats-nest of rightwing propagandizing. As long as Joe & Co. post sh*t here, I'm going to keep flushing the commode. Incidentally, I have a title for Palin's next book:
"I Is A Riter Now"
Glenn Beck's next book: "How To Cry On Cue"
George Bush's next book: "It Was Cheney" (Actually more of a pamphlet, with pictures.)
Rush Limbaugh's next tome: "Rush's Guide To Off-Market Pharmaceuticals"
Bill O'Reilly: "Busted: A Phone-Sex Guidebook"
Sean Hannity: "The Mind Of Sean Hannity" (657 pages, all blank)
Dick Cheney: "I Am Not 'The Penguin'" (with a foreword by Satan)
Burgess Meredith: "Seriously, That Was Me"
Also Dickey: "No-Bid Contracts For Fun And Profit"
Michael Savage: "Psychotic Narcissism For Dummies"
Roger Hedgecock: "What Rush Said Times Ten"
and finally...
God: "Pat Robertson Is An A-hole"

Man, I could do that all day long. --->JMS

[Hawk]

As long as Joe & Co. post sh*t here, I'm going to keep flushing the commode.

[bassist_25]

- Mass. has state run health care

Yes, and it sucks. See Ptl's post. Only 10% said it improved health care.

Even a state full of liberals voted against a national health care plan.

From the link I got to work, what I got is a little over 50% of the population considered healthcare an important issue, while there was an additive and interactive effect of other issues which may have had an impact on how voters voted. According to both the researchers and the statistics provided, healthcare did not account for a landslide win by Brown, due to Coakley still recieving a large number of the vote. The research is correlational, and while one may infer that there is causality - and ultimately be right - it can't be done from this research. Percentages are usually descriptive statistics, not inferential, and the survey method and operational definitions cannot infer direct causality (e.g., participants were asked what issues were important rather than attempting to discover directionality of the issues' impact on voting).

Common sense says that Mass. healthcare program had an effect on the election, but be careful of the sweeping generalizations.

[bassist_25]

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?

Well, I don't think it would be groupthink. The basis of groupthink comes down to people not wanting to unsettle the social order by introducing new ideas that may cause social friction. I can't really see how that paradigm would apply to either voting conservative or voting liberal in this particular case.

[lonewolf]

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?

Well, I don't think it would be groupthink. The basis of groupthink comes down to people not wanting to unsettle the social order by introducing new ideas that may cause social friction. I can't really see how that paradigm would apply to either voting conservative or voting liberal in this particular case.

WARNING: THAT POST CONTAINED FACETIOUS OR SARCASTIC REMARKS DESIGNED TO ILLUSTRATE THE LACK OF CORRELATIVE DATA TO SUPPORT VARIOUS ELECTION RESULT THEORIES!

[bassist_25]

Damn you, Jeff, and your deadpan Internet delivery.

[songsmith]

I know, right? You and he can both drag me right into stuff like that!--->JMS