zepyep Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hi all, I just disagree with most of you here. Not much to say other than that. I think the President is doing an amazing job. We can agree to disagree. Hope and change to gloom and doom.Great! KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabe Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Lots of folks,NOT ALL,who bitch about Rush,have never given him a steady,regular listen.I believe he says one should listen to him 4-6 weeks before coming to an informed opinion about him and his way of looking at things. Do that,then like him or loathe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthekingshorses Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Lots of folks,NOT ALL,who bitch about Rush,have never given him a steady,regular listen.I believe he says one should listen to him 4-6 weeks before coming to an informed opinion about him and his way of looking at things. Do that,then like him or loathe him. I've listened to him on the radio of course... but I can never handle more than 5 minutes of his rantings. I'm an NPR fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The media wouldn't be dealing with Rush at all if it wasn't for the fact that Mr. Jingle Bells fell flat on his face after the State of the Union speech. When you run out of viable candidates, there's not much choice but to start tapping tv and radio personalities ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie1971 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) The media wouldn't be dealing with Rush at all if it wasn't for the fact that Mr. Jingle Bells fell flat on his face after the State of the Union speech. When you run out of viable candidates, there's not much choice but to start tapping tv and radio personalities ! Perhaps they should send their resident ballerina Rahm Emmanuel out to ridicule working people who have their wealth confiscated and redistributed to the irresponsible...Karl Marx style, and have the gaul (is it blasphemy?) to criticize the messiah for it. Edited March 5, 2009 by Reggie1971 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The media wouldn't be dealing with Rush at all if it wasn't for the fact that Mr. Jingle Bells fell flat on his face after the State of the Union speech. When you run out of viable candidates, there's not much choice but to start tapping tv and radio personalities ! Exxxxxxxactly. It goes to show how at odds the Republicans are when the nutty base is fired up behind Limbaugh and moderates want nothing to do with him. Then again, it also shows where the Democrats are at. Trying to win a battle that looks downright silly to everyone who actually cares is a sure bet even they are at odds with themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage1977 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 The media wouldn't be dealing with Rush at all if it wasn't for the fact that Mr. Jingle Bells fell flat on his face after the State of the Union speech. When you run out of viable candidates, there's not much choice but to start tapping tv and radio personalities ! First off...It was not a State of the Union address. It WAS a "here's why I'm breaking all of my campaign promises" speech. I thought that Obama would be different, but he's running right down the far left political line, just like we were warned about. I give him a D- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 "Profit and earnings ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it," - B. Obama Um, you mean Price to Earnings Ratios? No such thing as 'Profit and earnings ratios'.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/stor...3990&page=1 Yet another campaign promise kept. Let's see....that's Guantanamo, Union Representation, Stem-Cell Research, the largest stimulus Bill ever, a withdraw schedule in Iraq, a pay raise for the military, increased troops in Afghanistan (where they should have been in the first place), the end of no-bid contracts, a new dog, and a new swingset in the backyard to boot. Good Job Messiah !! I give him a D- Well jeez Scotty.....what kind of grade did you give the last guy whom you voted for twice ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage1977 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Well jeez Scotty.....what kind of grade did you give the last guy whom you voted for twice ? Voted for twice? I've been voting for over thirty years and can't recall a Presidential candidate that I voted for twice. I voted for "W" in 2000, but not in '04 (John Kerry got my vote). I voted for Clinton in '92, but not '96. Even Reagan only got my vote in '84. What is your point exactly? Reagan was the first Republican that I voted for and it's been about 50/50 ever since. I am a true independent voter with no ties to a particular party. I did not vote for Obama, but my grade for him reflects his performance according to his own campaign promises. He is not working from the political center as he promised. If he was doing what he said he was going to do his grade would reflect that. George Bush would get an "F" from me, because he did a terrible job of managing the country in almost every respect. Reagan and Clinton would get similar grades...about a "B-", or so. They both did a pretty good job, but had issues that I didn't agree with. Does that help you understand my thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Yet another campaign promise kept. Let's see....that's Guantanamo, Union Representation, Stem-Cell Research, the largest stimulus Bill ever, a withdraw schedule in Iraq, a pay raise for the military, increased troops in Afghanistan (where they should have been in the first place), the end of no-bid contracts, a new dog, and a new swingset in the backyard to boot. Good Job Messiah !! I personally think he's doing great. He's doing what he said he would. I think republicans need to relax. They've had the country for the last eight years, and it didn't do us a whole lot of good. Right now, we don't need another republican. In a few years, that will change. The democrats will mess everything up, and the republicans will be who we need again. That's the way it's worked for a long time. So they can chill, because they'll get back in power again someday. And also, Obama isn't this evil monster like they seem to think. Really, they ought to give the guy a chance, instead of jumping on him so early on. Dudes, seriously. Just calm down. I'm happy about the stem-cell thing being overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I think republicans need to relax. They've had the country for the last eight years, and it didn't do us a whole lot of good. Actually, they won the majority in 1994 and kept it rolling for another 12 years. Neither political party has single handedly achieved anything I would refer to as "good" within the last few Presidents. There have been moments of poise and great wonderment, but partisan bickering and Big Business have left both parties out of any useful achievements. And the rest of us are on the outside looking in, shaking our fists and slowly sinking on the SS USA. Ha! Edited March 10, 2009 by bigstickbonzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Voted for twice? I've been voting for over thirty years and can't recall a Presidential candidate that I voted for twice. I voted for "W" in 2000, but not in '04 (John Kerry got my vote). I voted for Clinton in '92, but not '96. Even Reagan only got my vote in '84. What is your point exactly? Reagan was the first Republican that I voted for and it's been about 50/50 ever since. I am a true independent voter with no ties to a particular party. I did not vote for Obama, but my grade for him reflects his performance according to his own campaign promises. He is not working from the political center as he promised. If he was doing what he said he was going to do his grade would reflect that. George Bush would get an "F" from me, because he did a terrible job of managing the country in almost every respect. Reagan and Clinton would get similar grades...about a "B-", or so. They both did a pretty good job, but had issues that I didn't agree with. Does that help you understand my thinking? Scotty....My apologies. I had you pegged as a right-winger from way back. I appreciate the "F", but it's much too early in the game to be giving the new guy a D-. Don't be fooled by the stimulus. We always spend our way out of a recession no matter which party is running the show. What we spend it on is the only dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Don't be fooled by the stimulus. We always spend our way out of a recession no matter which party is running the show. What we spend it on is the only dispute. What the hell is this stimulus package for pre-kindergarden education that is in today's paper about? Are parents responsible for anything, anymore??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Whatever you do, don't get Obama angry... Angry Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/stor...3990&page=1 Yet another campaign promise kept. Let's see....that's Guantanamo, Union Representation, Stem-Cell Research, the largest stimulus Bill ever, a withdraw schedule in Iraq, a pay raise for the military, increased troops in Afghanistan (where they should have been in the first place), the end of no-bid contracts, a new dog, and a new swingset in the backyard to boot. Good Job Messiah !! Well jeez Scotty.....what kind of grade did you give the last guy whom you voted for twice ? Ill take this one. Closing down Gitmo. Doing it in a year and has no plan after it close. A win for Obama. Stimulus bill. Followed by a spending bill and now talks about another stimulus bill. Win for Obama. Stem Cell research. Pres. Bush gave 130mil in Stem Cell research. Win for Obama. More troops in Afghanistan. Only supplied half of what was asked for and did it behide close doors. Win for Obama. Iraq withdrawal. Following Iraq forces agreement, which was negotiated under Bush. Win for Obama. End of No bid contracts. After this budget and this spending bill. Win for Obama. Pay raise for the Military. Is that just a cost of living adjustment. Win for Obama. No more lobbyist. Only a dozen or so lobbyist in his admin. Win for Obama. Bill Transparency Did allow the Stimulus bill to be looked at for 12 hrs, than flew out to Denver and signed it in four days. Win for Obama. Wow Hope and change. 53% of America thinks we are going into a depression. Without Obama hope, it might be 54% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Next on the agenda?? Healthcare. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681586452302125.html Obama's $80 Billion Exaggeration Last week, President Barack Obama convened a health-care summit in Washington to identify programs that would improve quality and restrain burgeoning costs. He stated that all his policies would be based on rigorous scientific evidence of benefit. The flagship proposal presented by the president at this gathering was the national adoption of electronic medical records -- a computer-based system that would contain every patient's clinical history, laboratory results, and treatments. This, he said, would save some $80 billion a year, safeguard against medical errors, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and greatly facilitate both preventive care and ongoing therapy of the chronically ill. Following his announcement, we spoke with fellow physicians at the Harvard teaching hospitals, where electronic medical records have been in use for years. All of us were dumbfounded, wondering how such dramatic claims of cost-saving and quality improvement could be true. The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system. And, as the RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking. To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoiding medication errors are relatively small, amounting at most to a few billion dollars yearly, as the RAND consultants admit. Other potential cost-savings are far from certain. The impact of medication errors on malpractice costs is likely to be minimal, since the vast majority of lawsuits arise not from technical mistakes like incorrect prescriptions but from diagnostic errors, where the physician makes a misdiagnosis and the correct therapy is delayed or never delivered. There is no evidence that electronic medical records lower the chances of diagnostic error. All of us are conditioned to respect the printed word, particularly when it appears repeatedly on a hospital computer screen, and once a misdiagnosis enters into the electronic record, it is rapidly and virally propagated. A study of orthopedic surgeons, comparing handheld PDA electronic records to paper records, showed an increase in wrong and redundant diagnoses using the computer -- 48 compared to seven in the paper-based cohort. But the propagation of mistakes is not restricted to misdiagnoses. Once data are keyed in, they are rarely rechecked with respect to accuracy. For example, entering a patient's weight incorrectly will result in a drug dose that is too low or too high, and the computer has no way to respond to such human error. Throughout their report, the RAND researchers essentially ignore downsides to electronic medical records. Rather, they base their cost calculations on 100% compliance with the computer programs "adopted widely and used effectively." The real-world use of electronic medical records is quite different from such an idealized vision. Where do the RAND policy analysts posit major cost-savings? They imagine that the computer will guide doctors to deliver higher quality care, and that patients will better adhere to quality recommendations embedded in the computer programs. This would apply to both preventive interventions like vaccines and weight reduction, and to therapy of costly chronic maladies like diabetes and congestive heart failure. Over 15 years, the RAND analysts assert, more than $350 billion would be saved on inpatient care and nearly $150 billion on outpatient care. Unfortunately, data to support such an appealing scenario are lacking. A 2008 study published in Circulation, a premier cardiology journal, assessed the influence of electronic medical records on the quality of care of more than 15,000 patients with heart failure. It concluded that "current use of electronic health records results in little improvement in the quality of heart failure care compared with paper-based systems." Similarly, researchers from the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, with colleagues from Stanford University, published an analysis in 2007 of some 1.8 billion ambulatory care visits. These experts concluded, "As implemented, electronic health records were not associated with better quality ambulatory care." And just this past January, a group of Canadian researchers reviewed more than 3,700 published papers on the use of electronic medical records in primary care delivered in seven countries. They found no solid evidence of either benefits or drawbacks accruing to patients. This gap in knowledge, they concluded, "should be of concern to adopters, payers, and jurisdictions." What is clear is that electronic medical records facilitate documentation of services rendered by physicians and hospitals, which is used to justify billing. Doctors in particular are burdened with checking off scores of boxes on the computer screen to satisfy insurance requirements, so called "pay for performance." But again, there are no compelling data to demonstrate that such voluminous documentation translates into better outcomes for their sick patients. Even before these new data, there were studies casting doubt on the benefits of electronic medical records. In response, the RAND researchers boldly stated, "We choose to interpret reported evidence of negative or no effect of health information technology as likely being attributable to ineffective or not-yet-effective implementation." This flies in the face of the scientific method, where an initial hypothesis needs to be modified or abandoned in the face of contradictory results. Rather than wrestle with contrary information, the report invokes the successes of computer-based systems in saving money in industries like banking, securities trading, and merchandizing, using ATM machines, online brokerage and bar-coded checkouts. Medical care of human beings -- treatment of acute and chronic illnesses and the even more complex process of effecting lifestyle changes like smoking cessation and weight loss to prevent disease -- is not analogous to buying bar-coded groceries and checking-account balances online. Some have speculated that the patient data collected by the Obama administration in national electronic health records will be mined for research purposes to assess the cost effectiveness of different treatments. This analysis will then be used to dictate which drugs and devices doctors can provide to their patients in federally funded programs like Medicare. Private insurers often follow the lead of the government in such payments. If this is part of the administration's agenda, then it needs to be frankly stated as such. And Americans should decide whether they want to participate in such a national experiment only after learning about the nature of the analysis of their records and who will apply the results to their health care. All agree skyrocketing health-care costs are a dangerous weight on the economic welfare of the nation. Much of the growing expense is due to the proliferation of new technology and costly treatments. Significant monies are spent for administrative overhead related to insurance billing and payments. The burden of the uninsured who use emergency rooms as their primary care providers, and extensive utilization of intensive care units at the end of life, further escalate costs. The president and his health-care team have yet to address these difficult and pressing issues. Our culture adores technology, so it is not surprising that the electronic medical record has been touted as the first important step in curing the ills of our health-care system. But it is an overly simplistic and unsubstantiated part of the solution. We both voted for President Obama, in part because of his pragmatic approach to problems, belief in empirical data, and openness to changing his mind when those data contradict his initial approach to a problem. We need the president to apply real scientific rigor to fix our health-care system rather than rely on elegant exercises in wishful thinking. Drs. Groopman and Hartzband are on the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and on the faculty of Harvard Medical School. This will be in industry after industry. If I was generous I would call it buyer's remorse. Another generous conclusion is they are just caught up by the allure of the media/hollywood sensation Obama was. But, you know, it doesn't take much WISDOM to see through both of those-- that Obama was dishonest in presenting who he was and that we have a one-sided pump media and he ran a hollywood infused campaign. I mean any normal, balanced, objective, rational, level-headed person could see all that. Before i go to answer c and call folks stupid I will say we were only given 2 choices in this election. The way to save face is to pound back hard. Yeah, Obama won an election. good for him. But WE have a country to run and one guy isn't going to do it. The FAWKING audacity of that guy (and many of his followers) to think they are like annointed by god to solve everyone's problems. These people really think only they can save us from everyone else's stupidity. And THAT folks is stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What the hell is this stimulus package for pre-kindergarden education that is in today's paper about? Are parents responsible for anything, anymore??? Not if the liberals can do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Not if the liberals can do anything about it. As far as I can tell, anything related to pre-kindergarden "education" is just dump-off time for mommy to go get her nails done. This is a luxury, and all luxuries are becoming eliminated or taxed - as is appropriate in these times. I can still recall kindergarden being mostly play / snack / nap, with some learning and interaction value. But this can be started at home, by those who have made the choice to be parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) As far as I can tell, anything related to pre-kindergarden "education" is just dump-off time for mommy to go get her nails done. This is a luxury, and all luxuries are becoming eliminated or taxed - as is appropriate in these times. I can still recall kindergarden being mostly play / snack / nap, with some learning and interaction value. But this can be started at home, by those who have made the choice to be parents. Childhood Education is drastically different from when you were a child. My daughter has been in the same "Nursery/Pre-school" program since she was two. At four years old she has already learned colors, shapes, counting, the alphabet, and writing, among many other skills (cooking and art for examples). They also learn about "current events", and were very active in political projects during the last election. It's pretty cool when four year olds are learning about the Presidents. It's amazing... in her school even the two year old class participates in school plays that they sing and perform for an audience of their families. To give my child a great education, i pay over $6000 a year. No handouts are coming my way. There is no luxury in learning. If the USA expects to catch up to other countries, our Education system needs to keep improving. Children's minds are like sponges, and they are very capable of soaking up information. The more they learn, the stronger the brain muscle becomes. They still get play time, but no age is too young to learn. I sure envy the mommies who are getting their nails done while their children are at school. I am at work, making a living for me and my child. Your remark was quite out of touch, imo. Most families "i know" are struggling to make ends meet, give their children a good life, and spending as much quality time with their kids as they can. I guess i'm lucky to live in a place where you don't see delinquents running the streets. p.s. i just have to point out, the word is Kindergar"t"en... although it means a gar"d"en of children, lol. Edited March 12, 2009 by ~tangerine~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) Not if the liberals can do anything about it. From what i heard about this pre-k crap is that this is based off a group of 68 children. All whom was mentally challenged in some form and their was heavily involvement concerning the government, including teachers going to parents house once a week. Of course their will be a big need for union teachers. Because earmarks for govt. agency are cool and big labor is cool. Just not companies that prove themselves successful, and for stockholders of those companies that expect a profit. Can't wait for Stimulus 2.0 Guarantee it will be all tax cuts. My opinion will be that Health care will be pushed, but not until the next term election or Barracks reelection campaign. (which some people, including me, thinks he never stopped campaigning). So when he gets it passed, he can hang his hat on that, the economy won't matter, or the wars. and it will be hard for the G.O.P. to win based on the fact they will be criminalized for trying to take away medical treatment for children. (and 12 million illegals) Edited March 12, 2009 by Pb Derigable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Your remark was quite out of touch, imo. That's very possible. For very rant, there's a rave. It's good to hear there are parents like you that are not just abusing the system. I'm going to tend my garten, now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage1977 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think it would be much more fair if people that DID NOT have children got a TAX BREAK. I also wonder why retired people have to pay for education costs through property taxes. Haven't they given enough? It kills me that people who choose to have children pay less taxes than those of us who have grown children or never had children. The monetary burden for the government is much more for those with families. Health care, education, social services, parks and recreation, etc. are all used more by People with children. Why shouldn't they pay the lion's share for those services through taxes? The far left has the answer....It takes a community to raise a child, right? That's called "Socialism". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I think it would be much more fair if people that DID NOT have children got a TAX BREAK. I also wonder why retired people have to pay for education costs through property taxes. Haven't they given enough? It kills me that people who choose to have children pay less taxes than those of us who have grown children or never had children. The monetary burden for the government is much more for those with families. Health care, education, social services, parks and recreation, etc. are all used more by People with children. Why shouldn't they pay the lion's share for those services through taxes? The far left has the answer....It takes a community to raise a child, right? That's called "Socialism". Good points. But without Property taxes, we would have to have federally funded school. and that is more of socialist solution. Good points tho. I agree with you in point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 That's very possible. For very rant, there's a rave. It's good to hear there are parents like you that are not just abusing the system. I'm going to tend my garten, now... Well if you are my age (or more ) i can understand why you would say how it used to be. I remember playing more than anything when i was in Kindergarten, but today is so much different. A friend of mine who has a six year old told me the Charter schools have the kids learning both Spanish and French in the first grade (and we live in an area where most people speak only English). These schools are demanding, but the kids seem to meet the challenge. Anyway i do consider myself a good parent. Since i'm a single one, i have to work that much harder to meet my child's needs, so that's what i try to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.