patrick.net

marcus says

still1bear says

This will give some more freedom to the *real* slaves (the taxpayers).

So in other words you think lower pay for everyone, while more goes to the 1% and the 10% is a good thing. I have news for you, the logical conclusion of what you want is everyone gets food stamps and free health care because they just aren't paid enough to live.

In other words I think you are very good at arguing with yourself rather than paying attention to other people's opinion
Returning to the subject, I think that anybody's pay should be negotiated with his employer (collectively or otherwise). The real employer of the city/state employees is the taxpayer. The unions' liberal puppets don't represent the taxpayer, they represent the union while spending taxpayers' money.

still1bear says

In other words I think you are very good at arguing with yourself rather than paying attention to other people's opinion
Returning to the subject, I think that anybody's pay should be should be negotiated with his employer (collectively or otherwise)

I agree with that, and that's all unions want and that's the most they ever get.

I understand your opinion. Do you understand mine ?

I actually think capitalism will continue to work, but not if it's done in a way that will lead to crushed middle class standard of living.

Maybe you're a Marxist and that's why you don't want a hybrid balanced capitalist system. You would perhaps prefer to see the middle class shrink and a total socialist revolution ?

Or maybe you're hoping for a fascist dictatorship ?

All I know is that you're buying right wing propaganda, which in the short run will bad for the majority of us, and in the long run it will be bad for us all.

(maybe I exaggerate your point of view. Maybe the main problem is that like FortWaybe you have some really strange ideas about what public unions are and what they do. I understand there is some really crazy hysterical propaganda out there - that is meant as entertainment. I think it's a crime because those morons just spout BS sorry ass excuse for an opinion, rather than any kind of respectable analysis. I pity the fools who respect those purveyors of hog wash.)

lostand confused says

At least Obama got Bin Laden.

Yeah like Nixon sent someone to the moon in a tin can, powered by the computing power of a Motorola brick cellular phone circa 1987.
Bin Laden was killed by that J-Dam missile in the side of the mountain in Afghanistan, as reported on all cable news networks, then retracted the next day, because Bush knew that would spell the end of his Oilquest, and Haliburton's cushy no-bid contracts.

Do the math, before that day, Osama made a video every other day, after that day not one peep out of him other than garbled cassette messages, that miraculously got delivered to the American intelligence agency, but for some reason, the poor sap was never Water boarded to give up Bin Laden's position. And of course what's Bush going to do, call him out on it?

Yeah that sounds likely...

Which is another reason NOT to vote for OBAMA he's a manipulating liar, like the Asshole before him.

marcus says

I pity the fools who respect those purveyors of hog wash

Bap33 says

the dudes that worked at AIG were working for those bonuses that Lord Barry "felt" they did not "deserve" .... one day he may "feel" teachers "deserve" less too ... maybe?

I find it really interesting when people use the phrase "Lord Barry".

I don't get the slightest hint of arrogance from Obama. Zero. Not at all.

But simply being a black president probably looks pretty arrogant if you're coming from a different direction, where the thought is: "Doesn't he know that president is an office reserved for white men?"

I don't get the slightest hint of arrogance from Obama. Zero. Not at all.

Well to some people, using proper English = arrogance.

Remember the movie Idiocracy when people accuse the main character of "fag talk" or something?

I find it really interesting when people use the phrase "Lord Barry".

I don't get the slightest hint of arrogance from Obama. Zero. Not at all.

I couldn't agree more. Maybe there's a subtle swag there that pisses right wingers off.

Dude, did you not hear him talking about how he "I" "passed the law"!! really? You must be missing some of the easy ones man. The dude is running over congress and the constitution, and has decreed himself to be King ... I just call him Lord Barry to get used to it and to avoid coming under drone attack next Jan when he loses at the ballot box but refuese to leave the WH. Just a hunch.

Why you all up in my stuff Patrick? Conservatives are running pretty thin on here man. I'm feeling like a dinosour watching the big rock land near mexico.

I don't get the slightest hint of arrogance from Obama. Zero. Not at all.

I find Obama's body language interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/fRmzlVJow8U

Bap33 says

THe issue at hand is due to a problem created by nanny state EPA big brother liberal horseshit...

Answer B: Outlaw fire insurance as it sits. Make anyone selling fire insurance...

I agree with this: you're confused. Do we eliminate the "nanny state" of oppressive regulations or do we forcibly regulate fire insurance?... Dude, get it together. WHAT exactly do you think?

And beyond that, no you didn't answer the question. I'm looking for a definite from you or one of your pals on this specific issue but all I've heard is obsfucating and sidetracking. Here's the chance to put your money where your mouth has been. Fire & police were systematically and deliberately eliminated & shut down, leaving this town bare of resources exactly when they would have been most useful. Is it proper that this happened and is it proper that "nanny state" efforts were then mobilized to assist these people? Yes or no? I don't want to hear hypothetical solutions to magical mystery scenarios, I want to hear a commitment to this specific issue. Where. Do. You. Sit?

If you believe it's correct that services were eliminated, and also believe that the "nanny state" should also be eliminated then by default YOU MUST also believe that it's proper that this town should have burned to the ground with zero support coming to their aid. It can't be put any clearer, what do you believe?

dude, you cant look at a full diaper and not realize there must be empty baby food containers. The effect we see. On the cause we disagree. Heck, if your position is valid, then if there were no fire the cuts were a great idea? That's the same position of the EPA non-logging folks -- no fire, no problem. Large bare stripes between acres is the only way to help this stuff, but nothing can make forest living fire proof.

What you want to hear, you will hear. The EPA/green freak mandated limited foresting makes for huge forest fires and expensive wood. Fact.

I would cut welfare and schools before I cut a public safety job. Incase that was part of your worry.

Thomas Wong says: "I find Obama's body language interesting". Well nice to see you finally making an appearance here and thanks for contributing, but Shit, Whatever. Stop deflecting. Answer the question.

I feel like I'm talking to children here.

Bap33 says

dude, you cant look at a full diaper and not realize there must be empty baby food containers. The effect we see. On the cause we disagree. Heck, if your position is valid, then if there were no fire the cuts were a great idea? That's the same position of the EPA non-logging folks -- no fire, no problem. Large bare stripes between acres is the only way to help this stuff, but nothing can make forest living fire proof.

What you want to hear, you will hear. The EPA/green freak mandated limited foresting makes for huge forest fires and expensive wood. Fact.

I would cut welfare and schools before I cut a public safety job. Incase that was part of your worry.

What i want to hear is a straight answer from ANY of you. This was the closest you've gotten so far but youre still resorting to hypotheticals... This scenario to me is exactly the Crux of the philosophy you all so vehemently, though incoherently, defend, continuously. And you just can't get away from hypothetical scenarios and give a straight decent answer.

Who knows what MIGHT have been? What we do know is that the police and fire depts were staffed to the levels previous town administrators determined were sufficient yet they were cut simply because of ideological reasons. What I want to hear from you, or any of your pals, is your position on this specific issue.

It breaks my heart that you personally would cut education before the fire dept, but that's neither here nor there.

Worry? What I worry about is all those idiots in CO who voted their services cut KNOWING they were in the middle of a fire belt. That's a tragedy that didn't need to be as horrific as has been made to be, by design.

And do I think that if the fire hadn't happened this year that the cuts would have been justified? Well thats a hypothetical againn but put it this way: No I don't. You've got to plan ahead and be prepared. I ride a motorcycle, every time I go out on that thing I'm prepared for an accident, and I've had a couple. Am I surprised when it happens? Yes. But I can't say that I didn't expect it might have. I don't cut back on safty gear hoping I won't go down, I don't sell my safety jacket to make a few extra bucks this season, HOPING I won't fall the next. Get it?

Yeah it's not too smart to cut fire protection in a place with wildfires.

I don't see why that's even "conservative" anyway. Don't conservatives tend to want more "safety" stuff like a strong military, more police, etc?

kentm says

Answer the question.

Yes there is lots of arrogance from Obama! In his own words...

"The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president – with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln – just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we've got a lot more work to do. And we're gonna keep on at it."

kentm says

CO Springs, center of anti-tax, anti-gov movement, cuts police & fire fighters, burns down, turns to federal gov for help. (bloomberg.com)

Much of the land is FED land anyway.. forest fires are under the jurisdictions of state and federal departments and not cities. The fires raging in CO today are on Federal Land.. and not in the city jurisdictions. As such the State/Feds have the equipment like air tankers and support crew.

Even my local city/county firehouse ISNT equipped to handle a forest fires. We dont have fleets of air tankers, team of firefighter or support crew or a air strip ready to dump water... when was the last time you saw that in San Jose Airport !!!

So the whole argument that right-wing-nuts in the CITY of Colorado Springs are to blame really not more than some Liberal Nut trying to make political points out of the fire.

great post thomaswong

kentm says

yet they were cut simply because of ideological reasons.

you should lube this before you put it back from whence you pulled it

Bap33 says

The EPA/green freak mandated limited foresting makes for huge forest fires and expensive wood.

Can you show me some valid analysis baking this up ? You know, facts and what not from a half way reliable source ? Glenn Beck doesn't count.

It sound an awful lot like right wing make believe: "hey, like I'm saying it so therefore it's true. AS soon as I say it a few more times, it will be even more true."

Hi Kentm,

Conservatives are for limited government, not NO government. We support fire fighting, police, etc. as these are proper institutions of government (we might argue about the level of pensions, etc. but not if the institutions should be public or private). A proper role of government is: administering justice, protecting life and property. For example, we want justice to be sure and a little slow and without a profit motive -- thus government is the proper institution. Conservatives also have no problem with short term assistance, what we have is a problem with dependency. Your example is perfect ... support after a wild fire, hurricane, etc. is good. However, support that breeds generational dependency as many of our HUD policies have is bad. Cheers

CaptainShuddup says

Yeah didn't he put a man on the Moon? The only President in history to do so. He chose to do that and the other things, not because they were easy but because he wanted to one up the Libs

Nixon inherited a policy, which he continued to implement, for putting a man on the moon. It was in the final stages by then. He did the correct thing, and continued to pursue the goal. He did not do it to one up the Libs.

ok, lets use your motor bike example. I am not for helmet laws. The push for helmet laws wasto cut the losses from saving riders that have no insurance, or supporting the families they leave behind. Same with seat belts. Anyways, I do not agree with an auto-pay system for doctors and providers, so if there were no such system, then there is no public loss for a hurt or dead bike rider, so there is no need to have a helmet law. If a guy wants to ride with no helmet, and he crashes, the outcome of the events are what I be call "life". The nanny staters want to control choice. Riding a bike is dangerous. Going to the doctor is expensive. Forcing the public to pay for the heakth care of an idiot willing to ride a bike is communism/socialism/liberalism. Passing a law to put helmets on riders is nanny stater mastrubation. Why? Because the act of riding is still dangerous and can not be made perfectly safe (as is life), the doctor bills and family support is sill passed on to the general public (welfare) so the docs are still on auto-pay, and only the non-riding geeks "feel better" by having forced bikers to do what makes nanny staters feel better.

So, in that example, the act of riding a scoot is the same as living in the thick timber land. It can not be made perfectly safe. You say you wear all of the gladiator equipment to aide in survival. Well, that will only aide in a gentle slide, as you know. So, that is like the local fire department putting out a trashcan fire. If you get T-boned in an intersection, you are dead, but the helmet will let them find your head easier. Getting T-bone on a bike by a Buixk is what a wild fire in timber land is like. A helmet and some chaps just don't make the difference. Adding enough fire and police to save a town in a timber fire would be like adding roll-bars and steel plates to you motor bike (yes, nanny staters may wanna do just that next). If your bike is built like a Cup car, well then it may take the T-bone hit .. but, it is no longer a bike. If a city based first response group is able to fight a timber fire, it is no longer a local level response squad. The numbers would be too great to support. A bike wrapped in rollbars and steel would not work well either.

Let me try to wrap this up.
What you are suggesting is that the bike should carry all the rollbars and steel, because it makes you safer for the T-bone.
What the EPA did was remove all stoplights at the intersections ans mandate the Buicks never have to stop.
What the local gov did was hope for no Buicks now that intersections have no lights.
What I am suggesting is put the stop lights back in at the intersection, and everyone ride a bike dressed as they please. If you get hit, your get hit. If the doc dont get paid, he dont get paid. If your wife and kids have to ask the church for food, so be it. But, your choice to ride should only require that you follow the rules of the road, because what you are doing can not be made safe. Same for living in timber land ... or living in general. If enough tres are removed from the area to make it fire safe, it is no longer a timber area. If enough people are on staff to respond to the "maybe" fire, then the entire town will be police and fire. The answer is to limit the fuel available to the fire. And that limit was reduced by the actions of EPA/greeny freaks. Do you deny that? or do you just not agree because it does not fit your political view?

marcus says

Bap33 says

The EPA/green freak mandated limited foresting makes for huge forest fires and expensive wood.

Can you show me some valid analysis baking this up ? You know, facts and what not from a half way reliable source ? Glenn Beck doesn't count.

It sound an awful lot like right wing make believe: "hey, like I'm saying it so therefore it's true. AS soon as I say it a few more times, it will be even more true."

are you honestly suggesting that you dont know about the facts behind my statement? Or, is it a test to see if I know how to google 30 year old news items? I just want to see you honestly state that you have no idea what I am talking about before I post all the dang stuff. (ofcourse that will just start some other discussion about "sources"! lol)

Bap33 says

ok, lets use your motor bike example. I am not for helmet laws. The push for helmet laws wasto cut the losses from saving riders that have no insurance, or supporting the families they leave behind. Same with seat belts. Anyways, I do not agree with an auto-pay system for doctors and providers, so if there were no such system, then there is no public loss for a hurt or dead bike rider, so there is no need to have a helmet law.

That is some pretty confused thinking if I ever saw it. If the people who wish to ride without helmets and crash would simply shut up and die like men then ok. But they don't, they survive, they get treated, and they drive up my costs instead of paying for the extra costs of their additional injuries out of their pockets. So bap, you are saying that if you crash and get serious head injuries you are going to say, no don't bill my insurance company for the treatment I will pay out of pocket because I chose exert my right to freedom so I will accept my responsibility to pay for the consequences. Right. In Kentucky there is a pig that can whistle too.

That's the problem. All the people like bap who want freedom to be irresponsible, but cry like babies for someone to bail them out when they screw up. That seems to be the entire basis of the conservative movement today. Freedom without personal responsibility. Government services with no taxes. Privatized profits, socialized losses. War without cost. Is it a baby boomer thing that will go away some day or a permanent change in American society?

Bap33 says

Or, is it a test

In other words, you concede that it's made up hogwash. Thanks.

I'm going to be out for a while. But this evening I will look further to find something I can not find, which is the connection between forest fires and the EPA.

Obviously there are some forests that if they had been totally cut down for profit, they would not be able to burn, but this is what I call a hand waving argument, when it is tied to the cost of lumber or bad fires.

If there was an issue 30 years ago, that not an issue now, then...?
That certainly can't be part of a legitimate argument now.

Conservative view:

There are many people who do not take responsibility for their actions and don't get life insurance, don't get medical insurance, don't invest properly for retirement, don't eat right, don't make good life style choices, and the list goes on and on.

Let use an example of someone who doesn't get medical insurance and gets injured riding a motorcycle. He gets taken to an emergency room and gets treated without his consent. I think it is perfectly fine to require him to pay on a payment plan for treatment rendered etc. AFTER the fact. Once he is able to give consent he can decide the level of treatment he wants. Perhaps 10% of the population falls in this model - so the government via the court system forces payment and the rest of us still preserve our freedom. The liberal view is to basically force all the 90% to lose their freedom and inject massive government for all 100% instead of just focusing on the 10% who are not responsible.

Should we all have to give fingerprints, use GPS, because 10% of our are criminals? Should we all have to take drug tests because x% of our drug addicts? The list goes on an on ... Where does it end. And then when we have built a massive government who "protects" us from all those that are not responsible ... who will protect us from the new huge, powerful, and shockingly expensive government who forces "responsibility" under threat of fines and imprisonment -- and who then begins to define "responsible" behavior as what benefits the government and it's supporters.

Cheers

thomas.wong1986 says

Even my local city/county firehouse ISNT equipped to handle a forest fires. We dont have fleets of air tankers, team of firefighter or support crew or a air strip ready to dump water...

Dang! That means we need to gut the federal government for all of it's out-of-control spending.

marcus says

It sound an awful lot like right wing make believe: "hey, like I'm saying it so therefore it's true. AS soon as I say it a few more times, it will be even more true."

Can we get marcus some kind of award or something? I haven't heard anything that good since Nomograph.

jjmcdonald says

Conservatives are for limited government, not NO government. We support fire fighting, police, etc. as these are proper institutions of government (we might argue about the level of pensions, etc. but not if the institutions should be public or private). A proper role of government is: administering justice, protecting life and property. For example, we want justice to be sure and a little slow and without a profit motive -- thus government is the proper institution. Conservatives also have no problem with short term assistance, what we have is a problem with dependency. Your example is perfect ... support after a wild fire, hurricane, etc. is good. However, support that breeds generational dependency as many of our HUD policies have is bad. Cheers

That's the first well-reasoned "conservative" post I've seen here in a long time. Well done.

It's good to know that not all conservatives are just mind-numbed robots spouting AM Radio and Fox News propaganda.

bob2356 says

All the people like bap who want freedom to be irresponsible, but cry like babies for someone to bail them out when they screw up. That seems to be the entire basis of the conservative movement today. Freedom without personal responsibility. Government services with no taxes. Privatized profits, socialized losses. War without cost.

That's the best summary of the modern right wing movement that I've ever seen. Well done sir.

And yet the right wing constantly blames poor black folks for wanting "something for nothing" via welfare checks. But when big banks get welfare, that's just fine!

wow ... up is down, left is right, good is bad. It has finally happened. You folks have now tried to project the complete leftist liberal mind and value set upon conservatives. lmao. good luck with that.

@marcus,
don't try to limit your search to just EPA's actions. The EPA is there, no doubt, but little minnie-me-EPA greeny freak orgs are there too. You will note that I said "green freaks" in my retort above too, least you begin to decry my facts before the ink dries. Gathering this stuff has opened up alot of crap The Sierra Club did too. Friggin Feinstein is a crook and a hack, but those libs love her to death.

@wthrfrk,
no conservative I know was/is for any bailout, so what are you talking about?

Close the border, send invaders down to build the fence for their citizenship, and start hanging death row and all gangsters, lets see how good life in America can get.

Hi Bob2356

A lot of us conservatives are appalled by the "Privatized profits, socialized losses" policies of the end of the Bush 2 admin and now the Obama admin. Bankruptcy is a part of capitalism and there is no "too big to fail company". And if it is truly "too big to fail" so that it requires a bailout then it is too big and should be broken up. I note that the "too big to fail" institutions are now bigger in terms of market share.

Cheers

jjmcdonald says

Bankruptcy is a part of capitalism and there is no "too big to fail company". And if it is truly "too big to fail" so that it requires a bailout then it is too big and should be broken up.

Amen. "Too big to fail" = socialism

jjmcdonald says

This limit will eliminate any new insurance companies with innovative ideas from being formed as their profit cannot be higher than big established companies.

Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"? All they do is take your money, and (maybe) give some of it back when disaster strikes.

Other than that, your points are well taken.

that is what I was suggesting above with my "make insurance companies prevent fires" post. kinda.

wthrfrk80 says

Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"?

They think of new ways to rip you off?

Innovation takes place in many forms in insurance.

1. There are process innovations such as improved data processing through better software, support for on-line diagnosis, faster over-the-counter qualifications, support for out-patient care, noticing duplicate prescriptions and dangerous overlapping treatment plans. Insurance companies drive a lot of innovation in the medical industry by pushing doctors toward new lower cost effective treatments after they were proven out in one location. Going forward, innovations like these will not be profit effective for the insurance companies.

These types of innovation are acknowledged by the Obama admin but instead of encouraging the private sector with tax cuts, etc. Obama has directly thrown billions at medical records updates. Far more money than the entire insurance industry makes in a year in vain attempt to save money. Obama truly believes that government folks can drive innovation better than private industry - thus this medical record fiasco and green energy fiascos.

2. There are coverage innovations like coming up with different plans to meet the needs of various groups. Think car insurance - safe driver discounts, good grade discounts, bundling discounts, etc. All of this is done away with in Obamacare - so you are essentially going to have to pay for those that make poor lifestyle choices of pre-existing folks. I suspect as the cost of coverage skyrockets once all the pre-existing folks are finally covered ... the government will start to introduce additional penalties and coverage limits, etc.

3. Insurance companies are very tough on doctor's and their billing practices. There will far less incentive for the insurance companies to be tough on doctors as their profit is no longer directly tied to expense reduction. Innovation in terms of financial arrangements like HMOs were at one time, or groups of doctor's getting together to provide care, etc. will be extremely difficult to start because there is no additional profit incentive for investors to invest in various schemes.

I'm not saying that Obamacare is the end of the US healthcare system, but over time our healthcare system will lose the massive innovation edge we hold today, wait times will grow, and treatments become more scarce, medical tourism will increase. It will happen slowly, just as Medicare is getting worse every year now.

Cheers

Bap33 says

don't try to limit your search to just EPA's actions.

The EPA represent environmental interests of the people. They get in the way of corporate interests, who are the providers of all the anti-EPA propaganda.

You're a good ol boy bap, but on a gullibility scale of 1 to 10, your a 12.

You've got nothin.

Any legitimate claim that logging companies can make against EPA regulations would force a change in policy because they have big bucks lobbyists behind them. Plus after 8 yeas of Bush undoing a lot of the good CLinton did in the name of conservation (a conservative cause if there ever was one), I haven't heard of Obama doing much. The commie pinko homosexual nazi propaganda that all the dim bulb racist lap up is too strong for Obama to get behind hardly any near center issues (I'm not even talking left - that's WAY off the table).

jjmcdonald says

I'm not saying that Obamacare is the end of the US healthcare system, but over time our healthcare system will lose the massive innovation edge we hold today

None of those "innovations" are precluded by ACA.

1. Ridiculous. Insurance companies don't give 2 figs about cutting costs in specific areas, only HMO finance people do.

2. Ridiculous. ACA doesn't discourage differing coverage plans.

3. Ridiculous. Insurance companies need to "financially innovate" like we all need a hole in the head. If they were "tough on doctors" we wouldn't be seeing medical costs inflate faster than inflation for years as has been happening under the existing system.

Let's drop the "Obamacare" since we are moving forward with it. Your 3 points all seem to involve a lot of micro-management of healthcare by the insurance companies. It's always bad when government does it, but always good when a bunch of guys with actuarial tables do it? Strange.