What's a Palin

[lurker]

A primary care doctor is YOUR doctor. HMOs DID change what it was called--used to be the 'family doctor' or 'your doctor' when they asked at the hospital--now they say who's your primary care physician. The one you go to when you're sick, or when you need a physical.

They get notified when you get into an accident and often their hospital affiliations direct where you go--if you're near a hospital they work with, you tend to go there so that they have full, immediate access.

You need your own doctor. Everyone does. And, nowadays, they're pretty easy to get for all income levels.

Most hospitals have clinics. The one I worked at had 4 quasi-seperate general care clinics and one specialty care clinic(different specialists on different days) that were all on the same floor of one of the hospital buildings. General Med, Family and Pediatric Care, Resident Clinic, and the Student Clinic--as well as Arthritis and Rheumatology, Dardiology, Renal, Hypertension, Respiratory among others. Payment is on a sliding scale for the uninsured, and standard inflated prices for the insured(but they don't see it except in their rising premiums). We routinely set up people for free care through various private and governmental agencies.

So there's no excuse.

Get a doctor of your own.

[lurker]

Hey, jkisha, why don't you shut your mouth? I'm trying to help--so this doesn't happen again--so that gyre's set up before you and yours can tell him that he doesn't GET good care because more uselful citizens need it more.

It sounds like gyre got screwed by a crap inner city hospital that is run more by the bureaucrats you want to hand your health over to than by doctors.

I'm showing him how to avoid that.

[Elderberry]

Hey, jkisha, why don't you shut your mouth? I'm trying to help--so this doesn't happen again--so that gyre's set up before you and yours can tell him that he doesn't GET good care because more uselful citizens need it more.

It sounds like gyre got screwed by a crap inner city hospital that is run more by the bureaucrats you want to hand your health over to than by doctors.

I'm showing him how to avoid that.

Ya right, your help will get him killed the next time he goes into an emergency room; you big helpful compasionate conservative, you. Listen if you want to help, get out and vote--for Obama!

JK

[littleflower]

Ya right, your help will get him killed the next time he goes into an emergency room. Listen if you want to help, get out and vote--for Obama!

JK

thanks, JK ... i was just feeling like a fool for posting something stupid ... but this one is considerably stupider ... methinks that obama is your GOD

[Elderberry]

Ya right, your help will get him killed the next time he goes into an emergency room. Listen if you want to help, get out and vote--for Obama!

JK

thanks, JK ... i was just feeling like a fool for posting something stupid ... but this one is considerably stupider ... methinks that obama is your GOD

you aren't thinking, that's the problem. Obama isn't my god, you know I don't have any gods before me. Obama is just the only choice of the thinking man to put this country back in the right direction. just ask Colin Powel--or do you believe he only endorced Obama because he was black?

JK

[littleflower]

you aren't thinking, that's the problem. Obama isn't my god, you know I don't have any gods before me. Obama is just the only choice of the thinking man to put this country back in the right direction. just ask Colin Powel--or do you believe he only endorced Obama because he was black?

JK

i do not see any reason to question colin powell's motivations, JK. and if you think obama is going to put this country back on track (polly wanna cracker?) that's just fine with me...

but this:

Ya right, your help will get him killed the next time he goes into an emergency room; you big helpful compasionate conservative, you. Listen if you want to help, get out and vote--for Obama!

that's beautiful...

[Elderberry]

that's beautiful...

Why thank you. I thought so too!

JK

[littleflower]

lol

[gyre]

Methodist, where I was taken, is the premier inside the city now, although the Med's Trauma Unit is supposedly first rate.
All other hospitals have been allowed to move to the edge or out of the city.
My friends have instructions to leave me at Baptist East next time I need care.

The Med does have some clinics at the Medplex.
It only took me seven years to see a doctor there, after my insurance skyrocketed after the surgery, (even though it was relatively cheap).
I still haven't managed to satisfy the paperwork requirements and I don't understand the system at all.
Still waiting to get tests needed for years now.

One thing they found that wasn't being looked for was Vitamin D deficiency, something with serious long term consequences.
Would have been nice to find that sooner.

If I ever qualify for the drug discount, they give them to you a month at a time, making it cost more to go get the drugs every month than you save.
Cute, huh?

[lurker]

My help will see to it that he's not standing in line behind some idiot with hay fever dying in an overcrowded inner city ER--he'll have his own doctor.

And I'm not compassionate--olr conservative. I'm selfish. I prefer burners--even ones that only burn on the eplaya--stay alive. I like BRC as a template for the future, jkishe, and without a population it ain't much of a template.

Hell, I'd do the same for you--even AFTER you voted to let Obama deny you care in favor of more useful citizens.

Look me up when the medical black market gets going--another great side effect of socialized medicine-- I'll point you towards someone legit.

[lurker]

Obama is just the only choice of the thinking man to put this country back in the right direction.

Creepy, this. I'd say that neither would get this country going in the right direction. Both have severe problems. Both are hugely flawed candidates that are less the result of people choosing them than they are the result of party machinastions.

That's what the thinking man is finding himself facing. The unthinking will bleat in line for Obama or McCain, somehow convinced that one of these is an actaul viable candidate.

But, thank the gods, the Parties love the unthinking.

Me, I unabashedly admit that I'm voting in favor of the gridlock that might buy us the time to find a good candidate. Will I get it? I dunno--you all bleat Obammmma pretty loud, but it can't hurt to try.

just ask Colin Powel--or do you believe he only endorced Obama because he was black?

Sadly, yes. Yes I do. Call it the reverse Bradley effect. There are a lot of thinking people--white and black-- who will be blinded by the possibility of history being made---without considering that the candidate in question is deeply flawed.

[dr.placebo]

Somehow the implication that so many intelligent people are in favor of Obama because they are sheep strikes me as hubristic. I trust my own intellect, but I'm quite open to learning from others based on their arguments.

Hoping for gridlock during this financial meltdown is like hoping for gridlock in 1932. If we get gridlock then a lot of people will go hungry, you betcha.

The notion that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama due to race is unworthy. Why did he previously support the Republicans? Because he was a traitor to his race? It simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

What Colin Powell asserted is that the Republican party has lost its bearings. I agree. Here's the transcript:

http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Po ... VP-Pick-Ca

[Ugly Dougly]

I am an activist in the anti-intellectual movement.

Would you care to join me in my hatred for people who are smarter than me?

[dr.placebo]

Really? Shame that the article you cited offers not one iota of proof of this.

As I read it, my points were in agreement with the Slate article. I did not cite the article as "proof", although the article does reference a number of examples.

I also doubt that people improperly voting has a strong effect. It's not that easy to synthesize significant numbers of imaginary voters these days. It's hard enough to get the real voters to show up.

The effect of voter suppression is both stronger and better documented. The reason that networks hold their predictions until the polls close is precisely because they were blamed for suppressing voter turnout. The networks are also much less likely to call close contests, because they got burned in Florida in 2000. Both trends I view as positive.

Why can the networks call the election with so few votes cast? Exit polls, statistical techniques, and historical voting patterns. Notice that they generally get it right. It's news when then don't.

Anyone doubt that Republicans currently try to suppress voting? Here's another background piece:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... k_the_Vote

[Elderberry]

And yet another in the long line of conservitaves that are now supporting Obama:

Head Strong: McCain fails the big five tests

His aim is untrue in too many areas, so a longtime Republican is voting for Obama.

I've decided.

My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general-election debates.

John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia.

Five considerations have moved me:

Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it's the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and instead invaded Iraq.

No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

Last spring, Obama told me: "It's not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It's that I felt we had a war that we had not finished." Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me last Friday that "the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today" is the FATA.

Economy. We face economic problems that are incomprehensible to most Americans, certainly they are to me. This is a time to covet intellect, and that begins at the top. Jack Bogle, the legendary founder of the Vanguard Group, told me recently that McCain's assertion that the fundamentals of the economy were "strong" was the "stupidest statement of 2008." In light of the unprecedented volatility in the market, who can dispute Bogle's characterization and the lack of understanding that McCain's assessment portends?

VP. I opined here that Sarah Palin demonstrated the capacity to be president in her speech to the Republican convention. Sadly, there has been no further exhibition of her abilities, and she remains an unknown quantity. We are left questioning the judgment of a candidate who bypassed his reported preferred choices, Lieberman and former Gov. Tom Ridge, and instead yielded to the whims of the periphery of his party. With two wars and a crumbling economy, Palin is too big of a risk to be a heartbeat away from a presidency held by a 72-year-old man who has battled melanoma. Advantage Joe Biden.

Opportunity. In a speech delivered on Father's Day, Obama lamented that too many fathers are missing from the lives of too many children and mothers. Look no further than Philadelphia for proof that the nation has a fatherhood problem at the root of its firearms crisis. And no demographic is affected by this confluence of factors like the black community. Among the many elements needed to address this crisis are role models, individuals whom urban youth can aspire to emulate. Little more than a year ago, Charles Barkley told me: "I want young black kids to see Barack on television every day. . . . We need to see more blacks who are intelligent, articulate, and who carry themselves with great dignity." Obama can be that man.

Hope. Wednesday morning will come and an Obama presidency holds the greatest chance for unifying us here at home and restoring our prestige around the globe. The campaigns have foretold the kind of presidency we can expect from each candidate. Last Friday in Lakeville, Minn., McCain himself had to explain to a supporter who was "scared" of an Obama presidency that those fears were unfounded. Another told McCain that Obama was untrustworthy because he is an "Arab." Those exchanges were a predictable byproduct of ads against Obama featuring tag lines such as "Too Risky for America" and "Dangerous," and a failure to rein in individuals at McCain events who highlighted Obama's middle name, all against a background of Internet lore.

Last Saturday at Progress Plaza, I heard Obama say: "The American people aren't looking for somebody to divide this country; the American people are looking for someone to lead this country."

Along with numerous other respected CONSERVATIVE COLUMISTS, and endorsements from more newspapers than any other candidate has ever recieved.

Hell, even the son of the founding father of the National Review was kicked off the magazine for endorsing Obama.

JK

[lurker]

Somehow the implication that so many intelligent people are in favor of Obama because they are sheep strikes me as hubristic. I trust my own intellect, but I'm quite open to learning from others based on their arguments.

It is not hubris to call the bleating sheep bleating sheep. It IS hubris to suggest that because people who agree with your biases will vote the say way that you do those biases are the hallmark of 'thinking' or intelligent' peoples.

Your political biases are your own. The fact that many of the policies that you endorse have been proven not to work in the real world while you still hold to them, as do many of those that will vote with you, does not lend creedence to the idea that you--or they--are the 'thinking people'.

But neither do I suggest that makes you stupid, or a neanderthal, merely misguided by glittering lies.

Hoping for gridlock during this financial meltdown is like hoping for gridlock in 1932. If we get gridlock then a lot of people will go hungry, you betcha.

So far, government help has not helped. Why would more of it prove any more effective?

The notion that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama due to race is unworthy. Why did he previously support the Republicans? Because he was a traitor to his race? It simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

Powell has always been a moderate Republican. So, even ideologically, endorsing Obama isn't that much of a stretch.

But I'm confused, how could voting for white liberal Democrats make him any less of a traitor to his RACE than voting for white Republicans? Why would you refer to his previous stance as race treason at all?

This is the first time we've had a black candidate for the Presidency, this is the only time he could have had race as a motivation for his endorsement.

What Colin Powell asserted is that the Republican party has lost its bearings. I agree.

I agree as well. We're all one big wad of agreement on that. But Obama will not help the Republicans. So Powell has simply moved to a philosophy he feels more comfortable with.....or he's voting for the brother because he wants to. Does it matter? We can agree to disagree on this--it has no effect.

I base my point on black reaction that I see all around me--you base yours on........?

Anyone doubt that Republicans currently try to suppress voting? Here's another background piece:

Al Sharpton as a Republican tool---ha. Gerrymadering as vote suppression? And not complaining about when Democrats do it--because they do it as well(another 'it's only bad when Republicans do it' moment). And, of course, the 2000 'voting irregularities' that failed to turn up a single person to make a case in court.

And not a damned thing about actual vote suppression.

[dr.placebo]

I don't believe that thinking people must agree on all issues. I do believe that they should continually examine the evidence around them. They may come to different conclusions, of course, but it is important for them to stay open.

I argue (and vote) the way that I do because of what I see in my surroundings. My early biases were formed, if you want to call them biases, during the Civil Rights Era, and I take those lessons quite seriously. In particular, I believe that government has a role to play in protecting individual rights. I also believe that the government must be set to the task of watching itself, to protect against the tyranny of excessive government. I reluctantly conclude that the Democrats have done a better job in recent years than Republicans on this issue, despite my dislike of certain Democrats and admiration for certain Republicans.

You may think that "many of the policies that you endorse have been proven not to work in the real world while you still hold to them" but I see no reason to think that the policies I support have not worked. I do see that greed and corruption don't work (although a select few may benefit at the expense of many).

Greed is at the heart of the current financial disaster, which has been amplified by the lack of government oversight on our financial institutions. While I blame the R's more than the D's there is plenty of blame to go around at all levels. Letting the market work it out (as some have advised) really is a replay of the Hoover years.

When I rhetorically asked "Why did he previously support the Republicans? Because he was a traitor to his race?" I was trying to point out that most blacks don't think very highly of Republican policies. So by voting contrary to the large majority of blacks Powell could hardly have been accused of voting his race. The race of the candidate may or may not have influenced him, but Colin Powell has presented a reasoned statement about a painful choice. The honorable course is to take him at his word.

I don't think that voter suppression is right when either party stoops to it. What I have said is that the Republicans have used it quite often in recent years, and the article I cited contains:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.

Voter suppression most certainly includes the practice of using selective disenfranchisement, especially when performed by the state for the benefit of a single party.

By the way, have you any evidence that you'd like to advance?

[Elderberry]

And another one--Ken Adelman. What's wrong with this one lurker?
Couldn't be much more of a republican neo-con than this guy.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/g ... colin.html

JK

[theCryptofishist]

The big fraud is voter suppression, not invalid voter registration. Voter suppression works not only by discouraging registration but also in discouraging voter turnout, and in providing inadequate resources at the polls.

My solution is that we refuse to certify any presidential election where less than (for example) 85% of registered voters vote. It should also cut down on negative campagning.

[Simon of the Playa]

it's a moot point. done deal. fait Accompli.C'est fini.

let them wallow in their own muck.


we have important things to do.


like measuring for new drapes in the white house.


la la la la la la la la la i cant hear you.....la la la la la la la la lastill cant hear you.....na na na na na na mmmmmm mmmmmm good.

[Simon of the Playa]

this raises the Hackles on my back like nothing else.


"CULLOWHEE, N.C. – Police at Western Carolina University and wildlife officials were investigating the discovery early Monday of a dead bear cub draped with a pair of Barack Obama campaign signs.

Leila Tvedt, associate vice chancellor for public relations, said Monday night that maintenance workers found the 75-pound bear cub shot to death in front of the school's administration building at the entrance to campus. The Obama yard signs were stapled together and placed over the bear's head, Tvedt said.

The bear had been shot in the head, Tvedt said.

"Western Carolina University deplores the inappropriate behavior that has led to this troubling incident," Tvedt said. "We cannot speculate on the motives of the people involved nor who those people might be. Campus police are cooperating fully with authorities to investigate this matter."

University police called in state Wildlife Resources officials to remove the body and help in the investigation.

Bear season is under way in western North Carolina."


WTF?



that's it, that is IT! i see anything resembling this kind of vicious and horrible activities or the kind of talk we are seeing out of rabid republicans more and more, i'm going to beat that person fucking silly.


you want war? you want RIOTS, go ahead dumb white America, be all that you should'nt be.

A Racist, stupid Nation of sub-Human Honkies.


i hope they find this or these motherfuckers and string them up by their lily white balls.

[goathead]

this raises the Hackles on my back like nothing else.

What? You think your the ONLY PERSON THIS PISSES OFF?
Fuck You.
I don't know anyone this wouldn't OFFEND.

that's it, that is IT! i see anything resembling this kind of vicious and horrible activities or the kind of talk we are seeing out of rabid republicans more and more, i'm going to beat that person fucking silly..

LMAO, coming from YOU, this is fucking precious. Please remind me to use this when your talking shit about anyone. LMAO

i hope they find this or these motherfuckers and string them up by their lily white balls.

What if their balls aren't white?
Personally I don't care what color their balls are.
Nail them to the wall.

[Simon of the Playa]

"What? You think your the ONLY PERSON THIS PISSES OFF?
Fuck You.
I don't know anyone this wouldn't OFFEND."

thats why i posted it......this crosses the line.....WAY OVER THE LINE.

"LMAO, coming from YOU, this is fucking precious. Please remind me to use this when your talking shit about anyone. LMAO "

i talk shit, i dont go out and kill baby elephants.

"What if their balls aren't white? "

unless this is a false flag operation, i can with most certainty, assume that they are.

"Personally I don't care what color their balls are.
Nail them to the wall."

damn straight goat-head, damn straight.

[goathead]

thats why i posted it......this crosses the line.....WAY OVER THE LINE.

Wonder if there is a Wine Bistro involved?
Doc been out "clubbing" again?

unless this is a false flag operation, i can with most certainty, assume that they are.

No idea, hope they catch the fuckers though.

damn straight goat-head, damn straight.

There are those times and places we do agree.

[Simon of the Playa]

indeed.

Im quite certain that strange ground we hold in the nether regions between left and right, also known as "the third way" is the best place to be.

the playa is also one of those places where black meets white and they make a HELLUVA good dirty martini together.

[lurker]

I don't believe that thinking people must agree on all issues. I do believe that they should continually examine the evidence around them. They may come to different conclusions, of course, but it is important for them to stay open.

It is good that you say this, but, I must confess, I do not see you acting on it.

I believe that government has a role to play in protecting individual rights.

And yet the policies you appear to support are, to my view, detrimental to those rights.

I also believe that the government must be set to the task of watching itself, to protect against the tyranny of excessive government. I reluctantly conclude that the Democrats have done a better job in recent years than Republicans on this issue,

Neither party has been working against the tyranny of excessive government--and the caterwauling we've heard from Democrats is merely due to the excesses not being their own.

In addition, some of the things they purport to be against will be quietly kept--do you really think the Democrats will give up domestic surveillence when they have the reins?

despite my dislike of certain Democrats and admiration for certain Republicans.

It would be interesting to actually see you praise someone who's not on the left.....?

You may think that "many of the policies that you endorse have been proven not to work in the real world while you still hold to them" but I see no reason to think that the policies I support have not worked. I do see that greed and corruption don't work (although a select few may benefit at the expense of many).

Greed can work. Call it aspiration, call it seeking security. It's only 'greed' when you don't like the person who's amassing wealth.

And are you REALLY against corruption? Then speak out against those in government who profitted from the housing mess they helped create. Will you speak out against Dodd, Obama and Frank? Can you admit that Bush tried to do something about the looming housing crisis within months of entering office? Can you admit that McCain tried to do something--even co-sponsoring legislation(however tardily)--that Democrats allowed to die?

I don't think you can.

Greed is at the heart of the current financial disaster, which has been amplified by the lack of government oversight on our financial institutions.

Social engineering is at the heart of this crisis--greed came later to the feast. And there is video and legislation that shows who wanted MORE regulation and who said that there was no problem. And blame does NOT rest squarely on the Rs

When I rhetorically asked "Why did he previously support the Republicans? Because he was a traitor to his race?" I was trying to point out that most blacks don't think very highly of Republican policies. So by voting contrary to the large majority of blacks Powell could hardly have been accused of voting his race. The race of the candidate may or may not have influenced him, but Colin Powell has presented a reasoned statement about a painful choice. The honorable course is to take him at his word.

Most blacks think VERY highly of Republican policies--when they're not presented as 'Republican'--particularly the so-con issues. Sadly, most blacks never seem to realise that with Democrats it's always 'jam tomorrow'. You'd think that calling an ex-Klan recruiter the 'Conscience of the Senate' would clue them in.

Colin Powell has moderate Republican stances--as I stated. John McCain also has moderate stances(which is why conservatives loathe the man). McCain and Powell are much more politically in sync--based on past actions--than Powell and Obama. Obama has zero Republican stances--moderate or otherwise. Why would a moderate Republican vote for a quasi-socialist? Even given the problems in his own party--why would a moderate Republican leap over the center, the center-left, and into the far left? Is there some other issue of commonality? Why yes, there is.

Honor doesn't enter into it. I am simply assessing his actions, in the past and now. I can see no other reason, based on Powell himself, why he would make that leap.

I don't think that voter suppression is right when either party stoops to it. What I have said is that the Republicans have used it quite often in recent years, and the article I cited contains:
Quote:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.

Come on. Do you not see the massive asininity on display here? Ballots were disqualified. Pieces of paper. How did the machines and people doing the disqualifying know the race of the holes punched in the ballot? Did they smell like fried chicken? How can you read that and just blithely accept that, somehow, the disqualifiers knew that they were getting rid of those pesky black votes just by looking at a piece of paper?

And the human ballot readers were evenly apportioned--not to mention the fact that any questionable ballot went to a review board of two D and two R reviewers.

And none of them could see the race of the person who punched the ballot either.

Here's good example of invented racism. A bunch of the ballots rejected were those of black people--clearly racism--BUT, no one knew the race of the voters in question...so...that means that a bunch of black voters screwed up their ballots--hey! that's racist! Are you saying that black people don't know how to vote?. No. But the ballots are saying just that. Not the machines, not the ballot counters. The ballots.

A bunch of black people screwed up their ballots. Simple fact. And one easily exploited to be made into de facto 'racism'.

Voter suppression most certainly includes the practice of using selective disenfranchisement, especially when performed by the state for the benefit of a single party.

Can the person vote? Then they've not lost the franchise. Did politiciand redraw their districts for reasons of their own? Too bad. The PEOPLE voted to allow that. Crap situation. But until the people vote to fix it, it's perfectly legal.

By the way, have you any evidence that you'd like to advance?/quote]

I have posted vids, cited articles and posted till my fingers bleed. And it all gets ignored. As I've said, you all seem to gloss over anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

But, here's a bit on the financial stuff from a writer I like--if you can find an mp3 of his 'Secular Humanist Revival' you'll see that he talks as good as he writes

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

[dr.placebo]

Lurker, we will not get anywhere this way. I lay claim to an open mind and you insist that it is closed, simply because you don't like what I'm saying.

If I praised any of the right-leaning folks who have endorsed Obama before their endorsement you might have agreed with me. Now you sneer at them. Might I suggest that they don't think that they have changed?

Competition works. Honest ambition works. Greed does not work, because it makes people cut corners, to cheat others, to break laws, and to violate the social compact. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I don't think that I would personally like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and I don't think that they have been uniformly honorable, but at least they have built things. The same cannot be said for the bankers and brokers who kept feeding unreasonable mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, and created an unauditable mess through derivatives.

You are partly right about Freddie and Fannie, but you ignore the bipartisan nature of the beast. You also ignore all of the deregulation that the R's (and McCain) pushed for in the banking and financial sectors aside from Freddie and Fannie.

Sure, some blacks like some R policies (I'm quite skeptical about "most" blacks liking R policies in general), but it is the embrace of the old segregationist South that became the lynchpin of the R strategy, and continues to this day. Look at an electoral map. Or look at the haters at a Palin rally.

You don't like what the USCCR said. That does not make it wrong, and you've advanced nothing but a suggestion that the ballots prove that blacks can't handle voting. Which is suspiciously clustered in Florida, but not many other states. Try another explanation, because I'm not buying the notion that Florida blacks are so different.

You don't like what Colin Powell had to say, so you say he was motivated by race, and see no other explanation, despite a reasoned and lengthy speech by Powell. You insist that Obama is a quasi-socialist, when others claim that he is a pragmatist.

I've posted links to articles by respected people from the New York Times, the National Review, the New Yorker, Slate, the Washington Post, the American Conservative, the USCCR, and other sources. You've answered with a post from a science fiction writer in a Mormon magazine. Some of the points are fair, but the article ignored evidence against the R side, much of which has already been covered by previous posts. In other words, the kind of unbalanced reporting that the article rails against.

Once again I lay claim to an open mind and the use of self examination. If I am wrong about Obama and the D's and they keep all of the illegal power amassed by the Bushies then I will oppose them. If they turn around and use torture I will say that I was wrong. If they don't attack the deficit then I will criticize them. Hell, I could even vote R.

The closing quote today is from Oliver Cromwell:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

[Simon of the Playa]

for once, i shall try to skate the razor's edge. (the original, with tyrone power, not the remake.)

today, right now actually, if you got to Google This :

"Yahoo slashes 10% of workforce"

is the top story..


on Yahoo, there is no mention of it.

it seems obvious, but isnt this a whole POV thing.

im glad there are so many different perspectives, even if idont like some of them, and i'll admit, my lenses are colored the way i want them to be.

mauve.

[gyre]

I would have thought lilac.

[littleflower]

god i love your posts, simon... this one even more than most ...

you even have me rooting for buffalo...

hopefully i won't jinx them.