This is a truly idiotic statement. If the government is in control of health care decisions then it stands to reason that someone whether it be a board, panel, or other such body will also be making the decisions as to when it is no longer economical to continue to pay to keep someone alive. Perhaps simple logical reasoning is beyond your capability.

I also agree that such things are already in place via insurance companies. If reform is truly needed that is where it should be directed. Far too often insurance companies either refuse to pay for care or cancel a policy to get out of paying for care. If the premiums are paid they should be forced to pay up for the care. I would go along with that completely. I just don't think the government should be running the thing outright as they have a track record for screwing things up completely.

Yes, Palin's statements about "death panels" are hyperbole, but they do address a serious concern (one of many) with government run health care. Believe me, I would love to not have to pay for health insurance any more, but I sure as hell don't trust those idiots in Washington with my personal health care. I don't care which side of the aisle they are on, I don't trust any of them.

I'm not a big Palin fan, but she does garner a large potion of my respect. A woman that has hunted for food, raised a family and still has a career. Those womans movement phonies, that seem to only represent women on the left, can't hold a candle to what she has accomplished in her life so far. She isn't some ambulance chase or married herself into a political career like many of the others, both right and left. It's so easy to label her as backward or unintelligent, that what elitists do best. No one is their mental equal. The left is responsible for creating her in her present form. They hounded her relentlessly, filing frivolous lawsuits, and the whole thing backfired on them. I suppose it would have worked on a weaker woman. My thanks to the left for showing all women what they really think of women that don't support them 100%. 

BTW Mason, I don't often see you comment much on these types of issues. This one must have touched a nerve on some level. Kind of cool to see your post(s) here.  

 

Not at all, I actually couldn't care less. I am just holed up in a hotel over the holiday and fending off boredom. The truth is that I think both the far left and far right are two sides of the same loony coin.

Ah!  But what is your definition of the far left and the far right?

I wouldn't cite LGF as a credible source anymore than I would the Democratic underground... both are filled with crackpot hackery and would have to be backed up by more credible sources.

I provided links to back up my opinion.

People here dismissed them simply by claiming that they don't accept LGF as a source of facts.

There is nothing I can do about that.

 

Now you see why I find the same logic questionable when Palin uses it. But anyway, I was replying to the argument that the law doesn't specifically rule out death panels. And why would it? The authors of the law didn't intend to create death panels and hence probably saw little need to rule them out specifically. Who would have foreseen that some loonie would make them up?

 

According to the majority of conservatives here on JU it never was, until I contradicted them here. Make of that what you will.

 

Well, I would.

As I said LGF always gives links and facts to back up the claims the site makes and Charles Johnson became famous for uncovering Dan Rather's lies as well as the doctored photographs from Lebanon.

To claim that LGF is specifically known for not providing facts after the site became famous for uncovering Dan Rather's lies is just ridiculous.

Plus I notice that none of you even addressed anything LGF said or linked to.

You just said LGF doesn't provide facts and were then unimpressed by the links I gave and never addressed a single one of them.

That's behaviour I have rarely seen even from the liberals here on JU. Coming from more than one person I think it was a first.

 

I see.

_I_ have to provide justification.

For what? What did I say? What do you want me to justify? Quite the statement of mine and I'll justify it.

 

Is this about my arguing that moderates won't vote for Palin? I don't have statistics or facts about that. I said it was what I believe. But I would bet on it.

 

I don't like Sarah Palin because she is turning into a moron.

The death panel story is just one of the problems. The other is her support for Creationism and her flip-flopping about global warming. She is clearly forming her opinions around what her supporters want her to believe, not what she knows.

A little over a year ago she seemed reasonably smart. Since then she descended into lunacy.

And you can believe this or not but I am pretty sure this is how pretty much everyone left of me thinks about her. And from that it is easy to deduce that she probably won't attract votes from any group beyond the group that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

Whenever one part is in power it seems the other party descends unto lunacy.

And for the record, I like senator John McCain because he personifies the values that I regard as important: he was in the military, did not make use of special privileges to abandon his comrades, his sons fight in Iraq, he and his wife adopted orphans and he is generally against abortion. He criticises the religious right but is himself a believing Christian and believes that the US were founded on ultimately Christian values.

I found that impressive and it exactly represents my beliefs. Call that "moderate to left leaning" if you will, but that's my opinion.

 

Anyone proposes an objective method to count how many facts a blog links to?

I bet if we use a metric that doesn't allow for simply ignoring or disregarding links to articles LGF would win against most blogs.

 

That would make Glen Beck a genius, with Van Jones and Acorn under his belt.

NO Leauki, you provided a link to a statement (not backed up with any documentation) on LGF that agreed with CNN that Palin's statement was the biggest lie.  There was no corroborating evidence other than personal opinion.  Again, you can link to opinions all day, but that does not make your opinion more valid (or the lack of links to opinions make it less valid).

No you do not have to justify your opinion.  But I guess I expect to see some rationale from you (not from most) when you state a strong opinion.  I just assumed you had some justification for it beyond the biased rhetoric (mostly misleading and false) found in the press (both domestic and abroad).  You do not have to justify anything.  But I had come to expect a reasoned analysis from you when you did come to a strong opinion.

No, this was just again a reference to your strong opinion about how bad Palin is.  As for moderates, look how many voted for Obama, and contrary to what you hear in the MSM, he is as close to a marxist as the governing laws of this nation will allow.  INdeed, to call him a socialist is accurate, but you will not find that in the press.

Ok, the death panels are a short hand way of describing "Committee to Decide End of Life Care Eligibility", but if you want to believe she said that the term "death Panels" was literally in the legislation, then no amount of arguing will sway you since you will never find the source for that belief.

ON Global warming, her stand has not changed.  She is a skeptic.  Always has been.  As am I.  I guess to some that makes us evil and reprehensible, but I am more a scientist than apparently most of the faithful are on that subject.

But a skeptic is not some ignoramus.  We see an hypothesis that could have merit, but needs testing.  We also see a lot of attempts to silence any doubters and (as has been demonstarted in East Anglia) attempts to "cook the books" to prove a point instead of doing real science and studying what is happening.

And creationism? It is part of her faith, but not her mandate.  Yes, I am aware you have read where she was pushing it to be taught, but the sad fact is she never did.  A little research would show you that.  I do not believe you agree with her on any of these issues (and I dont agree with her belief of creationism), but those are not her politics or policies. 

And this is what I was asking (apparently in several different ways) of why you are so fearful of her.  Again, you do not have to prove anything to me, but you did prove something to me.

If you are representative of most of the educated of the rest of the world, I can readily see why they fear anyone not endorsed by the american MSM and love anyone who is.  WHile the US is weaning itself from teh MSM due to the blatant and in many cases slanderous bias, the rest of the world still has not grown beyond believing what they read, hook line and sinker.

In a way it is kind of funny.  The liberals here look to the rest of the world for their affirmation (as you saw from his deeds, Bush was nothing like what the MSM portrayed him as) of their actions.  By writing the copy the MSM prints and is used to form the opinions of those abroad, they are just looking at their own reflection.

I don't remember Glen Beck ever exposing a media lie.

And by "exposing" I mean providing evidence that something was a lie, not just providing an alternative opinion.

 

You obviously didn't follow the links LGF listed.

One linked to an article explaining what Palin said and explaining why it was wrong.

CNN had nothing to do with it.




You can call it an opinion, if you like. But the article LGF linked to nevertheless explained why Palin's statement was a lie.




In that case I have to disappoint you, going back to since we first met here.

I always based my opinions on information I got and very often that information came from LGF, just as it did this time.

X says something, LGF claims it is wrong, LGS links to a source that proves that X was wrong. That's how it always worked.

Only suddenly, now that X is Sarah Palin, LGF isn't good enough any more.

When LGF uncovered lies about George Bush, Charles was a hero.

But suddenly, when he uncovers (or rather in this case links to people who uncover) lies of Sarah Palin his word (and his sources) become mere "opinion" and LGF is suddenly known for never providing any facts (as some implied here).




Non sequitur. I didn't say this was about the word "death panel" being in the law.

The point is (and was) that there is nothing in the bill that corresponds to any image of a "death panel", regardless of what it is called.

This was explained in the report (sorry: "opinion") LGF linked to and is also explained here:

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

(Why is anything LGF links to an "opinion" while Sarah's opinions are apparently facts that must be disproven rather than backed up by anything?)





Her stance has changed:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-on.html

I also remember (but cannot find now) what she (or somebody working for her) wrote about global warming in the past when she was still a decent governor of Alaska.

She was worried about global warming and understood the dangers. But now she joined ranks with those whose votes she needs soon.




I didn't say anything about either position being right or wrong. I just said that she changed her stance. And I am not the only saying that as the LA Times piece above indicates.




http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

And in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

I don't want children in secular schools being taught the "debate" between science and (one) religion. I certainly wouldn't want my children to be taught specific Christian anything in state schools.

A little research goes a long way. And she did say she wants it taught, in 2006.

Now, I like and respect her stance on abortion. And I admire any Christian who actually goes to church. But I don't want their religion to be taught as it it were fact. And I don't want any religion to be taught as an equivalent to scientific theory.




I already told you why I am fearful of her. I fear her because she destroys the Republican's chances to win the presidency. She doesn't convince anyone on the left to vote for her and many Republican voters turn away from the party because of her.

Liberals are not afraid of her, but not at all. They laugh at her. I know. I work with liberals. The idea that liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin is a legend that keeps Sarah's myth alive. In reality the left could wish for nothing better than for Palin to become the top conservative in the business.

That's your opinion.  You may not like the imagery, but it is an opinion.

I'm not surprised that liberals laugh at those who disagree with them.  It's what they do.

IN their opinion.  It was all circular logic, trying to pin something on her that was stated as an opinion, and was accurate within the context of paraphrasing.  I read them all.  Just because I did not fall for the big lie, does not mean I did not read it, only that I do not agree with it,  As I state, the wording in the bills was more eloquent than "Death Panels", but the end result was the same.

Again, not by name, but by intent, yes there is.  And again, I have nothing against LGF.  But this is a case where it is opinion, not fact.  In his opinion, he does not like the term.  In mine, I do.  It is all about opinions, because the facts are as I stated.  If you want to call them committees or panels, and the qualifiers are irrelevant except for incinderary purposes.

Here is where I get embarrased by your bias.  Just above this link, you linked to factcheck,org.  Then you post a clearly partisan cheap shot instead of the truth which is on the same site (factcheck!). http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

There is nothing wrong with debating both, but that apparently is "ramming it down" to the ones that WANT to believe it.  I am sure you are shocked to know that Bush believed the same thing,

Oh, and I would suggest you re-read the LA Crimes link.  Clearly while she is a politician (I never claimed otherwise), she made sure her answers were ambigous enough to allow for them to be the same position.  And my whole going on about AGW was to show that skeptics are not the cro-magnons they are made out to be, and do leave open the possibility that AGW is real - but not with the voodoo that is being foisted upon us.  That is clearly why she was equivocating to what apparently was an attempt to pin her down.

They laugh on the outside and cringe on the inside.  You just have to ask yourself why they would spend so much time trying to destroy her (with some success as you demonstrate with your own bias), if she was not a threat.  Do you see them doing that to David Duke?  He is laughable, yet they pretty much ignore him (the only time he is mentioned is to link someone to him).

Why defeat an enemy that is no threat?  You best of all know that is a losing strategy.  So she is a threat, or they would not be trying to defeat her.