Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Miscellaneous 104

1) Have you ever considered as to why President Obama and others in his administration (a fellow by the name of Rham Emanuel comes to mind) gave up so easily on the "public-option", and why they didn't even consider a single-payer approach? I think that I might have the answer for you. According to opensecrets.org, back in 2008, then candidate Obama received 3 times as much money as his opponent, Mr.McCain, from HMOs, 3 1/2 times as much from pharmaceutical giants, and 4 times as much from hospitals and nursing homes. Yes, folks, it was payback - pure and simple payback.............2) Of course, the more penetrating question here is, where in the hell was the media on this? I mean, you've got this candidate who's absolutely eviscerating the health-care industry and, at the same time, filling his coffers with money from them. This did not in any way seem peculiar? It's like, seriously, were they THAT in frigging love with the fellow?............3) After two consecutive piss-poor performances, is it now safe to say that Mr. Gingrich is officially toast? I mean, he certainly isn't going to run simply out of spite and vengefulness is he? IS HE?............4) WHAT WAS HALEY BARBOUR THINKING? I mean, did he really think that pardoning 17 convicted murderers wasn't going to make it in the news or something? Uh, duh! Of course, the fact that this asshole is going straight back in lobbying......

23 comments:

Rusty Shackelford said...

Comments:

1. Why be surprised by this? Quite a few of us knew he was a B.S.artist.Just another Chicago politician,nothing more,nothing less.

2. The big crime by the media was never vetting this guy.He went untouched,while they threw all the mud they had at Hillary.A little bit of "white guilt" did'nt hurt either.

3. Newt knows this is his last chance.He thought he could become the leader of the party,but too many people remember what a friggin prick and low life he was.He's become Obamas best staff member with the vile he's spilling.For a smart guy,he sure is dumb.

4. I still cant believe Barbour did this.Maybe he has a drinking problem and was in his cups when he gave this order.The state Attorney General (gasp,a dem)is trying to put a halt to this maddness.Can anyone say Willie Horton? Barbour's political life just ended.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

One of the reasons that Mr. Barbour gave for this move was that he wanted to restore their right to hunt. TO HUNT!!

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: I think that I might have the answer for you. ...Yes, folks, it was payback - pure and simple payback.

No, folks, what we have here is more mindless Obama bashing from Will (no surprise). Obama's throwing single payer and the public option under the bus so early in the process wasn't "payback - pure and simple payback".

It was a political calculation. The Obama administration did what they thought they needed to do to win. Keep in mind they succeeded where Clinton failed. His base (me included) was upset and still is... but this wasn't "payback".

It's how our political system operates. And for this, I blame the Republicans. Big money gets what it wants. Not entirely, as the Democrats are still fighting the good fight on behalf of American people, but even they could only do so within limitations.

Don't forget that the Conservative SCOTS judges made this situation that much worse with their fascist "Citizens United" ruling.

This is why we need Public financing of elections.

Rusty, as usual, is full of shit. Obama is playing the Conservative game of giving big money what it wants... What upsets Conservatives like Rusty SOOOOO much is that he bested them at it.

Obama 2012... he's the candidate that sucks far, far less then the Republican.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

w-dervish: Obama is playing the Conservative game of giving big money what it wants...

Let me clarify: he's giving them some of what they want. This explains all the compromised legislation we've been getting.

He's still a Democrat and trying to do the best job he can for the American people (those in the 99 percent)... within the limitations that come along with playing the game of courting big money.

While this sickens me, it's a far cry from "payback". Will thinks it's "pure and simple"... obviously he doesn't get nuance.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD go wash your mouth out with soap right this minute."Rusty,as usual,is full of shit."

Why the anger when we point out how wrong you usually are?You should accept our comments as a learning tool...it could be helpful to you.

You need to develop a thicker skin,dont take it so personal when someone says someting negative about Dear Leader.

As a president he's a very good community organizer.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, wd, Obama gets a gazillion dollars and the insurance and drug companies get exactly what they want and you don't have any suspicions about that? Christ almighty, if the Republicans had ever served up a money trail like this, you'd be foaming at the frigging mouth. And, besides, one of the reasons that Mr. Obama had to make this political "calculation" was because a crap-load of other Democratic politicians are also receiving big money from these very same contributors!! DUH! This whole scpeel about only Republicans being crony capitalists is complete and utter bullshit. And man are you one gullible stooge.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And I will not be lectured to by a simpleton on the niceties of nuance. You've never said a frigging nuanced thing in your entire frigging life. Compared to you, 1970s wrestling is Dostoevsky and Turgenev (you've probably never read a page of either, have you?) and your partisanship is equally shameful. Obama speaks out for single payer early in his career and then he starts running for higher office and magically he starts pulling away from it AND, according to you, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that he outgained McCain 3-4 to 1 from corporate America. I mean, seriously, what kind of an absolutely idiotic world do you live in? My frigging God!

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Obama speaks out for single payer early in his career and then he starts running for higher office and magically he starts pulling away from it...

Every politician does this! When they campaign they speechify about what they'd like to accomplish in an ideal world... and when elected they settle for what is possible in the real world.

This should be common knowledge to any follower of politics. But Will doesn't seem to understand this... and I'm the simpleton?

Will: This whole spiel about only Republicans being crony capitalists is complete and utter bullshit.

That may be true, but I don't know why you're telling me. Sounds like you think I've made that case or something.

I think more Republicans are guilty of it though. And I don't think Barack Obama is guilty of it (it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be). But I didn't make the blanket statement you're implying I did.

dmarks: I'm waiting for them to start this, actually. ...pushing for such outrageous efforts as this attempt to abolish secret ballot rights in union elections.

This is a major part of how the Democrats are fighting for the working American... by making it easier for them to join unions. My big complaint is that they haven't pushed this hard enough. The Employee Free Choice Act should have been near the top of President Obama's agenda from day one.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Let me rephrase what I said, because I want to be fair. I don't know if what Obama did was payback or not because I can't read his mind. But there are certainly more than enough dots to connect (Rachel Maddow has made accusations on a lot less data than this) to at least be cynical. I mean wd, we're talking 3-4 to 1 the donations to Obama over McCain from big pharma, hospitals, etc........And it wasn't just the healthcare bill. A clean coal plant from Obama's own state got a 2 plus BILLION dollar slice of the stimulus package, an operation that once had associations to Dick frigging Cheney of all folks.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, the Republicans have had a lot of bad ideas over the years. I WILL GIVE YOU THAT. But this whole card-check legislation is a bad one on the Democrats' side. Card check makes it so much easier for the unions to pressure people into joining who normally wouldn't. Back when they tried to start a union at our place most of the people who signed those cards did so just to get these bozos off their backs. And, yes, that became even more apparent at the election when the union was being back decidedly. We absolutely have to keep the secret ballot alive, IMO. I'm definitely with dmarks on this one.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

So, how do you find out if people want a union? Right now people sign cards and if 30 percent say, "I want a union", then an election is held. People right now could be "pressured".

It sounds to me like you want to outlaw unions altogether. If the card signing process is done away with, then how the hell do you ever prove enough people want a union (and therefore an election should be held)???

Under current law if 30 percent of the employees sign the card then an election is held. Under the Employee Free Choice Act if 50 percent or more employees sign the card then there is a union automatically. I see nothing wrong with this. I FULLY support it.

Frankly, I think this "secret ballot" BS is just a way for the union haters to throw up more roadblocks to stop unionization. In fact, I'm sure of it.

FYI, under the employee free choice act, "the employer never sees the authorization cards or any information that would disclose how individual employees voted".

The Employers are the individuals the vote needs to be kept secret from, because they are the only ones who are actually able to exert pressure (by threatening to fire, or make it difficult for employees who vote yes).

Union organizers aren't able to exert any real pressure (beyond just being annoying). The unionizers have absolutely no leverage to get people to sign the cards.

So, regarding these people who might be "pressured" into joining when they don't want to join... I just don't care about these weak-willed morons who can't say no when they mean no.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, they're "weak-willed morons" when they capitulate to union pressure but defenseless victims when they succumb to management? Come on, wd, you gotta have a secret ballot, for Christ.......You've never really had to deal with unions, have you?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Come on, wd, you gotta have a secret ballot...

The process is secret. It's secret now and would continue to be secret under The employee free choice act. The law says, "the employer never sees the authorization cards or any information that would disclose how individual employees voted".

Sounds like the info is being kept secret from the right people (the employers) to me.

Will: So, they're "weak-willed morons" when they capitulate to union pressure but defenseless victims when they succumb to management?

Yes, you've got it exactly right. btw, you didn't answer my question... If we do away with the card signing altogether (because weak-willed morons might be "pressured"), how do you know when a vote should be held?

dmarks said...

Will: Note that WD is not even requiring a majority. Just 50%. Not even more.

And I bet his rhetoric would be reversed if we asked for card check style voting for workers to get rid of a union.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Your definition of "secret" is extremely flawed, wd. The union folks (they came to my house, wd - you don't go to a person's house) will know which of the "weak-willed morons" that sign and don't sign.............I didn't say that we should do away with the card-signing altogether, just that it shouldn't represent the final vote (this, in that it wouldn't be a secret vote).

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Note that WD is not even requiring a majority. Just 50%. Not even more.

My error, I intended to say more than 50 percent.

The proposed EFCA says, "Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), if the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, the secret ballot election is bypassed and a union is automatically formed".

I support the EFCA. The union is formed automatically if OVER 50 percent sign the card. In other words, democracy rules... contrary to dmarks assertion to the contrary.

dmarks: I bet his rhetoric would be reversed if we asked for card check style voting for workers to get rid of a union.

My rhetoric would be exactly the same. Under the EFCA the "process of union decertification would not change... so an employer can voluntarily reject a union when a majority of employees sign decertification cards or otherwise demonstrate that they no longer want to be represented by a union, or when 30 percent of employees sign a petition to hold a secret ballot election and a majority of participants in the election vote to decertify the union".

dmarks: Make it secret from everyone but the voter, and you have my support.

So, you've changed your mind concerning so-called Right to Work laws?

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: It would be like discussing civil rights in the 1960s and saying "Because you insist that Blacks have the right to eat at the Woolworth lunch counter does this mean you no longer want them to have equal rights in hotel/motel accomodations?

No it isn't. It's like asking, "seeing as you believe African Americans have the right to eat at the Woolworth lunch counter -- does this mean you no longer support the right of hotel/motel owners to discriminate and turn African Americans away?"