Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it seems that it's only ok to talk about Sarah Palin's family if your facebook-soapbox-comment-du-jour can exploit them for political gain. Otherwise, her children are off limits!
I don't care for Olbermann, but I thought his metaphorical comparison of Palin with Michael Jackson's dangling of the baby off the balcony was right on.
I don't care for Olbermann, but I thought his metaphorical comparison of Palin with Michael Jackson's dangling of the baby off the balcony was right on.
He gets on my nerves, too. But he's usually right on the money. The thing is that the people who need to hear it have stuffed cotton in their ears. They are constitutionally immune to anything that doesn't come out of the mouths of FOX shills. Or hired internet shills (blogs, forums, etc.). In short, they are a searing indictment of the failure of our educational system.
He gets on my nerves, too. But he's usually right on the money. The thing is that the people who need to hear it have stuffed cotton in their ears. They are constitutionally immune to anything that doesn't come out of the mouths of FOX shills. Or hired internet shills (blogs, forums, etc.). In short, they are a searing indictment of the failure of our educational system.
Part of the problem when you try to get something so extensive passed in such a short time. The bill needed to be much less extensive, so the public can have a concise understanding of what is proposed. When you propose something so extensive, you allow others to do the interpretation.
Seems that a lot of the problems are brought on by the rather odd process being used to propose such a complex program. The lack of clarity certainly invites the type of dialogue taking place today. Debating sentiments is always legitimate, but in this case we have folks presenting competing "facts".
Frankly, even if Obama wins the issue, I can see extensive party risk in the 2010 elections. Stuff Pelosi is saying about the protests, plus the private airplane issue they recently proposed within the DoD budget, is providing a lot of potential soundbites for the next elections.
She already had a full family that she couldn't properly take care of because of her ambition. She knew the danger of having a special needs child at her age and yet she again pushed the envelope.
Men don't realize just how egotistical women can be. How many peoples lives is she going to ruin with her ego?
I would respect her more if she would devote herself to making the life of her youngest child the best it could possibly be. He needs her much more than the American people.
Interesting thing is that according to the proposal, there is no death panel. You are FAR more likely to have a problem like that now with private insurance unwilling to pay for treatment.
I know a woman now who had a liver transplant at 13, she is now in her 30s and needs a kidney transplant. She is on dyalisys daily now. The insurance company is going to kill her in the end. This would not happen if we had socialized medicine, she would get her new kidney. The way the UK system is set up, she might have to go to a certain hospital but she would get it.
At least some Republicans are calling Palin out on her blatant lies.
"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
At least some Republicans are calling Palin out on her blatant lies.
"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
They have some history though, with Palin defeating her dad, Frank Murkowski, the incumbent governor.
Meanwhile, Murkowski didn't exactly replace Palin's statement with a ringing endorsement, so don't get all giddy there:
"I'll be honest with you," Murkowski said. "There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up."
Who said that Murkowski made a ringing endorsement of the health care bill? I certainly didn't convey that in my post.
And does Palin have a history with Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson, who said this of Palin's "death panel" comment:
"I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts."
Last edited by helenejen; 08-12-2009 at 06:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
