Comments Posted By obamathered
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 152 Comments
WARMING ADVOCATES: 'REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!
The problem, busboy, was the formulation of public policy before AGW was proved and data and models could back that up. It isn't illogical--quite the contrary--to assume public policy preferences drove the science rather than the reverse. So the predetermination from the "pro" side is suspect because it had motives beyond scientific inquiry. The emails certainly don't "disprove" AGW, but they demonstrate it hasn't been "proved" even though policy decisions have been made as if that were the case.
This scandal will be huge; the unfortunate aspect is science has been undermined to a degree we cannot fathom.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 27.11.2009 @ 15:54
It is a faith-based religion now, Rick. Reason has little influence with AGW advocates.
The tragic part is how editors of peer-reviewed journals were cowed. I don't know how this will shake out, but these vital science organs have been severely wounded.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 27.11.2009 @ 12:03
THINKING IMPURE THOUGHTS IS MORE THAN A MORTAL SIN IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN
I am sticking to facts. I did forget about Gov. Bob Casey's keynote address to the Democratic Convention, though...oh, wait. I do admit it was opinion you would have raised hell if Sotomayor was pro-life, but I stick by it.
We'll blow you away in 2010 so I'm not too concerned about immediate politics. Loons are at our margins. They are your president and congressional leaders. We don't have to make up faces to attach to you guys. Their grotesque visages haunt the tube.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 17:39
It's damn near irrational than the disproved theory of AGW, Michael. Both require willful blindness and self-imposed ignorance. Hell, some folks believe in both these imaginary friends.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 17:18
You don't even believe that Sotomayor won't follow the party line, Richard, because you would be raising hell otherwise.
H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 17:14
No doubt, Richard, all those pro-choice judicial nominees the Democrats put forth with Harry Reid's blessing...oh, wait...
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 16:41
Next thing you know, the Democrats will have litmus tests for pro-life members and such. Oh, wait...
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 11:15
'THE COST OF DYING:' FALSE CHOICES OR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE?
Interesting, Michael, that you wrote private industry is more likely than government to kill grandma. I agree. And government is more likely to kill junior than grandma for the reasons I wrote previously. I believe you agreed there.
Anyone who thinks there will be any degree of altruism or even rationality from either private concerns (MooseR, Jackson1234) or the government (you, Marge) is deluded. Until I hear someone explain how the status quo will improve with a government takeover I'll pass on that option. The actual problem is the uninsured and underinsured, and that should be the focus rather than blind trust the healthcare industry will become Santa or a federal-run, single-payer system will be any less of a political hack job fuck up than Medicare is.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.11.2009 @ 16:54
I didn't see you addressed the point before I posted, Michael. I largely agree.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 23.11.2009 @ 17:37
Interesting comments all.
Michael, do you also want a politican who knows he won't get your vote to make your health care rationing decision? You can rest assured that it also will be "profit," i.e., political support, that drives all rationing decisions (it does today; Medicare cuts for the elderly in their end of life are non-existent while Medicaid cuts for productive citizens are much more routine largely due to the influence of the AARP and the political awareness of older voters). My guess is the quest for power will even trump the Almighty Dollar--to the extent there is any difference between the two--in such decisions.
And isn't it telling that even before we know whether there will be a healthcare bill the discussion immediately proceeds to rationing? Palin's "death panel" remark suddenly doesn't seem as hyperbolic as it did way back when it was made--July, I think.
My biggest concern will be when pols decide the liver transplant for a five year old is more important than a knee replacement for a 40 year old laborer because the kid's parents donate to Party or Person X. Obviously there is rationing now and will be in the future, and there needs to be limits to end of life care, but the thought that raw political calculations and opportunism will inform healthcare decisions scares the shit out of me.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 23.11.2009 @ 17:35
