Free Forum Friday, December 17 Edition

It’s Free Forum Friday. Get to it.

About Monotreme

Monotreme is an unabashedly liberal dog lover, writer, and former scientist who now teaches at a University in an almost-square state out West somewhere. |
This entry was posted in Free Forum Friday. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Free Forum Friday, December 17 Edition

  1. Bart DePalma says:

    Score two for the Tea Party:

    1) The Dem plan to raise taxes went down.

    2) Even better, the GOP porkmeisters and Dem senators running for reelection were forced to reverse course and vote against the Dem omnibus spending spree with it’s funding of Obamacare.

    If the GOP continues to remember what we sent the there to do over the next two years, we may actually see real reform.

  2. Bart DePalma says:

    Appropriately, the tax bill passed and the spending bill died on the 237rd anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

  3. shortchain says:

    Well, hooray! The millionaires are happy, their children are ecstatic, the Social Security Trust Fund — that I and millions of others paid higher SS taxes for decades to build up — gets plundered, and this country lurches another step in the direction of corporate feudalism.

    That’s certainly “reform” we can all enjoy. Some of us more than others, of course.

    here’s an explanation of conservatism that I found (via Hullabaloo).

  4. Monotreme says:

    Dang new car smell. Made his bumper fall off, too.

    I see they have the same legal theories in Eagle County as political theories in Teller County. I smell somethin’, and it ain’t “new car”.

  5. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “Score two for the Tea Party . . . blather, blather, bart”

    1) There was NO Dem plan to raise taxes. The tax increase was part and parcel of the REPUBLICAN Bush legislation from 2001! It was a REPUBLICAN plan to raise taxes effective 31 December 2010. Quite being so freaking ignorant by writing such. We all know YOU know better.
    1a)The “Tax Bill” that will be signed later today will add almost 900 Billion dollars to the National Debt just over the next two years. For something the Tea Party loved to crow about, the deficits and the Debt, this SURE is a BIG win for them, now ain’t it?

    2) I got USD100 that says the spending bill WILL be passed, AND that even if there ARE additional changes made prior to that passage, it will be within 0.001% of the present dollar amount. Wanna bet, Bart?

  6. filistro says:

    I’ve been busy with various stuff. I’ll be back for good later today or tomorrow… with bells on.

    GROG… you’d better be here!

  7. filistro says:

    How does the dog draw the gun?

  8. shortchain says:


    I’d be more worried about how the dog aims the gun.

  9. Monotreme says:


    With a paintbrush dipped in acrylic, duh.


    Firing the gun without a trigger finger is rather problematic, too.

  10. shortchain says:


    At the risk of sparking a vicious debate (which would shock GROG, I know), you might want to look at this.

  11. Monotreme says:

    Dog owners in Nepal apparently don’t play “dress up” with their dogs, so Roxy’s picture was the source of much amusement amongst the artists.

    As far as dogs in Nepal firing guns, I’m not certain of the statistics. I’ll have to get back to you on that.

  12. Just Sayin' says:

    Dogs don’t have thumbs, no aimin and no firin. Sorry dudes and dudettes.

  13. Monotreme says:

    @Just Sayin’:

    So much for the left-wing echo chamber. Are you disagreeing with me?

    Roxy has her front dewclaws removed, so I’m inclined to agree with you. If she had dewclaws, then we’d have to argue about opposable thumbs and such.

    As it is, I’m outfitting her with a drawer slide and a pistol, à la Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. “Are you talkin’ to me?”

  14. Bart DePalma says:


    Unless all the Dem news media is wrong, the Senate will enact a continuing resolution extending present spending through early next year. Very likely, this will get done today or tomorrow so the Dems can get in votes on DADT and maybe START and declare “victory” before going home on Christmas vacation.

    Since they have no role in Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House, the GOP should be taking this time to identify the cuts they need to make for the rest of FY2011 so, in stark contrast to the current regime, they can have the committees publish actual budgets in the light of day and hold a very public debate over our priorities including allowing Dem amendments.

  15. shortchain says:

    Just Sayin’,

    I don’t fire my gun with my thumb. I suggest you perform the following experiment:

    1. Procure one reasonably intelligent dog. Anything smarter than a typical American Cocker Spaniel or Republican voter will do. A Labrador retriever would be ideal.

    2. Get a jar lid from a small jar. Fasten it, open side up, to the floor under a couch to low for the dog to get under, just out of reach of the dog’s jaws. You don’t want the dog to be able to pull it out. Place in that lid a treat, after letting the dog see and smell it.

    Observe as the dog winkles that treat out of the lid.

    Now, imagine that the lid is the trigger for a gun.

  16. drfunguy says:

    “Dem news media”
    “Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House”
    Meanwhile your favorite Pravda (aka FauxNews) refuses to mention that Republicants voted against 9/11 rescue workers.
    Still waiting for your demonstration that most US federal lawmakers are not conservative (based on actual legislation passed).

  17. Mainer says:

    Years ago some friends of mine had a wonderful black lab remove the back window of a pick up truck with a 12 gauge shot gun there by answering the question “You unloaded that gun didn’t you?” Seems said gun had one in the chamber and said gun was resting barrel up on the seat and the dog slipped on the seat there by slidng forward catchng a claw in the trigger and discharging said gun…… luck would have it I was driving just far enough behind them that I did not get more involved but it was pretty spectacular watching the horrendous flash and the cloud of rear window pieces spray out in the headlights. I do seem to remember the occupants of the truck being a little discombobulated and having a wee issue with their hearing for a little while but it did seem to prove that a black lab is quite capable of firing a gun.

  18. shortchain says:


    I fear you are going to be waiting a long while.

    Anyone that can characterize the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, legislated by the GOP and signed into law by W, as a “Dem(sic) plan to raise taxes” — isn’t going to let a little thing like reality or evidence stand in the way of repeating a lie.

  19. dcpetterson says:

    Bart hasn’t told us yet why strict adherence to the Supreme Dictates of the Republican Ruling Cabal is preferable to insuring America’s security.

    Why is it more important to enforce Republican Politburo discipline than it is to ratify the START treaty (which is supported by the entirety of America’s military and intelligence establishment, all living former secretaries of state, and former presidents)?

    Why are the dictates of the Republican Ruling Class (“We must pay lower taxes!”) more vital then the heath care needs of the 9/11 First Responders?

    Why is the loss of American service men and women due to DADT less important than insuring Republican robots march in lockstep voting?

    Tell us Bart, why do you put Party before country? Why do you celebrate when your Politburo wins its political battles, to the detriment of the nation? Why do you hate America?

    These are serious, Bart, not a rant. I really want to know.

  20. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    With absolutely no evidence to support the assertion, I believe that Bart is the one who stuck a pin in the Metrodome roof. I CAN, though, repeat the assertion as many times as it may take to get a couple of others to believe it.

    Perhaps Bart can prove otherwise, while he’s answering dc’s questions?

  21. shortchain says:

    Speaking of lies, have you heard that the lie of the year has been decided? Kudos to Frank Luntz.

    Now, who of the commentariat here have been repeating this falsehood with the gay abandon of a kid with a new toy, and the batteries that go with it, hmmm?

  22. drfunguy says:

    I don’t really expect either rationality or answers from Bart.
    I do think it useful to remind him that his unresponsiveness to questions that he doesn’t like is noticed, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to new readers that our winger troll has no credibility. I don’t have a complete list but I just picked my most recent question that went unanswered.
    Perhaps demonstrations of lack of credibility are redundant since he posts things like: “Dem news media” and “Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House”
    that make it self-evident.

  23. filistro says:

    @doc… Perhaps demonstrations of lack of credibility are redundant since he posts things like: “Dem news media” and “Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House”
    that make it self-evident.

    I often wonder why Bart does that. He puts a lot of effort into an argument on some point or other, and even presents a compelling case. Then he follows up with some stupid, hackneyed, heavy-handed cliche like that, and it goes over with all the wit and grace of a fart in church.

    It’s like somebody at your dinner party arguing a political or social point with fluency and cleverness… and then letting rip with a wet, noisy, prolonged belch. Five minutes later the guests can’t even recall the substance of what he said… but they’ll vividly remember his grossness for a long time afterward.

  24. Bart DePalma says:

    Grumpy Dems:

    The Dem Congress refused to publish a budget or deal with the imminent tax increases prior to the election in order to hide their priorities from the voters. It is hardly unreasonable for the GOP to demand that Congress deals with its basic constitutional tax and spend responsibilities before allowing the Dems votes on other pet projects they delayed until after the election to avoid voter accountability.

    Has there ever been a more dishonest Congress than the 111th?

    Why can’t you Dems actually campaign on what you believe???

  25. Bart DePalma says:

    @doc… Perhaps demonstrations of lack of credibility are redundant since he posts things like: “Dem news media” and “Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House”
    that make it self-evident.

    filistro says: I often wonder why Bart does that. He puts a lot of effort into an argument on some point or other, and even presents a compelling case. Then he follows up with some stupid, hackneyed, heavy-handed cliche like that, and it goes over with all the wit and grace of a fart in church.

    Facts are stubborn things.

    1) The vast majority of reporters share Dem views, vote Dem and contribute Dem. Apart from Fox News and a handful of papers, the American news media is the Dem news media.

    2) The only previous government I can recall where the leadership secretly drafted legislation and then offered it to the legislature to rubber stamp without reading it was the Politboro issuing laws to the Supreme Soviet. Thus, Pelosi’s Supreme Soviet House. Of course, if you can find another previous foreign government (because nothing like this has ever happened before in America) to us as an analogy, I would welcome the contribution.

    Do any of you Dems actually oppose the proposed GOP reforms to openly draft legislation in committee, note the constitutional authority for each piece of legislation, to allow the minority party to freely offer amendments, publish the final mark up well before the vote and allow debate before the vote?

  26. shiloh says:

    shortchain ~ Apropos of which, via Hullabaloo, I found this.

    carry on

  27. shiloh says:

    Again, oh the irony of someone who has whined 24/7 at 538 the past (((2+))) years ~ starting off his deflection/misinformation post w/Grumpy Dems!

    And enclosed in said post is more whining/moaning/groaning misinformation lol

    Has there ever been a more dishonest Congress than the 111th?

    Oh the humanity!

    Indeed Bartles ~ Cry me a river …

  28. mclever says:


    The plea to reform how legislation is drafted and increase openness in government is cyclical depending on who is in the majority. A couple of years ago, it was the Democrats demanding openness and accountability. It was even one of Obama’s campaign planks. So, I’m not surprised to see the Republicans making these demands now, but I would be absolutely shocked if anything substantial comes to fruition next spring.

    With regard to Obama’s campaigning on openness, he hasn’t lived up to everything he promised, but he has made some legislative proceedings much more available to the public. There haven’t been the “three days to read and comment” or whatever on everything, but the government websites have dramatically improved accessibility, and at least the entire text of bills is being made available (and searchable). Much of the earlier discussions were far more open than they used to be, too, but he’s learning that that doesn’t work as well as he’d thought it would.

    In my opinion, drafting legislation is a messy, sloppy, tedious business with a lot of deal-making required in order to make it work. In order for those negotiations to function, sometimes policy drivers need a little privacy to work things out. Personally, I’m quite OK with a lot of that mess happening behind closed doors, and then the only the final polished draft being made public, with each side then making the case to their fellow legislators and constituents about how the policy is a win for them.

    Making the debate too public too early ends up with people hyper-reacting to some negotiating point that is too esoteric for most of the public to understand and neither side really intended to put in the bill, but somehow it ends up being the defining meme for the rest of the public debate on the topic. (I’m sure each person here can come up with their own examples of when a political argument has been distorted beyond all recognition of the actual policy being considered.) It’s ridiculous.

    So, to answer your question, Bart. No, I’m neither impressed nor hopeful about the Republicans’ alleged plan for openness in drafting, amending, and discussing legislation. To me, it seems more of a plan to slow progress under the guise of openness than anything else. It’s theater.

  29. Bart DePalma says:

    Comments of the first Tea Party member of the Senate after Harry Reid withdrew the omnibus:

  30. filistro says:

    Sigh… Bart, you should know by now that I have no objection to your opinions. I object, purely on writerly grounds, to your CLICHES.

    I only chastise you out of love, Bart. If I didn’t consider you capable of coming up with your own aphorisms and appellations, I would leave you alone.

    My opinion is that you’re just lazy. Cliche is such a nasty, insidious habit to fall into. Work at it, Bart. Channel your inner wit. I know it’s there. I want to SEE it.

  31. drfunguy says:

    Facts are stubborn things.
    Most media are owned by conservatives. Most editors are conservative.
    That doesn’t prove that the media have conservative biases, the content does.
    Remember how often the NYT reported that we found the WMDs in Iraq?
    Rememeber how the WaPost was a cheeleader for the Clinton impeachment?
    Media bias must be demonstrated in the actual content.
    E.g. who was more frequent on TV political talk shows last year: Gingrich or Pelosi?
    Are conservative or liberal think tanks cited more often?
    Whose talking points make it into the so-called liberal media more frequently, Republican or Dem?
    I have brought all of this up before, since your only response is: “more reporters are liberal” and not a substantial case for bias based on content. I will keep reminding you that “Dem media” is a lie. Prove me wrong.
    What Liberal Media?

  32. shortchain says:


    We note that you have been asked repeatedly for evidence for your assertion that “The vast majority of reporters share Dem views, vote Dem and contribute Dem.” To date you have provided none.

    It’s convenient that you cannot recall the operation of Congress during the 1995-2006 time period.

    Here’s something to help you refresh your memory.

  33. shiloh says:

    Mini rant:

    There is no rhyme or reason to You frickin’Tube!

    Having had (2) previous YouTube accts. deleted, the last one about 4/5 years ago because of copyrighted content, GASP! begs the question, as Aristotle would say. Since 90/95% of videos on YouTube is/are copyrighted, why is any copyrighted crap allowed to be posted there ?!? … corporate copyright domain expiration notwithstanding.

    solo estoy diciendo

    that is all

  34. dcpetterson says:

    Bart thinks national security is a Democratic “pet project.”

    Bart, thank you for the admission that Republicans don’t care about national security.

    Fortunately, we have a strong President, who called the Republicans’ bluff, and got them to agree to a massive stimulus bill, disguising it as “tax cuts.” The man is nothing short of brilliant.

    Republican cynicism and dishonesty and hypocrisy cannot be more clear. They don’t care about deficits, having agreed to add nearly a trillion dollars to the federal debt — in exchange for their real goal, welfare for their wealthy overlords. (Bart, being too blind to notice, continues to believe there is something in their stance which opposes deficits and supports the Constitution. Those Teapers are awfully gullible.)

    Why don’t Republicans campaign on what they believe in — the downfall of the Untied States, to be replaced by a feudal oligarchy?

  35. shiloh says:

    I only chastise you out of love, Bart.

    Yikes, a dagger through the heart lol

    Indeed, there’s a fine line between pandering 😉 and sarcastic condemnation … or not!

    or as a certain, totally in the tank for NASCAR, sportscaster would say: We kid because we care …

    Empathy can be a wonderful thing Bart. Really!

  36. Mr. Universe says:

    True story. Turkey hunter put the bird he had just shot in his trunk along with his shotgun. Upon opening it at home the not quite dead turkey freaked out and hit the trigger hitting the hunter. Add turkeys to the list of animals you should never give weapons to.

  37. shiloh says:

    Game, set, match teabaggers as Bartles has been reduced to inane flyby’s!

  38. shortchain says:

    Oooh, gosh, the teaper’s results so far have been to prevent government funding from being passed, so we’ll have a temporary enabling resolution.

    That’s sure progress, preventing passage of a bill that was negotiated over several weeks.

    Yup, that’s certainly a sign that we’re headed for effective government…

    Where are the jobs they were going to produce? Because all I’m seeing is that a lot of federally-funded programs are going to be shutting down, adding to the unemployment (and, no doubt, doing wonders for demand).

  39. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro says: Sigh… Bart, you should know by now that I have no objection to your opinions. I object, purely on writerly grounds, to your CLICHES. I only chastise you out of love, Bart. If I didn’t consider you capable of coming up with your own aphorisms and appellations, I would leave you alone.

    Cliches are repeated common wisdom phrases. I avoid them if I can.

    The Dem news media is my variation of what I will admit is rather old hat undeniable common wisdom. I decline to use the more common labels – “mainstream media” (inaccurate given the opinions expressed are often far to the left of mainstream America), “lamestream media” (non-descriptive righty namecalling), “legacy media” (relies too much on the reader understanding that difference between the left major media outlets and the alternative conservative media like talk radio and the internet), etc.

    I was rather pleased with the Supreme Soviet analogy given that no one else of which I am aware has made the observation. This is hardly cliche.

    In any case, keep up the constructive criticism. I do take what you say seriously, even if I do not always accept it.

  40. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: Oooh, gosh, the teaper’s results so far have been to prevent government funding from being passed, so we’ll have a temporary enabling resolution.

    Three reasons why the defeat of the Dem Christmas tree bill was critical to the Tea Party:

    1) The Dem Christmas tree bill would have financed Obamacare through next October. A continuing resolution will not provide any additional money and will expire next spring. This allows the GOP House to zero out Obamacare funding in the next series of budget bills.

    I would have made the same observation about funding to EPA on AGW regulations if EPA did not just announce that it is stopping regulation until it “reconsiders” (i.e. actually looks at for the first time) the science. Yesterday, WV’s Rockefeller proposed a two year moratorium on this nonsense.

    2) The discretionary spending baseline would have increased under the Dem Christmas tree bill. Now it stays at FY 2009 levels because the Dems never enacted a FY 2010 budget.

    3) It demonstrates that the GOP porkmeisters and the Senate Dems up for re-election are taking the 2010 election seriously and backing down from business as usual. In short, they fear the Tea Party more than they love power. If the GOP had caved on this, there would have been riots outside of their offices.

  41. shortchain says:


    Regarding your use of a comparison of the House of Representatives under Pelosi to the Supreme Soviet, no, it isn’t a cliche — cliches are required to be true.

    Please note that the reasons the omnibus bill failed were only due to the teapers’ being able to see the earmarks — and that is because of rules created by the Democrats in Congress over the last few years.

    I suspect that one of the first things that happens under Boehner is going to be an end run around those rule changes, so that they can go back to business as usual. And I further suspect they’ll have the help of the teaper-elected members of Congress.

  42. shiloh says:

    Bartles, you are so damn obsessed w/Obama/Dems ~ god love ‘ya!

  43. Bart DePalma says:


    Dude, are you serious?

    The budget was due in September. The Omnibus bill for FY2010 was kept hidden until after the election and few days before the government ran out of money on Sunday.

    Democrat transparency rules, my ass!

  44. shortchain says:


    Follow the damned link. You just appear stupid if you go off on something when you haven’t even bothered to read it.

  45. shiloh says:

    Democrat transparency rules, my ass!

    Again, feel free to stop whining at any time as Bart is very grumpy today!

  46. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Game, set, bullshit“, Bart.

    The 2011 Appropriations Bill totals $1,100,000,000. A reduction of 0.001% amounts to $110 Billion. So my offer STILL stands:
    I got USD100 that says the spending bill WILL be passed, AND that even if there ARE additional changes made prior to that passage, it will be within 0.001% of the present dollar amount. Wanna bet, Bart?

    If the total appropriations for 2011 is less than $1,000,000,000,000 (a Trillion) THEN you WIN! We can let fili hold the C-note. SHE loves you.

  47. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Even I ran out of zero’s. 2011 total is $1,100,000,000,000! One Trillion, one hundred Billion.


  48. dcpetterson says:

    Bart missed this tidbit on the article he linked (emphasis mine):

    Republican leaders in Congress, blindsided by grassroots fury over the tax cut deal they made with President Obama, are now scrambling to show their allegiance to the anti-federal, anti-debt movement.

    Bart was actually trying to have the Tea Party take credit for the tax cut deal.

    Bart doesn’t even understand the propaganda of his own overlords.

  49. Bart DePalma says:


    Sorry for being grumpy. I have an increasingly short fuse for utterly transparent Dem red herrings like the exceeding rotten fish SC was shoveling.

  50. shiloh says:

    Bart, no need to apologize, “we” love you just the way you are …

  51. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: “Bart missed this tidbit on the article he linked (emphasis mine): ‘Republican leaders in Congress, blindsided by grassroots fury over the tax cut deal they made with President Obama, are now scrambling to show their allegiance to the anti-federal, anti-debt movement.’ Bart was actually trying to have the Tea Party take credit for the tax cut deal.

    I gave the Tea Party the credit for the GOP sticking to the Tea Party principle of no new taxes. I did not give the Tea Party credit for the compromise the GOP minority had to make in borrowing another $300 billion to pay for Obama’s new spending. The latter spending is what some in the Tea Party were pissed off about. I am not particularly bothered because all the new spending can be very publicly and more than offset with spending cuts in 2011 after the CR is finished.

    I suspect that the GOP porkmeisters were less embarrassed by their support of the compromise to maintain current tax rates than they were at being caught earmarking with abandon before agreeing to the Tea Party demanded earmark ban after the election.

    Absent the Tea Party, do you have any doubt that the GOP porkmeisters would have supported the omnibus and their earmarks?

    Times they are a changin…

  52. dcpetterson says:

    “I gave the Tea Party the credit for the GOP sticking to the Tea Party principle of no new taxes. “

    As I said, the only thing Bart and his kind care about is providing Federal givaways to his immensely rich elite authoritarian masters, at the expense of the rest of the nation.

    He doesn’t care the rest of us are going to pay for this welfare for the wealthy, as huge new tax cuts were enacted for the totalitarian elites who run the GOteaParty.

  53. shiloh says:

    Bart, your teabaggers are already being bribed by corporate lobbyists and they will come around shortly, if not sooner, eh as absolute power corrupts absolutely …

    ie human nature

    Meet the new boss ~ same as the old boss! ~ politicians/corruption as there is nothing new under the sun, only degrees to which one will go er stoop 😉 depending on their religious beliefs lol as true believers er TP’ers always fall the hardest. 😀

  54. filistro says:

    DC… in order to understand the mental processes of Bart and the Teapers, you must first turn common sense and conventional wisdom upside down. Their goal is not to defeat Democrats. In fact they hardly even think about Dems, except as a minor procedural annoyance. Their whole goal is to defeat REPUBLICANS. Whenever “establishment Republicans” can be made to look weak or ridiculous, the Teapers rejoice and take victory laps. Their avowed purpose is to destroy the party from which they sprang.

    They’re out to “sow discord among brethren”… which, interestingly, is singled out in the Bible (Proverbs ch. 6) as being one of the few things that “God hates.”

  55. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Well, fili, as long as you brought up Biblical passages: Bart STILL can’t get past Ecclesiastes 10:2.

  56. filistro says:

    LOL Max.

    You have to realize that verse applies when you’re LOOKING at the wise man or the fool.

    Not when you’re BEING him… 😎

  57. Mule Rider says:

    Bart, if you were a true conservative, you would stop this oafish and childish behavior and leave these people alone.

  58. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Actually, MR, if Bart were a true conservative he would put forth well reasoned arguments in support of his position. He would use the same skills he uses in court with an adversarial prosecutor in front of a impartial judge.

    Instead he acts the fool and makes easily rebutted assertions, patently false assertions and fills his post with TP and GOP talking points. And that’s when he isn’t using diversion and dissembling to evade and avoid direct rebuttal.

    A Safire or Buckley, could easily hold their own in this forum arguing the VERY SAME positions that Bart flubs and flees.

  59. shiloh says:

    Keen grasp of the obvious category:

    Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

    Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.

    The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were “significantly more likely” to believe that:

    –Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

    –Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

    –The economy is getting worse (26 points)

    –Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

    –The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

    –Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
    Story continues below

    –The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

    –When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

    –And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

    In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories.

    In other breaking news ~ water is wet …

    You bet’cha!

    fixednoise can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

  60. Just Sayin' says:

    Bart is the “Dwight Schrute” of 538. And Monotreme and Shortchain if dogs did have thumbs they would rule the world because they already have us humans so well trained.

  61. shortchain says:

    Just Sayin’,

    If dogs had thumbs, cats would still rule the world, as they’d train the dogs to do their bidding just like they’ve done with humans.

  62. drfunguy says:

    Bart: “The Dem news media is my variation of what I will admit is rather old hat undeniable common wisdom.”
    Still waiting for evidence of actual, you know, bias in news content.

  63. drfunguy says:

    p.s. calling something undeniable hardly makes it so.
    Cf. flat earth society

  64. shortchain says:


    I’m with drfunguy. Have you got any analysis which doesn’t rest on wishful thinking?

    Have you any arguments which are bolstered by evidence, or are you relying on your unsupported assertions to carry the day?

    I notice that you refer to what I provided as “rotten fish”. As someone said, facts are stubborn things, and I notice you didn’t claim the facts in Weigel’s piece were incorrect…

    So who is shoveling garbage here? The person who provided facts, or the person who relies on nothing but unsupported assertion?

  65. Bart DePalma says:


    One of my favorite progressive self image reinforcement techniques is to come up with a list of their misconceptions of reality, claim they are facts and then attack conservatives for not sharing them. Your linked “study” is a great example of this methodology. Let’s look at the first question of the “study” for example:

    Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.

    Notice here that the “study” equates “most economists” with the CBO. CBO does not poll economists nor do they make up most economists.

    Next, the “study” does not mention that CBO never conducted an independent economic analysis of the effects of the “stimulus” on employment. CBO simply applied the assumptions provided them by the Dem Congress.

    Finally, the question posed to respondents asked whether “most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs.” No one thinks that CBO’s 2 million amounts to the larger concept of “several million.”

    The most recent case of this technique was Politifact’s choice of the phrase “government takeover of health care” as their 2010 Lie of the Year by reasoning that the government cannot take over anything it does not own. Of course, this is nonsense. Under Obamacare, you will be required to purchase government approved insurance with government approved coverage and government approved premiums (if you want to be allowed into the government run insurance marketplace). Only a liar or a moron would not consider this a government takeover of health care.

  66. filistro says:

    Jeez, you guys.

    OF COURSE Bart has proof of leftist media bias. With his very own eyes, he’s seen Sarah Palin refer to it as the “lamestream” media” and speak of the media’s “agenda.”

    I mean, really. What further proof do you need?

  67. drfunguy says:

    You do have a way of providing a succinct summary and (I’m sorry for you) rare insight into DePalma’s ‘thought’ processes.

  68. shiloh says:

    One of my favorite progressive self image reinforcement techniques

    Let the record show Bartles needs (((self image reinforcement))) by being disingenuous sarcastic re: truthful progressive news he doesn’t agree with on the net ?!?

    One would think outside the internet 😉 ie Bart’s wife and dog would be all the faux winger reinforcement he would ever need lol.


    hmm, somewhere there is a disconnect, eh as once again Bart has stepped in it w/out proofreading his inanity! Although an interesting concept ie Bart needing liberals at a progressive blog as a crutch to reinforce his ego. Kinda sad!


    Yea, if your trying to be funny Bart, at least make some logical winger psychological sense, liberals stroking your ego notwithstanding …

    btw, dogs are very good for stroking one’s ego ~ cat’s, not so much. And again, I’m at 538 mostly for the entertainment value! 🙂

  69. shortchain says:

    Absolutely, who are you going to believe? Politifact, who researches thoroughly and relies on facts and figures, or Bart, speaking ex cathedra and without any evivence, but with certanty, out of his … something?

    Such argumentation skills the man has. I’m pretty sure he’s managed to convince himself, but anyone with more than half a brain, well, that’s another story.

  70. Bart DePalma says:


    ex cathedra?

    Do you deny that, IF Obamacare goes into full effect in 2014, you will be required to buy government approved health insurance with government approved coverages?

    Do you deny that HHS has recently threatened to deny entry into the government operated insurance pools for those it deems to charge excessive premiums?

    You have no excuse for continuing to harbor any contrary fantasies as I have posted the linked evidence on and here for a year now.

  71. Number Seven says:

    Shortchain, you posted great link about conservatism early in this thread. A keeper for sure. Thank you.

  72. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart DePalma:

    Do you DENY that you are now, or have ever been, a member of the Communist Party of the USA?
    Do you DENY that you are nor, or have ever been, a member of a communist front organization?
    Do you DENY that you have ever flown within the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL Aviation Administration?
    Do you DENY that you have ever taken any medicine or eaten ANY food that had been inspected under the direction of the UNITED STATES Food and Drug Administration or the UNITED STATES Department of Agriculture?
    Do you DENY that you have ever received ANY services from the government of the United States of America for which you did not fully pay from your own resources?

    You hypocrite! You are so full of it that your eyes are brown!

  73. shortchain says:

    Number Seven — you’re welcome. I think it’s dead on.


    Actually, what you say is untrue. My insurance is grandfathered in, so, no, you lie.

    Well, gosh! The companies offering government-approved insurance shouldn’t be prevented from offering a substandard product and charging excessive premiums! What tyranny!

    You accuse me of harboring fantasies? I’ve looked at some of your “evidence”. As with almost everything you post as “evidence”, it requires the reader to twist their mind into a bizarre shape in order to see it as evidence of anything but that your mind is twisted into a bizarre shape.

    That’s really funny.

  74. dcpetterson says:

    See, if there are regulation that prevent companies from screwing consumers, that means the government has “taken over” that industry. And that’s a Bad Thing, because we want companies to poison us and steal our money and sell us defective products. Only rich and smart people should survive (Bart is the ultimate in elitism). Everyone else should be reduced to poverty and illness. We need to do what the totalitarian corporate oligarchs tell us to. Anything else is socialism.

    And socialism is Bad. Because it has the word “social” in it. And placing the needs of society above the needs of the elite authoritarian Politburo is wrong.

    Why aren’t all of you in line, dammit? FOX is feeding you propaganda and disinformation 24/7. That crap isn’t going to believe itself, you know. Get with the program.

    The funny thing is that entertainers like Rush and Beck and Cantor and Boehner clearly don’t believe their own schtick, and use it simply as a moneymaking ad campaign. That there are people who actually are taken in by this absurd idiocy is truly remarkable. But then, P. T. Barnum told us what was born every minute.

    I can’t quite tell if Bart believes his rhetoric, or if he knows it’s just schtick. His tendency to invent meanings of words implies that he knows it’s all invented, and he’s trying to cash in by selling his own take on the product. Hence, this supposed “book” he’s “writing.” That his references often say the opposite of what he claims means either a) he is so incredibly delusional that he doesn’t notice, or b) he is targeting “readers” whom he hopes are too stupid to check. FOX, of course, operates on the latter assumption. The question is whether the stoopid market has yet been saturated. Attendance at Sarah Palin’s comedy concerts has leveled off, which may imply that Bart is late in trying to break in.

  75. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh and one more!

    Bart DePalma:

    Do you DENY that you are now, or ever have been, covered under government approved automobile insurance with government approved coverages?

  76. Monotreme says:

    For some reason, we haven’t had a recipe exchange in this week’s FFF thread.

    I’m rectifying that now: Cthulhu Pot Pie.

    I must say, though, that when I heard the term “Cthulhu Pot Pie”, I thought it was going to be made from a very evil-tasting sort of calamari.

  77. filistro says:

    @Treme… Cthulhu Pot Pie

    Okay, I made the mistake of clicking on the link.

    And I gotta say, Treme… there are times when I worry about you…. 😉

  78. Bart DePalma says:

    Mitch McConnell made an interesting comment on Fox News suggesting that part of the reason why the GOP wanted to secure the tax rates now instead of January was to avoid a repeat of 95-96 where the Dems fought Gingrich tax and spending cut combination proposals by claiming that the GOP was starving children to give tax cuts to the rich. Now, the tax issue is off the table and the issue is now a choice over whether t0 borrow more money to maintain government spending.

    Looks like the GOP has been giving a great deal of thought to avoiding the tactical errors of the Gingrich era.

  79. Bart DePalma says:


    Sorry, HHS has already ruled that their power to regulate health insurance overrules the grandfather clause. The only way you have the same insurance is if it already complied with HHS regs. Mine changes in January. Yours probably does as well, but you do not know it.

    Yes, CO did dabble in auto insurance socialism with a no fault law some years back. Premiums skyrocketed and the last GOP legislature we enjoyed repealed the law to universal acclaim excepting plaintiff’s attorneys.

    I will take all the non-responses – including your own – as a concession that Politifact lied in its “Lie of the Year” claim. Obamacare is a government takeover of the healthy insurance industry.

  80. dcpetterson says:

    Actually Bart, the non-responses are a result of this having been litigated for the past two years. We all know your propaganda is stooopid and unworthy of response.

  81. shortchain says:


    My insurance, which is of the “catastrophic coverage” variety, with a high deductible, is, in fact, grandfathered in, as my insurance company has already informed me — in writing. Not a surprise, really, as Minnesota regulations wouldn’t have allowed the kind of garbage that they sell in some states.

    You seem particularly ignorant to be spouting off as if you were knowledgeable. I have to say that I have seldom seen such profound arrogance combined with such sad ignorance. You keep repeating the same things, over and over, each time being shown to be wrong, yet you seem to imagine that another repetition will somehow make the case for you. It doesn’t work like that. You really need more than assertion, especially when you’ve been repeatedly proven wrong.

    I’m going to go and do some work (some of us never stop), so, if I don’t respond, please don’t delude yourself into believing you have bullied anyone into submission with your fact-free blathering.

  82. shortchain says:


    “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn”

    Now, off to work.

  83. drfunguy says:

    @Bart “I will take all the non-responses ”
    Since your musings about subjects where I have some knowledge are invariably mistaken and your links, when I have followed them, tend to prove the opposite of what you say they do, I have no reason to beleive anything you post, so why should I respond to a thread where I wasn’t participating?
    I will take your non-response to my request for evidence of liberal bias in news content as a concession that you lied when you labelled the media ‘dem’.

  84. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Actually, MY “non-response” should be construed by you as a rejection of your original premise. As such, your conclusion, that you expect me to answer, is beneath response.

    You know, kinda like the old “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question.

    On CO auto insurance. Your response (“Yes, CO did dabble in auto insurance socialism with a no fault law some years back. Premiums skyrocketed and the last GOP legislature we enjoyed repealed the law to universal acclaim excepting plaintiff’s attorneys.“) SEEMS to state that CO repealed it’s auto insurance requirements. Again, the appearance is that you are trying to deliberately mislead.

    In fact in 2010 Colorado REQUIRES:
    Liability insurance in 25/50/15 BI/PD limits.
    That insurers OFFER UM/UIM coverage with a written opt-out by insured.


    Click to access autoins04.pdf

    The Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association and the CO State Division of Insurance

  85. Monotreme says:

    The original art for Roxy’s triptych of “Danger Dog” portraits arrived today.

    Anyone who does not respond with “Awww…what a cute doggie!” will be assumed to have agreed to an assessment of $500 each for viewing said photograph on this post.

  86. Mainer says:

    Mono, I though roxy was an Australian Blue Heeler? She is cute in a doggy kind of way but she is no Blue Heeler.

  87. Monotreme says:

    She’s an Australian Cattle Dog. They come in blue and red. The blue coat color is recessive, and the red is dominant.

    My first Australian Cattle Dog was “Annie”, a blue heeler. Her best trick was doing math from flash cards.

    At present, we have one blue (“Sky”, who is three) and one red (“Roxy”, who is seven).

  88. dcpetterson says:


    Please explain to us why tax cuts for the immensely wealthy are more important than health care for 9/11 First Responders.

    I’m serious about this. I will ask you again. Please explain.

  89. dcpetterson says:


    We have a Cattle Dog too. Smart, sweet, loyal, and a great watchdog. Loves the grandkids.

  90. shiloh says:

    Bartles ~ I will take all the non-responses

    Considering how many times you have left 538 threads never to return after being (((mercilessly buried))) w/the truth and undeniable logic one just has to :::chuckle::: at your above retort.

    but, but, but after hastily leaving said threads umpteen times under liberal duress 😀 it truly is amazing how you have risen from the dead 😉 only to return for more 538 progressive humiliation! ~ self image reinforcement aside lol.

    Diminishing returns be damned, eh as Walter Mitty is jealous …

  91. Mainer says:

    Cool so my neighbors dog is kind of rare I guess. Doubt he could do math but he might be able to out reason Barthole.

    It is especially unsetteling to have the very party that so shamelessly wrapped themselves in 9 11 to gain political leverage be the ones to turn a deaf ear to what is going on with so many of the first responders. Depending on who is counting already close to 1000 individuals may have been lost. Some of these individuals simply worked at the disposal or storage sites but most apparently were on scene at various times or may have just worked or lived close by. But it appears the highest toll is with first responders of all types and from all over the country. Truely sad.

    Does any one else wonder where Mr. Noun a verb and 9/11 is on this. Strangely silent what? But the Republicans must be figuring they have milked this emotion cow of all it is worth……must be about time for another national tragedy or disaster for the bastards to wrap themselves in. But this one is just a political football now and even if the bill is passed it will be handled as Agent Orange was for decades, or at least long enough to duck most reponsibility. I read some where that for each suspected death to this point that there could be 4 or 5 others expected to occur.

  92. shiloh says:

    Regarding 9/11 1st responders it’s really quite basic ie NY is a solid blue presidential state and that ain’t gonna change any time soon, so WTF if Rep chicken hawks in Congress and the Senate piss off some truly American heroes while at the same time give more tax breaks to the filthy rich! Again, it’s how wingers roll as their bottom line is, as always, the Rep corporate/lobbyist bottom $$$ line!

    No human compassion which is part of likability, an important presidential quality ie why palin will never be president, besides all the other reasons lol. At some point, one would think one of the many Rep lemmings for president will break away from the pack by actually portraying themselves as a human being … or not.

    Reps still haven’t got a clue what the 2010 mid-term election results signify, eh. btw, whatever happened to that political capital cheney/bush talked about after the 2004 election ?!?

    Just wonderin’

  93. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: My insurance, which is of the “catastrophic coverage” variety, with a high deductible, is, in fact, grandfathered in, as my insurance company has already informed me — in writing.

    Interesting. Who is your insurer? I wonder if you fell into the dozens of arbitrary HHS exceptions to their own regs ala McDonalds?

  94. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: Please explain to us why tax cuts for the immensely wealthy are more important than health care for 9/11 First Responders.

    Sorry, I don’t play the Dem moral blackmail game and thankfully it appears the GOP is no longer playing.

    The question is why did the Dem Congress fail to offer a budget before the election including this spending for the first FY in American history?

    None of this secrecy, dishonesty or pissing on the voters seems to bother you Dems. Whatever is best for the team, huh?

  95. shortchain says:


    Since you don’t live in Minnesota, and since you aren’t in a position to be grandfathered in anyway, my provider can only be of academic interest to you. I decline to provide that information. I will provide you with the fact that my insurance, while not being quite in line with the new requirements, is not lousy like the McD’s “insurance” plans for their part-time workers.

    “Whatever is best for the team, huh?” — if the “team” us the USA, yes, absolutely. That is, after all, the distinguishing difference between the left and the right. Your obsession with .001 percent of the budget is noted.

    We also note that you decline to defend the insane priorities of the GOP congressional contingent. That must mean, according to your rules, that you cannot defend them, yet support them anyway. Whatever is best for the team, eh?

  96. filistro says:

    Bart, could you please explain to me the political rationale for denying health coverage to 9/11 responders dying of cancer and emphysema?

    Because the logic totally escapes me, and I honestly can’t find any answers. Wingers don’t seem to want to talk about this anywhere. They just want to oppose it and then slink quietly away.

  97. dcpetterson says:


    Sorry, I don’t play the Dem moral blackmail game and thankfully it appears the GOP is no longer playing.

    Thank you for admitting that Republicans have no sense of morals. Perhaps now they will stop pretending to moral outrage. Fact chance of that.

    Since you feel marching lemming-like lockstop to the whims of your elite masters is more important than any actual moral consideration, we will take your comments in that spirit. Might as well grind up all those unemployed workers and make fertilize out of them eh?

    Thanks for admitting that it’s okay for the 9/11 First Responders to die horrible deaths, their families left penniless, just to insure tax breaks for the immensely wealthy. We know how to take your faked outrage over the Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan. We know what to think about your nonsense noise concerning “liberty” and “the People.” All of it faked.

    By the way, you still haven’t answered the question from many months ago — how about that foreign attack on some American state that you claimed the President is assisting in? Have any cities been taken yet?

  98. filistro says:


    DADT repeal survives cloture motion 63-33!

    7 Republicans cross over, including (I think) Murkowksi, Brown, Collins, Voinovich, Lugar, Kirk.

    Reactionaries be warned. The world is moving forward without you. Resistance is futile 🙂

  99. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    @ Bart:

    I take it by your non-response concerning auto insurance, that you ADMIT to your deceptive action in your earlier post. That by extension of that tacit admission, the rest of your post SHOULD be considered false unless PROVED otherwise.

    Thank you for this single action of honesty in the time we have known you.

  100. GROG says:


    I’m wondering why the Dems have waited until now to attempt to pass the first responder bill. They’ve controlled congress for 4 years now. Why didn’t they try to pass it before the midterms?

    It seems that the Dems are using the first responders as pawns in a political stunt so the left can use the talking point that DC repeated about “why tax cuts for the immensely wealthy are more important than health care for 9/11 First Responders”.

    The heroic first responders are being used by the Dems, evidenced by DC’s talking point.

  101. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    With one week to go I want to wish all a Merry Christmas!

    Here are a couple of You Tube’s I want to share in the spirit of the season:

    In keeping with our digital age,
    Digital Nativity

    For those who prefer music,
    Hallelujah Chorus

  102. Max aka Birdpilot says:


    If it’s the right thing to do, then so what? If it’s the right thing to do, then the GOP should pass regardless the timing.

    Else, the GOP is playing its OWN political game and their hands are just as dirty.

    Just using your own reasoning.

  103. filistro says:

    GROG… re: first responders.

    You know that my thing is messaging. I’m talking here about appearance and political impact (which are pretty much the same thing.) I don’t understand what advantage the GOP sees in blocking this thing. They may be miffed by the timing, but to the publci that looks like just an EXCUSE to deny the first responder funding.

    I realize their opposition is mostly because they don’t want to allow the Dems any victories that might be seen as popular… but this seems to me like a classic “cut off your nose to spite your face” kind of move. It makes the GOP look horrible and mean-spirited, and gains them nothing at all.

    In fact, since the GOP is the party of the heroic, the patriotic, and (as Mainer points out) “noun-verb-9/11″… why weren’t THEY the ones to introduce this bill? That would have made a lot more sense for them.. and kept them from getting backed into this really ugly trap.

  104. shortchain says:


    Before you make accusations you might check the history of the bill. Also you might wonder why everything is taking so long in the Senate. And who is responsible for delaying all business in that body. And why.

  105. shiloh says:

    Bartles ~ Whatever is best for the team, huh?

    As Bartles continues to deflect/misinform …




    Again, feel free to stop playin’ the victim at any time as its soooo unbecoming when conservatives (((cry me a river))), eh that one can only repeat Mainer’s eloquence ~ So right Fili and Max and Bart do you never get tired of being an asshole?

    ok, it bears repeating:

    So right Fili and Max and Bart do you never get tired of being an asshole?

    polls 😀 indicate by popular demand, one for the road!

    So right Fili and Max and Bart do you never get tired of being an asshole?


    and it appears, Gasp! a few Reps are actually gonna act like (((human beings))) today and DADT will be repealed !!!

    Bartles, run for the hills as America surely is no longer the country you grew up in, eh lol

    As Otter said quite heroically in Animal House: Bart is not gonna sit here and listen to you people bad mouth the United States of America!

    hmm, should I copy/paste this post in the DADT thread ~ rhetorical question 🙂

  106. GROG says:

    Can someone provide a link to some kind of statistics regarding how many first responders became ill due to the toxic air? How many are already covered by major medical insurance? (Many first responders were union workers and I suspect have excellent insurance.) There must be some exact numbers which justify the $5 billion.

    The Mount Sinia study mentions 40,000 people were exposed to the dirty air and 25% have breathing ailments. Is the bill going to cover everyone exposed and not just first responders?

    If 10,000 of the 40,000 people have breathing ailments and 75% (for the sake of argument) already have health insurance, are we paying $5 billion for those 2500 people who have no coverage?

    Or are we just throwing a dollar figure out there in the name of political positioning? I’m asking because I don’t know.

  107. shiloh says:

    grog, Google is your friend ~ take care …

  108. shortchain says:


    Re: union benefits — in many union plans, coverage lapses when the member stops working, and, …, guess what happens when you get a chronic illness and worked in a job like the typical first responder (or you happened to live near the scene)?

    Re: numbers — 50,000 responders and survivors.

    You know, the bill doesn’t authorize simple payments to people. It would “formally authorize healthcare and monitoring programs that have been appropriated for the past several years”.

    In other words, rather than just say, “well, that’s done with, we’ve taken care of 9/11, and it’s all settled”, it is intended to deal with the continuing aftermath of the attacks.

    But hey, 5 billion is 5/20000 of the budget (estimated) over the next 5 years. Can’t be spending that kind of money on something, even if it is so obviously just.

  109. Monotreme says:

    Hey, cool. Bart owes me $500.

  110. GROG says:


    So if we use the number 50,000 responders and 25% have been become ill we come up with 12,500 people. Let’s say only 2500 of them have insurance and we are left with 10,000 people who need compensated.

    That’s a half a million dollars per person. I’m assuming there have been some studies done to determine it will cost that much per person. I haven’t been able to find one , though. Do you know of any?

  111. filistro says:

    GROG… those are all valid questions…. but the problem here is perception.

    Even asking the questions makes you look Brutal, Heartless, and Not Supportive of American Heroes.

    It’s about as futile as trying to explain to your kids that you HAVE to drown their puppy because the food and vet fees are just more costly than you choose to pay, and they should have considered the expenses before they brought the puppy home.. You might have some reasonable arguments, but it’s impossible to frame them in a way that makes your kids not hate your guts for it.

  112. Brian says:


    I feel like perception is a large part of the problem. Asking a question should never be a problem, no matter how awful that question or problem is. It might be because my friends have framed me as the asshole of the department (which I rightly deserve and have kind of welcomed), but the issue is always going to be there, no matter how the question is raised.

  113. shortchain says:


    You missed one of the important issues. While the bill authorizes up to 5 billion, it doesn’t mandate that it will all be spent. Ergo, your concerns are simply what they call, in the South, “vapors”. Now, you may well suggest that it’s too much. “No,” you say, “I’m pretty sure it can be done for half that.” But the problem is, if it turns out to be too little, you have to go back to the well. Better to authorize enough and underspend than to allocate too little and come up short.

    Surely the teaper-led Congress about to be seated can manage, while they are taking constitution classes from the likes of Michele Bachmann, (who, by the way, in a demonstration that irony is dead, will be a member of the Intelligence Committee), and deciding how to cut spending while creating jobs, to oversee the spending to make sure it’s spent wisely. That is, after all, one of the jobs that Congress is supposed to do.

  114. filistro says:

    Brian… I agree. I think the right to ask the unpopular questions is something that should be protected by people on both sides, because next time it might be YOUR side that needs to do it. I have some pretty negative feelings about the Republicans in Congress who are using this bill for their own purposes… but I support GROG’s right to pose the questions.

    GROG isn’t being abusive or rude or mean or even overtly partisan… he’s just asking.

  115. shiloh says:


    GROG says:
    December 16, 2010 at 19:03

    I haven’t commented much lately as I’ve decided this site seems to be better suited to a leftwing echo chamber audience. I don’t want to be a troll. Best of luck.


    shiloh says:
    December 17, 2010 at 09:10

    Of course, a true definition of a troll includes they never leave, eh ie grog, MR etc. will always be lurking at 538, whether they post or not notwithstanding!

    you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave …

    carry on

  116. mclever says:

    DADT resolution passes Senate 65-31.

  117. GROG says:

    I think we’re in trouble if anyone is discouraged from asking questions and scrutinizing these bills.

    Let’s say a bill is brought to the floor that “helps poor children”. Then we’re asked to take a side. Are you for poor children or are you against poor children? Well how could anyone with a heart be against poor children?

    If we’re passing bills because of how a party or a politician is perceived, then we’re in a lot of trouble as a country.

  118. shiloh says:

    grog, your last post was a total deflection …

    btw, you’re still here ~ shocking!

    Best of luck.

  119. mclever says:


    Just to do a gut-check on the numbers, assume most of these affected First Responders were healthy folks in the prime of their working life prior to contracting a 9/11-related illness (which includes pervasive pulmonary disease, chronic infections and debilitating asthma, and even some cancers), consider that we’re looking at a lifetime of treatments including respirators, oxygen tanks, medications, surgeries, etc. for people who may never be able to work again. They get a couple of years of coverage on their disability plans after they get laid off for being no longer able to do their (manual labor intensive) jobs, and then their current healthcare coverage runs out, even if they were in a union. That means they’ll be on the hook for that lifetime of treatments and unable to work to get employer-sponsored care.

    70% of all first responders, construction workers, and other volunteers who spent time at the 9/11 site are suffering from respiratory conditions related to their heroic efforts. So, call it 70% of 50,000.

    In that light, ~$500K per person spread out over 20, 30, or even 40 years for some of the younger guys who’ve literally seen their lives swept away by debilitating illness is probably not enough. Some of these guys will need over a million dollars in treatments over the next ten years. ($100K per year isn’t much if you’re in the hospital for more than a few days each year…)

    Just to give you the perspective you were asking for. So, no, the dollar number in this bill isn’t out of line.

  120. mclever says:

    Senate just rejected the McCain amendment to START. I missed the vote totals, but it was something like 59-38 or similar.

    I think that’s a positive step for our national security, because it means the treaty can actually get enacted when Congress affirms it. If they’d passed the amendment, then it would have kicked off a whole new round of negotiations with Russia and everyone else in Europe, thus delaying the enactment of the treaty for years, if ever.

    Just FYI for folks who are interested…

  121. Monotreme says:

    With this lame-duck session, I’m seeing a trend which I hope takes hold and becomes pervasive: stand-alone legislation.

    I hope we are mature enough as a nation, and as voters, to accept that a politician’s worthiness is not defined by a single vote. It’s chickenshit to bury important initiatives inside of an omnibus spending bill, for example.

    For example, I can see that Sen. Bennett (R-Utah) was (in my view) “right” about DREAM and “wrong” about DADT and weighing those feelings would let me decide on a vote for or against him in the general election, had the Republican thugs in Utah allowed me to have that choice, which they did not.

  122. mclever says:


    I agree that it’s good to see more of these single-issue bills. DADT was accomplished because Reid approached Pelosi and asked the House to push through the stand-alone bill first and then send it to the Senate as a “letter from the House” because that would expedite its arrival on the floor for a vote.

    I say, it’s nice to see them talking about ways to get things done!

  123. GROG says:


    I was using numbers from the Mount Sinai study which found 25% of 40,000 were affected.

    If the numbers make sense, fine. I just don’t see the sense of rushing the bill through a lame duck session in the name of perception, when the Dems had the past 4 years to pass it.

  124. Monotreme says:

    This here joke is for my Canadian friends. Reproduced verbatim from that who sent it to me.


    A guy walks into a bar in Kentucky and orders a white wine.
    All the hillbillies sitting around the bar look up, expecting to see some pitiful Yankee from the north.
    The bartender says, “You ain’t from around here, are ya?”
    The guy says, “No, I’m from Canada .”
    The bartender says, “What do you do in Canada ?”
    The guy says, “I’m a taxidermist.”
    The bartender says, “A taxidermist? What in tarnation is a taxidermist?
    Do you drive a taxi?”
    The guy replies, “No, a taxidermist doesn’t drive a taxi. I mount animals.”

    The bartender grins and hollers,
    “It’s okay, boys. He’s one of us.”

  125. shiloh says:

    grog the Dems had the past 4 years to pass it.

    (2) of those years, bush was president and all (4) of those years Reps were filibustering most everything the Dems proposed in the senate as they continue to do.

    ie Reps are very, very sore losers!

    grog, if one is gonna (((constantly deflect))) at least make some rational sense … or not!

    Best of luck.

  126. Monotreme says:


    That’s just it. In the 110th Congress, Congress passed laws that President Bush refused to sign.

    In the 111th Congress, Republicans forced a cloture vote in the Senate over even the most minor issues. The bill in question was passed by the House in July.

    The question you should be asking is, “why is the Senate taking it up now, instead of considering it immediately after it was passed by the House?” The answer to that question will get you a lot closer to the answers you so desperately seek.

  127. shiloh says:

    btw Monotreme, your joke is as old as my grandmother and she passed away (30) years ago at age 83 …

    ok, I exaggerate a tad.

  128. Monotreme says:

    A correction to my above post.

    Although HR 847 (“The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010”) received a majority vote in the House (255-149) on July 29, 2010, it needed a 2/3 margin to be considered since it required suspending House rules. Therefore, it failed to advance in July despite bipartisan support (243 D, 12 R “aye” and 4 D, 144 R “nay”).

    It passed the House on Sept 29, 2010.

  129. Monotreme says:


    But that is not my joke!

    Okay, that one is even older.

  130. shiloh says:

    Monotreme, it’s your joke ’cause you posted it …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s