Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(2146)
-
▼
July
(189)
- The Final Cut is the Deepest
- There has to be a name for this kind of psychosis.
- Smile, Kate: You're on CNN.
- Lying sack of weasel feces: Kate McMillan edition.
- And what's missing from THIS picture?
- Must-see TPMTV.
- And OUR stupid scale, well, it goes to 11 ...
- Kate McMillan: Selective reporting at its Bloggin...
- The Great Canadian Debate: Get ON with it, fer Ch...
- I'd leave that off your resume if I were you, Adam.
- Not the Blogging Tories news: July 29, 2007.
- Just when you think they can't get any stupider ...
- How stupid is too fucking stupid? The Richard Eva...
- You keep using that word "sovereignty" ...
- The stupid! It burns!
- Oh, those wacky FDers.
- Dear JR: Over-generalize much?
- Support the tr ... oh, fuck 'em.
- It's not a "disease," it's an "abomination." Ther...
- Warren Kinsella: Big freaking deal.
- Friday afternoon sheer laziness.
- Letters to the editor: How dumb is TOO dumb?
- Busy week open thread.
- Canada's Wingnut Government™: Getting on your...
- Dear wankersphere: And now, in other news ...
- Oh Punky, how could you?
- Separate schools
- The Monica chronicles.
- Shopping for Votes in Ontario
- Dear Congress:
- Gordon O'Connor's big adventure!
- Oooooooooh ... that's gotta hurt.
- Atheists: We're here, we're queer ... no, wait .....
- It's a good thing kerning wasn't involved.
- Mark Steyn: The low-hanging fruit edition.
- Better late than never.
- Oh. Dear. God.
- While you were sleeping ...
- Say hello to Monica.
- The new kids on the block.
- Wave bye-bye to Patrick.
- Dear Mike: Man, that's gotta sting.
- Chet speak.
- Not your Blogging Tory news: July 21, 2007.
- Your daily "Whaaaaa?"
- Make yourself comfortable ...
- The forest and the trees -- more lessons in civility.
- And the Lord said, "Yea and verily, break me off a...
- Great moments in intellectual, right-wing discourse.
- That whole "anonymity" thing -- Part 2.
- The Wanda Watkins saga: The family members.
- Great moments in journamalism.
- Apparently, that "free speech" is devilishly trick...
- Yes, let's talk about "hate speech," shall we?
- Dear wanks: How's that "surge" coming?
- How fucking stupid is Steve Janke?
- "Support the troops": a humble suggestion.
- Let's talk about that whole "anonymity" thing, sha...
- Apparently, "censorship" is in the eyes of the beh...
- Not your Blogging Tory news: July 20, 2007.
- Oh, no. Say it ain't so.
- If they had half a brain between them ...
- God Almighty, but they're a bunch of pussies.
- Quick! Your breaking Blogging Tory news!
- Bye bye, anonymous commenters.
- TBogg, you thieving bastard.
- You can talk at them, but they'll never hear you.
- Thank you, Washington Post.
- Follow the bouncing Mr. Erl.
- Your morning eye-rolling irony.
- I'm sorry, Mr. Erl ... you seem to have forgotten ...
- Thank you, Lord, for delivering them into my hands.
- I think it's time for everyone to chill out.
- Apparently, the stakes have been raised.
- Wow ...
- Apparently, "safety" is in the eye of the beholder.
- Just stepping out for a bit ...
- Tell you what I'm going to do, Mr. Erl ...
- Wanda, the wingnuts and me...
- That scraping you hear ...
- Wankers, start your hypocrisy!
- Not the Blogging Tory news, July 18, 2007.
- Apparently, I am a bad person.
- The Blogging Tories: moralistically MIA, as usual.
- No, they DON'T make mistakes, why do you ask?
- Councilor Mommie Dearest
- I hate it when someone steals my idea.
- Not the Blogging Tories news, July 16, 2007.
- Yon and Yon it goes...
- The eJankulator: When you prefer to get your news...
- To pigeonhole Bill Kristol would be unfair.
- Yeah, let's stick with that Michael Yon hack for a...
- And the Michael Yon dumbassitude continues ...
- Speaking of right-wing media hacks ...
- Dear "Nonny": Let me explain how commenting works...
- When you've lost the Wall Street Journal ...
- It would be funny if it weren't so ... nah, it's j...
- Simple answers to simple questions: July 15 edition.
- Methinks someone doth protest too fucking much.
- Friendly fire
-
▼
July
(189)
35 comments:
That is the most appalling thing that I've seen in a while.
It's also the most stupid. The man is a complete idiot.
"YOu can hide in a bureaucracy."
That's plausible. In a thoughtless, "thought about it for five-seconds" sorta way. But in a bureaucracy, everyone is in a specific job, ... that's supposedly one of the drawbacks of a bureaucracy, people won't move outside of their limited jurisdiction.
So, conceivably, a bureaucracy would be a better way to keep tabs on someone.
but the whole thing "they're good at 'gaming the system'" ... what drivel. What mindless blather.
Open your mouth mr. boweyer, i gotta take a piss .... "Ahhhh!"
I'm speechless. That could be a Colbert piece. No need to change a word.
Bah. I could only take a minute or so before I had to shut off the sleazy, lying m*ther-fucker.
Gawd, I hate FoxNews. Even Pravda was more credible.
Just curious, Ti-Guy. What exactly were the lies in that piece?
Take your time....
I'd be to ashamed to even post anonymously if I believed that hilarious nonsense. But one of the mercies of stupidity is the utter lack of self-awareness that comes with it.
Anyhow, a better question would be, "was there anything uttered in that piece that wasn't a lie?"
lenny
Man, terrorists used airlines for their attack on 9/11. I told you airlines are evil. Wait, they are privately owned, so I guess that would be privately owned airlines are evil.
Ah, here we are:
That morning, nineteen terrorists[3] affiliated with al-Qaeda[4] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot.
Commercial airliners aught to be outlawed, they allow terrorists to follow through withought being caught. No word yet on nationally owned airlines.
How about those HMO's in the states?
Representatives from the Somerset Medical Center said they did not know that Cullen had been investigated elsewhere. When they checked his credentials, according to a report in USA Today, they learned nothing that would have made them hesitate to hire him. All they received were his dates of employment. It was at this facility where Cullen may have done his deadliest work, admitting to killing between 12-15 patients in only 13 months.
Yikes, but he is only a serial killer, not a terrorist:
Healthcare Serial Killers
Can anyone on the r-whing get me a tally here? Let's see how dangerous this effing public healthcare is. Hmmm:
The Commonwealth Fund released its report May 15 in which it compared the health systems of Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the U.S. The American system, which is the most expensive in the world, ranked last or next to last on five dimensions of a highperforming health care system - quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives.
Nothing on terrists, though...
"But one of the mercies of stupidity is the utter lack of self-awareness that comes with it."
You said it, Lenny.
One example of stupidity is the inability to distinguish "lies" from "ignorance" or "errors caused by stupidity."
Now you know, Lenny. You are now a self-aware dope.
Mikmik,
Wow. Deep thoughts from the Commonwealth Fund.
Let's take a look at their website, shall we? Hmm ... seeks to promote universal healthcare in the US ... especially for the "most vulnerable" in society. How about looking at the study: They didn't look at preventive care. Failed to consider the fact that people seeking unusual treatments and procedures come from all over the world to the US. Failed to look at medical research and the development of drugs.
Hmm. Seems like they have an agenda, doesn't it? And we're surprised by their results why?
Mikimik,
Although "ought" rhymes with "taught," it is not spelled "aught." (Unless, of course, you mean to actually use the ward "aught" in its proper -- if a bit archaic -- meaning, "everything." But avoid it; it's makes you sound like Samwise Gamgee. Do you know aught, Mr. Mikmik?)
Although "terrorists" may be pronounced "terrists" in your part of the world, it is not spelled that way.
The rest of your screed is only marginally coherent.
Glad to be of help.
Sorry anony, but you don't get to play the "I'm stupid, not lying" card when you completely fabricate things, like, "doctors can hide in the bureaucracy of a socialized system".
I meant to write "anything," not "everything" for the definition of "aught."
A preemptive "thanks" to Mr. Mikimik for finding this out when he looks up the word. You really ought to, you know; you cannot learn aught if you refuse to do a little research. And if, God forbid, you ever get really sick, Mr. Mikmik, please do your research well, find the best hospital with the best doctors, the best equipment, and the shortest wait, and don't forget to renew your passport; they are now required in order to enter the United States.
It's been my pleasure to serve you. Enjoy your stay.
Just curious, Ti-Guy. What exactly were the lies in that piece?
Take your time....
Or what? You have ways of making me talk?
Fuck off all you anonymii. Get a persistent identity and maybe I'll respond more favourably to your interrogation. There is a particular lie I'm thinking of, but you can continue wondering, for all I care.
Sure, Lenny, it's all a lie. Doctors could NEVER EVER hide in the bureaucracy of a socialized system.
It's IMPOSSIBLE and everybody who knows aught knows that. Absolutely, positively, and forever I.M.P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E.
Ti-Guy,
Are you THE Ti-Guy? The one and only, world famous, known-to-all, Ti-Guy?
Glad to hear you're not anonymous.
Nice mouth.
Thank you.
I said "persistent identity." Gawd, it's like the right-bags can't understand language anymore.
Is anyone else as mortified as I am?
Yes I read it. Who cares what you write, Ti-Guy? Besides, I am consistently anonymous -- just like you, cipher. So, there.
Yes. You ought (pace Mr. Mikmik) to be mortified. You come across as a bit of a jerk, I am sure you know ... but you'll grow up and things will get better, I'm sure.
Good luck with that!
Unreal.
Hippie.
"It's IMPOSSIBLE"
Now you're inventing straw men. You're as much a liar as the clowns on Fox, just not as funny.
Come on anony, tell how socialized medicine allows anonymity that the U.S. system doesn't because it's "like the post office". That was the claim made, not "it's IMPOSSIBLE".
p.s. you can play the stupid card
So, it IS possible for a doctor to hide in the bureaucracy of a socialized system?
So, then, it's NOT a lie to say, "A doctor can hide himself in the bureaucracy of a socialized system"?
Then, is it possible that it COULD be true under certain circumstances that a doctor could hide in the bureaucracy of a socialized system more easily than in a privately-run system ... well, because there are fewer government workers in the private system and it's a universal truism that government workers suck ... as in they stink? They pay $500 dollars for toilet seats, have computer systems that date back to the punch card era, and they're all home by 5PM.
So, do we all now agree that this was no lie?
I'm convinced by mr. bowyer. Let's have an unregulated, free-market system, where absolutely no one can hide.
As opposed to "bureaucracies" where you can plot terrorist attacks in your cubicles all day.
The last thing we want is to let the terrorists "get" us by having a healthcare system that costs less and saves more lives.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice to be safe.
You might not be able to afford life-saving procedures, but at least you'll be "safe."
That a national cable news network can exist that gives this tripe a respectful hearing is an abomination.
That some mouth-breathing fuckwad can show up in our neck of the woods defending this drivel is doubly abominable.
Lenny,
It's like the post office in that the post office delivers a service quite inferior to UPS and Fed Ex, a service so bad they routinely lose packages and letters (sometimes they show up years or decades later), workers go "postal" with disturbing frequency, postmen have trouble delivering the mail correctly because of their frequent breaks, etc.
"Then, is it possible that it COULD be true under certain circumstances that a doctor could hide in the bureaucracy of a socialized system more easily than in a privately-run system"
Haha! I see you've played the stupid card!
You're no amateur when it comes to invention of "facts", either. Stupid anddishonest -you could be on Fox news!
Moron,
So the post-office loses mail, and therefore terrorists can hide out there, or in the public health care system, ... WHAT????
Losing mail, plotting terrorism, ... they're all part of government bureaucracies??
What?? What about a private health insurance company? Isn't that a bureaucracy??
Jesus Christ, what does it take to make you right-wing drones puke up the Kool-Aid when it's become obvious to anyone that it's been poisoned?
People who think you can hide in a bureaucracy do not understand bureaucracies and probably have had no actual experience with or in bureaucracies.
First, a definition: a "bureaucracy" or a "public sector" entity is an entity which cannot retain earnings. The ability to retain earnings is the only thing that actually distinguishes market from non-market entities.
Saying that "bureaucrats" are inefficient is like saying General Motors cannot make decent cars. General Motors isn't in business to make cars; it's in business to make money. As long as the consumer will buy anything with a GM nameplate, it really doesn't make any difference whether GM can make decent cars.
GM's current problems have arisen out of the uncomfortable fact that in the private sector, competition is external. Companies outside of North America, which also exist to make money, pander to consumers by making decent cars. Ooof!
But in the public sector, i. e., in "bureaucracies," competition is internal.
Somebody — whether described as a parliament, a congress, a city council or school board — has a "pie." Everything bureaucrats get has to come out of that pie. Among the consequences of this fact are (a) that anything one agency gets is something that no other agency gets; (b) bureaucracies are hierarchical; and (c) anything you dissipate on program is "lost," in the sense that you cannot spend it on yourself.
The reason bureaucrats appear to be incompetent is that bureaucrats are in business to make money, not to provide public service. Public service is not even as important to bureaucrats as making cars is to General Motors because in the public sector, competition is internal. In other words, bureaucrats do not “sell” to the consumer; they sell to parliament, or whatever.
"Public service" is the ultimate intangible. No one to my knowledge has effectively determined a realistic method of measuring "public service." Parliament divides the pie by weighing intangibles in the form of lobbying and argument over which services are "essential" and cannot be cut no matter what. The reason a public sector entity cannot retain earnings is that if an entity did not spend its whole budget one fiscal year, that fact will be used by its competitors to argue that if the entity didn't even need all that money last year it certainly doesn't need that much money next year, and unnecessary funds cannot be squandered when everyone else’s budget is being slashed.
Now to get around to the business of “hiding in a bureaucracy.” The hierarchical character of bureaucracies transmits the competition from the most prominent and powerful bureaucrat within each agency all the way down to the second-most obscure and inconsequential bureaucrat. Everybody who has control of a line or a box on an organization chart is engaged in internal competition for his own agency’s share of the pie. One of the unwritten rules in internal competition is that, for obvious reasons, no one is allowed to claim that another bureaucrat’s “service” or “task” is worthless or unnecessary. Nevertheless, the bureaucrats with places in each box watch the placemen in every other box jealously, ready to make the claim that their box is more worthy than the other box and their particular box should get a bigger piece of that pie.
At this point, you have to take my word for something: While intellectually, you can understand the concept of internal competition reaching the lowest lever of every bureaucracy, you simply cannot comprehend the intensity or the pervasiveness of the internal competition in a bureaucracy unless you’ve been there.
The reason you cannot hide in a bureaucracy is that every other bureaucrat is out for your throat.
"and therefore all you brainless foxnews drones out there, be afraid of doctors, be afraid of foreigner, and be afraid of universal healthcare. I'm Kneel Cavuto, for Jerry "Scaife's sockpuppet" Bowyer, good night and gawd bless"
Fuckers.
I knew you dopes would interpret my saying this piece was not full of lies as my endorsing everything this piece said.
Listen kids, calm down and take a breath. Exhale .... I actually don't believe that socialized medicine will allow doctors to hide in the system better than they do now to any appreciable extent. I never endorsed this view. So calm down.
Still, this ain't an example of Fox News's "lying." You disagree. Good for you. But because you do, it doesn't necessarily mean the person with whom you disagree is lying. It's as simple as that, and if you read my first post here, that would be clear to you. (But then I would have to expect a modicum of reason and reasonableness from my readers. There is no evidence to suggest I should.)
Now go home, kiddies. You have a lot to learn.
haha, I guess I am a hippie. Although, I'm not the one having LSD-induced paranoid delusions! Its still unreal. They are using fear to discourage support for national health care. I don't think its lies per se. I mean, technically, a terrorist COULD pose as a doctor. But a terrorist COULD be anybody.
One point I wanted to make was where they are going to lose doctors to? We lose a good number of our doctors to them! If they are that afraid of terrorists, then why were they willing to open their port system to a company from Dubai?
anonymous,
If your point all along was that his air-headed assertions were not technically "lies" then I can only wonder why you think that's a point worthy of commenting about.
I can't be bothered to go back and listen to that nonsense again, there might have been some actual "lies" there, or it might very well have been just full, solid, nicely-packed, big pieces of shit falling out of his mouth the whole time.
Seems to me, that what you're doing is taking a tossed-off statement about "lies" and attacing that in some bizarre attempt to give credibility to the shitty analysis.
If you weren't trying to do that, then you were either trying to childishly yank Ti-Guy's chain, or, you were making the useless clarification that bowyer wasn't technically lying, ... which nobody really gives two shits about in any case.
Personally, I found that bowyers commentary to be highly offensive and dangerous, and i can't help but respond defensively if i think somebody is stupidly attempting to give it shred of legitimacy.
I couldn't make it all the way through. It was just too ridiculous.
UHC in the US would be a tremendous blessing to those of us who are insured but still get screwed and those among us who either can't get coverage due to income or health issues. I've been in both seats and neither is an especially comfy one to rest in.
Example: two weeks ago my husband switched jobs, but because he isn't due to start until this Monday we were left sans coverage until he starts working again. He paid $1500(!!) so that we'd be covered, which is supposed to include prescriptions but apparently doesn't, because he had his meds refilled yeaterday at the cost of an additional $419.
Another example: My first husband and I separated, and his first move was to have me taken off of all of our health care. I was working but only making slightly above minimum wage so I had to work two jobs (at one point three) because he also wasn't paying child support for our son. I couldn't afford coverage and frequently had to choose between paying the rent, buying food and whether to go to the doctor/buy meds. I got custody of our son but the ex retained the right to claim him on his taxes - yet took him off of his insurance for awhile in an attempt to leave me so helpless I'd be forced to go back to him.
In both cases I would have been more grateful for UHC than I could ever possibly express.
Those who oppose UHC for the US have never been in the position of being without coverage or denied treatment for something they desperately needed. Why should they give a damn when it's not their asses that are left in the breeze?
P.S. - 'Yeaterday' was a typo. I of course meant 'yesterday'.
And that $419 was for a one month supply of ONE prescription.
I don't think its lies per se. I mean, technically, a terrorist COULD pose as a doctor. But a terrorist COULD be anybody.
I wish everyone would stop giving the lying righties the benefit of the doubt. When their speculations are patently absurd and counter-factual, they are lying, no ifs, ands for buts.
Everything most righties say is a bald-face lie. It's just simply common sense to proceed with that assumption.
Mikmik,
Wow. Deep thoughts from the Commonwealth Fund.
Although "terrorists" may be pronounced "terrists" in your part of the world, it is not spelled that way.
The rest of your screed is only marginally coherent.
Glad to be of help.
By Anonymous, at 6:44 PM
----
Glad to know that my showing what it is like to act ridiculous over something so fucking ridiculous got through to you.
As in, 'if you are going to be so shrill and hysterical, I'll do ya one better - looks stupid, doesn't it?'
Just let me know, I'll spell everything correctly and 'splain it all anytime you ask ;)
Post a Comment