Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:26 pm**

Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.

Edited By GORDON on 1250184448

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:36 pm**

GORDON wrote:Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.

Chain e-mails are started by fifteen year olds? They've got a system of mass communication available to them that's essentially free to use & they know a shitload of their target markets uses it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:51 pm**

Malcolm wrote:
GORDON wrote:Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.

Chain e-mails are started by fifteen year olds? They've got a system of mass communication available to them that's essentially free to use & they know a shitload of their target markets uses it.

Aren't they? I thought adults were able to be reasonable with logic and facts and stuff, and not resort to stacking town hall meetings with fake doctors and telling lies about your opponents being paid advocatres. Chain emails are for IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS TO 15 PEOPLE YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS. You know, the kind of shit started by 14 year old kids.

There is zero dignity in this white house, and possibly as much competence. The man has the white house and a super majority in congress, and he is still foundering? What an idiot. Bush got more done with a congress who openly mocked him and was split down the middle.

Edited By GORDON on 1250185966

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:31 pm**

GORDON wrote:..the kind of shit started by 14 year old kids.

I dont' get those from kids, I get them from all the old people who have my email address. That's why most of my family keeps getting tagged as spammers by Yahoo.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:13 pm**

Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:17 pm**

GORDON wrote:(*)There is zero dignity in this white house, and possibly as much competence. (**)The man has the white house and a super majority in congress, and he is still foundering? What an idiot. (***)Bush got more done with a congress who openly mocked him and was split down the middle.

(*) There hasn't been either of those in a long, LONG, LONG time.

(**) Just because there's a lot of people that think alike doesn't mean they make progress. There's less opposition in the Chinese gov't. I don't expect them to do much of anything.

(***) Friction breeds competition breeds evolution breeds better results. If there's no one around to keep you honest, the vast majority of humans start to slack off.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:20 pm**

Malcolm wrote:Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?

Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.

On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.

Edited By GORDON on 1250194862

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:24 pm**

Dude, you went to myspace, where people go to talk to each other about any & every thing.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:56 pm**

GORDON wrote:...my myspace account....

I think I found yer problem.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:21 pm**

GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.

On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.

You need to check your wife's account (no offense) it is rampant out there with adults also. I choose not to answer but if it makes some peeps happy, why not. And kids have done this sort of thing forever. It is what kids do, they just have the internet to further it now.

Posted: **Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:08 pm**

Mommy Dearest wrote:
GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.

On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.
You need to check your wife's account (no offense) it is rampant out there with adults also. I choose not to answer but if it makes some peeps happy, why not. And kids have done this sort of thing forever. It is what kids do, they just have the internet to further it now.

I wasn't criticizing kids for doing it, I was criticizing the white house for such immaturity.

Which gets me reported to the white house thought crimes department, I know.

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:32 pm**

Immature? Would it be better if they sent it out in snail mail w\ envelopes & stamps? Should they've called a press conference to hand out the URL? They're using one of the largest, cheapest communication networks in existence. If it works to sell herbal Viagra or to refinance your mortgage or any of the other junk e-mail shyte out there, then why not use that model?

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:37 pm**

Because he has been on TV 4 times about it, and he apparently still hasn't convinced everyone? More peeps own TVs than have email, and he still fails.

IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS EMAIL ABOUT OBAMACARE TO 5 OTHER PEOPLE THEN U WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS PLUS BILL GATES WILL SEND U A FREE COPY OF WINDOWS

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:53 pm**

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/email]

!=

IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS EMAIL ABOUT OBAMACARE TO 5 OTHER PEOPLE THEN U WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS PLUS BILL GATES WILL SEND U A FREE COPY OF WINDOWS

So, JFK & Nixon were tools for appearing on TV, the "vast wasteland" & "idiot box?" FDR was immature for having fireside chats? How about the first prez to get his portrait taken by camera instead of painted? I can't blame a politician for using the media at their disposal to flood their message into the world. That's their fucking job description.

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:57 pm**

Front page article on Yahoo about "false 'Death Panel'" rumors.

There's obviously going to be fact distortion on BOTH sides of an issue this large, but this article needs to be pointed out as it contradicts itself. That's a nice way of saying that the writer is intentionally lying.

This article says the claims of a "death panel" in Obama's plan are false, but check out this small bit:

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.

Uhm...that means they have, at the very least, considered it. Shouldn't THAT be the headline?

And what is stopping them from being able to add such a panel later? I mean, does anyone really believe that this plan is so fiscally perfect that cutting costs will never be a concern?

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:01 pm**

No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."

So no, they were not considered, no, they were never in the healthcare plan. Yes, Sarah Palin is a retard.

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:16 pm**

Never mind, chain emails are the correct way to sell a government takeover of the health care industry. You win.

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:17 pm**

TheCatt wrote:No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."

So... what is a panel called that decides when a person is no longer worth spending money on to prolong life?

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm**

Yeah, there's absolutely no indication in it of a "panel", it would just be one person.

EDIT: Seriously, though, that's not what the "end of life" stuff was about. It's counseling on things like setting up a living will, or doing stuff like that. Not that there won't be someone who's job it will be to tell you when you've spent too much and it's time to die, there has to be someone like that. But that's true of all health insurance.

Edited By TPRJones on 1250288430

Posted: **Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:29 pm**

And we want that person to be the government?

Besides, Obama talked about it before Palin ever did:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main....or.html

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

And personally, I believe that once the government is paying for health care, they aren't going to limit care to just old-people-on-death-beds. People with brain damage who 3 doctors will say will never wake up, because of course they never wake up. Lets save a few bucks for the taxpayer, and besides, they aren't voting if they're in a coma, amirite? People born with dibiliating diseased like Down's Syndrome.... because hey... it's not like they will ever be successful and put any tax money into the system, so let's just save a few bucks for the taxpayer. And hell... let;s just kill off everyone who doesn't have blue eyes and blonde hair. All of these decisions are arbitrary anyway, so let's just do it.

Anyway, end of hyperbole.

I just don't want this or any government being the first and last decider for deciding who gets what health care, because bureaucracies do not have empathy or sympathy, but they do have budgetary limitations. "Due to the slowing economy, no hysterectomies in 2013. Sorry ladies!"

Perhaps I should put out a persuasive chain email sharing my views.

Edited By GORDON on 1250289161

Welcome to Thunderdome

Health Care