Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Libs might free us from OBAMA?

I told Mr Z after Obama's first few months in office that I thought it'll be Democrats who wake the country up to the perils of having Obama as president. I'm not sure it's not happening now....now that his antics are affecting THEM.

1. NY City will have the terror trials there. Plenty of liberals and their families live there. Wait till they hear more about the kinds of threats NYC might have.

2. The new breast cancer guidelines from the Feds are horrifying even the liberal CNN news readers. To Dr Sanjay Gupta every morning this week, "You mean my insurance might not cover mammograms because I'm not FIFTY YET? But...but...I have friends whose cancers were caught in mammograms when they were 35!" The Feds say there are too many expensive "false positives"...isn't that worth the millions caught in time by this kind of testing? (but that's not rationing :-)

3. The swine flu vaccines aren't readily available yet and some liberal journalists are not too happy about it. Remember, Robt Gibbs was asked why Gitmo detainees had them and he said they never did get vaccines though the Pentagon did brief the journalists they had? A LOT of unhappy liberal daddy journalists in that crowd, folks.

4. "I have never experienced a more NON TRANSPARENT White House!" Helen Thomas remarked to Robert Gibbs at a WH Press Briefing. NO, Helen, we haven't, either. And, by the way...I haven't SEEN you in the briefings since you said that Helen, you okay?

There might be more, I'm not sure, but I'll be keeping track, you can count on it. If any of you have suggestions for more specific items for this list, fire away. Seems like all kinds of people get a little more careful and suspicious when THEY are suddenly looking at something happening to THEM. Do you think a list a bit longer than this might wake liberals up to what's happening? You think liberal journalists will actually start writing the truth on various things we've seen them obfuscate? What do YOU think it might take?
z

61 comments:

sue said...

The new breast cancer guidelines are pretty confusing!

FrogBurger said...

Pretty confusing indeed. If that's a calculation, that's pretty horrible. But nothing would surprise me coming from politicians and cynical minds like Obama and his goons. After all, they use global warming as a way to redistribute wealth.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The new breast cancer guidelines don't confuse me. It's the first taste of government healthcare rationing. No, they didn't need the healthcare bill.
This comes from HHS.

How long before people accept the fact that the government doesn't give a tinker's damn about the American people? At least the thugs we have in there now, don't.

This is the fundamental change Obama promised, and it's just the beginning.

There will be "green" standards from the EPA, Cap and Trade or not.

Welcome to dictates from Obama through his Czars. One by one, the pronouncements will come.

In California, the Energy Commission is planning on banning big screen TVs in 2011. I called Sacramento today, and found this is not going through the legislature, but, the California Energy Commission. Another dictate from a non-elected board.

Our state is bankrupt, and this is what they're concerned about. Banning big screen TV's. Killing more business, and micro-managing our lives.

It's time now, to rise up, drive them crazy with phone calls, go to tea parties, demand representation, and at the first opportunity, vote the bums out!

If we don't, and wait for it to stop, we'll be waiting a very long time and it will be too late. We take charge, or we lose.

Personally, I don't like being hit over the head by elitists who think they know what's best for us.
They got us into this mess, and we can get ourselves out of it by firing the lot of them, and hiring people loyal to the constitution, and the people.

Pris

beamish said...

"Liberals waking up" would throw Beamish's Hypothesis ("Leftists are incapable of rational thought") into disarray.

I don't put much faith in the idea that the kind of people that sincerely believe that fighting wars in Islamic countries will create terrorists among people we should never profile at the airport are going to grab a clue even if you gift wrapped it for them.

beamish said...

Pris,

Democrats do have their priorities, even if only to serve the American people their unique blend of imbecility and docility.

It wasn't all that long ago that Nancy Pelosi's House of Reprehensibles was thrown into near catatonic halt trying to figure out if Barry Bonds was a steroid junkie when it came time to consider renewing NSA monitoring on terrorist communications.

DaBlade said...

Great list, and tough to pin any of those on Bush.

Always On Watch said...

I totally disagree with the new breast cancer guidelines. I know several women whose lives were saved due to mammos on an annual basis.

Anonymous said...

Bumper sticker for today:

The UNITED STATES CONGRESS:
MINDING YOUR BUSINESS
$$$$$$BADLY$$$$$$

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Well, regarding the terror trial, z.

A story on NPR today confirmed my hunch that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is really small, a mere 5'4." According to the story, when KSM attended a Baptist College in North Carolina (LMAO), he weighed about 130 pounds, meaning he was roughly the same size as I was in 7th grade. (He looks like he's hit the hummus tray pretty hard since then.) No wonder Republicans are quaking and feeling a foreboding burning in their anal cysts.

So I think a perp walk will in fact help point out what a bunch of mewling little babies Republicans are and how they really need to grow a spine.

Now, New Yorkers aren't as prone to fear and panic as say Southerners so this will really end up as a plus for Obama.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah AOW, it is confusing. I know a couple women who have been diagnosed. One in her late fifties was diagnosed by mammography as was another in her early forties, but she has a family history and would certainly go for screenings regardless of these guidelines.

This has not been well reported at all and the topic deserves far more precision and less politics.

Ducky's here said...

Question:

If giving fewer mammographies to women in their 40's resulted in savings that allowed for more screening for women in their 50's when then is a higher incidence would that reduce breast cancer deaths.

Beamish: this involves basic arithmetic and reasoning so don't try to answer, it's beyond most Republicans and certainly beyond you.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Being free of Obama and his policies is only half the equation.

What will be the policy direction put forth by that which replaces it?

I ToldJah So said...

The Libs might free us from OBAMA?

You are right, Obama just can't seem to stop making a fool out of himself.

Elmers Brother said...

you're right in one sense duhkkky we need more than anecdotal evidence for e.g.

I have 3 women in my family who were diagnosed with breast cancer in their 30's...two of them in their early 30's (both died from the disease)

but you don't have breasts do you?

Ducky's here said...

Let's try again, elmo. I presented a very relevant problem in game theory. What action results in the fewest deaths from the cancer.

Now you reacted like a typical right wing slug and maintained that you personal history is somehow what should control the narrative rather than the wider experience.

I don't know whether this is because the right is by nature selfish or simply ignorant.
I gravitate to the former because of their Calvinistic sense of privilege.

highboy said...

Yes, ducky, you leftists are much more generous that right wingers. Its just that your generous with everyone else's money, not your own. But nice self-righteous rant.

The Hermit said...

Strange times.

Brooke said...

Maybe leftsist will get sick of Obama when they start to FEEL his policies for themselves.

I'm in disagreement w/breast cancer guidelines. Rationing to some women to treat others?

Leftist though, are classic misogynists. Perhaps Ducky thinks we shouldn't give men prostate exams until they are in their 50's or older.

To hell with those who can't afford the exam but get it early. I guess they are just an acceptable statistic...

And let's not start the argument that a prostate exam is only $80-$100 for or so for a doctor's office visit while a mammogram is far more expensive. It's the principal.

Anonymous said...

Humanity is NOTHING BUT a vast collection of "personal narratives."

Each individual is an essential part of the WHOLE. But we should never cease to regard the whole as an assortment of INDIVIDUALS.

The INDIVIDUAL is supreme. The collective is merely theoretical. There AIN'T no such animal as a "Collective."

~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

Yeah AOW, it is confusing. I know a couple women who have been diagnosed. One in her late fifties was diagnosed by mammography as was another in her early forties, but she has a family history and would certainly go for screenings regardless of these guidelines.

Now you reacted like a typical right wing slug and maintained that you personal history is somehow what should control the narrative rather than the wider experience.

Actually duhkkky the only thing I did different then you is change the ages. Anectdotal.

Unless of course you know the math yourself?

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, are you saying that game theory cannot be applied to this issue?

You don't believe that a strategy for an optimum outcome can be at least closely approximated?

I know, optimum means maximizing your outcome or elmo's. You are clueless aren't you.

Elmers Brother said...

I know, optimum means maximizing your outcome or elmo's. You are clueless aren't you.

what's a matter duhkkky, run out of fingers?

I thought it was the Republicas who wanted us to just go out and die?

Susannah said...

Helen Thomas is bound & gagged & being stored in a closet, deep in the bowels of the Capitol Building. She'll only be freed when she agrees to NOT sit on the front row anymore asking irreverent, irrelelvant questions.

Z, how you doin? Been thinking of you a lot. Still have that note on my mirror. ;)

beamish said...

A story on NPR today confirmed my hunch that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is really small, a mere 5'4." According to the story, when KSM attended a Baptist College in North Carolina (LMAO), he weighed about 130 pounds, meaning he was roughly the same size as I was in 7th grade. (He looks like he's hit the hummus tray pretty hard since then.) No wonder Republicans are quaking and feeling a foreboding burning in their anal cysts.

So I think a perp walk will in fact help point out what a bunch of mewling little babies Republicans are and how they really need to grow a spine.


Yeah Ducky. Khalid Shiekh Muhammad's trial will feature courtroom security, roadblock checkpoints, bodyguards for the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their families because ytou leftists are "not scared" and "sensitive to Islam."

Bwhahahahaha!

Susannah said...

Duck~
You really can be somewhat of a dolt, can't you?

"when KSM attended a Baptist College in North Carolina (LMAO),"

I'm not real sure what's so funny there, Duck. I graduated Cum Laude from a small Baptist-affiliated college in NC. Though not the same one (thank Heaven) as what's-his-name. Maybe you've heard of Wake Forest University.

"New Yorkers aren't as prone to fear and panic as say Southerners so this will really end up as a plus for Obama."

You're real fond of stereotypes, eh Duck? (Hint: this makes you sound like a dolt)

My college roommate was a NJ girl, so I know better than to pack all those "who ain't from 'round here" in the same box, Duck. (Though I can spot one quicker th'n a tick on a hound dog's ear when I see one.) It would behoove you to use the same logic.

beamish said...

Question:

If giving fewer mammographies to women in their 40's resulted in savings that allowed for more screening for women in their 50's when then is a higher incidence would that reduce breast cancer deaths.

Beamish: this involves basic arithmetic and reasoning so don't try to answer, it's beyond most Republicans and certainly beyond you.


I see you're still using your dunce cap for a megaphone, Ducky.

The average age of women getting breast cancer screenings is 62.

The average age of women dying from breast cancer is 68.

Obviously an earlier diagnosis median age would save more lives.

Really, Ducky, remember. An honest discussion begins with you declaring yourself an imbecile.

Elmers Brother said...

Not one oncologist on the panel.

The US Task Force (USPSTF) has a history of influencing coverage of Medicare and other health care insurance companies. Although the new recommendation will probably not change the insurance coverage immediately, over time it may cause insurance companies to rethink coverage for women without a family history of breast cancer or those who are perceived to be at low risk.

False positives make up only 5-15% of total mammograms.

Ducky's here said...

But bobo, what if women who do not have coverage are not getting any screening and making the mamographies available to them, even if for the sake of argument fewer were available in the least susceptible bracket, resulted in fewer deaths or extreme invasive procedures.

It's a hypothetical designed to have folks think about some of the possible reasons for the recommendation.

You failed as usual. See the key here is to add universal coverage to the equation.

Anonymous said...

HERE's some anecdotal evidence for you:

They used to send my business partner, who had bladder cancer, home with a bleeding tube sticking out of his penis and a plastic bag strapped to his leg after bladder surgery, which they insisted was an "outpatient" procedure. That was Medicare (Government-Run Health care) at work.

He went through the hideous process of draining these bags of blood, himself, with NO HELP he didn't PAY for out of his OWN funds.

All that pain, anxiety, expense and discomfort occurred countless times over a period of several miserable years. Many times the tube clogged up with blood clots, so a return trip to the hospital by ambulance in the middle of the night was needed to combat the cruelty and the sheer idiocy of this government-mandated policy.

If the government had NEVER become involved with ANYONE's medical care, things like this would NEVER be happening. It is GOVERNMENT that drives the cost of medical care NOT the private health insurance companies.


If you think things are bad NOW, they will get MUCH worse once we have Government MONOPOLY Medical Care. We will be absolutely helpless.

The central government wants to be the SOLE provider of EVERYTHING, so they have us by the short hairs on EVERY issue medical, economic or otherwise.

DON'T be fooled by COMMUNIST tactics, PLEASE.

HOUND and BEDEVIL your congress people, call them, write to them and tell them over and over and over that you do NOT want SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

The Communist-Internationalist Agenda is the REAL outrage here, NOT the policies of private insurance companies all of which are DRIVEN by the GOVERNMENT, believe me.

Did you know that once you reach age 65 you are not ALLOWED to buy PRIVATE insurance anymore? The companies are not PERMITTED to SELL it to you -- except for the Medicare supplements, of course -- and THEY stop when the GOVERNMENT decides it's time to give up on you.

That's the way it is NOW and has been for DECADES.

Do you REALLY want THAT for yourself and your children?

My GOD! "What fools these mortals be!"

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

BTW, Mark Twain -- certainly a liberal by today's standards, if he was anything -- famously said:

••• "There are lies -- God-damned lies -- and then there are STATISTICS." •••

'Nuff said!

~ FreeThinke

Jen said...

When the liberal journalists start to feel sufficiently threatened, they'll speak out. If there's still freedom of speech, that is.

They did have the fire in their bellies at some point. Hopefullly it's not completely died out...

Z said...

susannah....please keep the note up :=) THANK you.

Ducky...the guy's HEIGHT bothers you? BEcause he's short gives you comfort? What..."you can't be a terrorist if you're SHORT?" WHAT? Are you kidding?
And no, your logic's silly again re mammograms....I know SO MANY WOMEN (actually more this age than older) in their thirties and forties who've lived because of early detection via mammograms that I think it's immoral to say what the feds are saying "Too many expensive false positives when done on women under 50"..Immoral. Thank GOD mammograms aren't terribly expensive; at least most American women will be able to pay themselves...UNTIL Obama care kicks in and there are less mammography machines and less staff...what a nightmare.
You go ahead and live in your lib world...leave real living to the conservatives.

Elmers Brother said...

they're also saying that breast exams are useless prior to age 50

don't tell my wife

Anonymous said...

Ducky,
Leave it to you to judge a person's actions by his size. As if that makes him less of a threat.

Let's see, Napoleon, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, all of small stature. What in the world does that have to do with the threat they may pose, or their ability to plan war, or terrorist attacks? Or to behead Daniel Pearl?

He could be three feet tall and spew his propaganda. He was a planner of 9-11. His size is irrelevant. Honestly Ducky are you really that shallow? Hmmmm well, yes I believe you are.


"If giving fewer mammographies to women in their 40's resulted in savings that allowed for more screening for women in their 50's when then is a higher incidence would that reduce breast cancer deaths."

I would add that the restriction of mammographies begins again at age 75 according to this guideline.

You see Ducky, it's like this. The government reduces people to numbers. Sacrifice some, to save more of the others, is numbers crunching. It's called rationing, which is based on cost-effectiveness. Not human suffering, but numbers.
Leave it to you to reduce people's lives to game theory.

Do you think anyone would relish becoming a cost effective statistic?

As it is now, all those women are included in the drive to save them from breast cancer. It's up to them to choose, and decide with their doctor.

In Britain certain chemo treatments for breast cancer sufferers are refused outright. They have no choice. They can die because they don't fit into the government's master plan.

I can't think of a better example as to why government has no business intervening between the patient and her doctor.

What we need is to be left the hell alone.


Beamish - I forgot about the Barry Bonds agenda. My goodness, how could I forget something so urgent for our country?

Pris

beamish said...

But bobo, what if women who do not have coverage are not getting any screening and making the mamographies available to them, even if for the sake of argument fewer were available in the least susceptible bracket, resulted in fewer deaths or extreme invasive procedures.

It's a hypothetical designed to have folks think about some of the possible reasons for the recommendation.

You failed as usual. See the key here is to add universal coverage to the equation.


So that universally, nobody is getting a breast exam unless the government lets them have one.

Nice.

Ducky, personal question. Do you know what thinking feels like?

Z said...

Elbro, that's the whole point. The problem is so many women ARE saved with early mammograms starting at 30. The Feds now say it's not worth the expense of False Positives...I say one woman's life is worth any amount of expense..but these are people obviously only interested in the bottom line.

Pris..good point. Can you tell me how anybody could think someone's not dangerous if he's SHORT? Unless he's on the Lakers, maybe?!

beamish said...

Tsk tsk, Z.

You're confusing yourself trying to figure out how actual thinking leads to Ducky's comments.

Say it with me:

"Beamish's Hypothesis states that leftists are incapable of rational thought."

;)

Elmers Brother said...

oh I understand....I was trying a little levity

I conduct a lot of my wife's breast exams

Elmers Brother said...

Let's see, Napoleon, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, all of small stature. What in the world does that have to do with the threat they may pose, or their ability to plan war, or terrorist attacks? Or to behead Daniel Pearl?

In duhkkky's world it's all about theater.

FrogBurger said...

You guys should stop paying attention to Ducky like I do. At some point he'll go away. A parasite has to feeds itself on something to live.

beamish said...

Crap, y'all brought up Daniel Peari's beheading.

The most we'll hear from Ducky is a critique of the camera work of the Al Qaeda video.

FrogBurger said...

Good one Beamish. That's right. That video was not avant garde enough. No touch of Renoir or Godard.

Elmers Brother said...

I conduct a lot of my wife's breast exams

as opposed to duhkkky....who only gets to see a boob when he looks in the mirror to shave

Chuck said...

Great list and post Z.

Couple of observations from the conversation above.

First, without being rude, I have to correct Elmers spelling.

but you don't have breasts do you?

The correct spelling is 'brains'.

Second about this whole stature thing - Obama is kind of tall and yet not in the least fearful isn't he?

Saw an e-mail at work today from one of our oncology surgeons. She completely debunked this "no need to get a mammogram between the ages of 40 and 50" nonsense.

FrogBurger said...

And by the way, this administration is not liberal. They're fascistic leftists. Granted liberal doesn't mean much these days and doesn't certainly related to liberty. But we should use the proper terminology.

Z said...

man, elbro, that went right by me! Good one! Sorry you had to explain!

Chuck, I don't think there's a serious doctor alive who'd be against mammos before 50. I heard today that Obama's group had NO ONCOLOGISTS on it..NONE in making this decision.

Elmers Brother said...

CNN had a pediatrician on the panel...explaining it.

Elmers Brother said...

my comment was a little vaque so you're entitled

Ron Russell said...

You make a good list of things that would upset liberals, let me add Obama's attitude toward the Jewish state. He is definately siding with the Palestinians.

Anonymous said...

"You guys should stop paying attention to Ducky like I do. At some point he'll go away. A parasite has to feeds itself on something to live."

But FrogB - it's so much fun. We all need a little entertainment don't we? Why, Ducky's a sitting duck just asking to be plucked, and the joke is he thinks he's, in his words, "cheesing us off"!

Pris

beamish said...

Frogburger,

And by the way, this administration is not liberal. They're fascistic leftists

"Fascistic leftists" is like saying "wet water" - a redundancy.

Mussolini and Hitler were nothing but leftists.

Fascism is, and always has been a left-wing political philosophy.

Z said...

Ron Russell: Liberals love pushing Israeli under the bus, sadly. I don't believe Obama's treatment of Jews is at all upsetting to them. The odd thing is I know liberal Jews who don't mind, either !

Anonymous said...

Z,
I can't read the "worth it if it saves one life" sentence without thinking about Thomas Sowell. He uses the example of safety on an airplane. Safety of air travel can be improved with increasing cost. Eventually, the cost is great enough that people decide to drive instead of fly. More driving means more driving-related fatalities. If driving fatalities increase because of increased cost of airfare, is it worth it if it saves one life?

I wrote a bunch of other stuff, then deleted it....couldn't piece my thoughts together so clearly. Anyway, statists could put the greatest technical experts on these rationing committees, and I still wouldn't like the idea. To do so is to ask our government to make our hardest, most personal decisions for us; to make our decisions unimportant; perhaps make our existence more comfortable, but our lives less meaningful.

tiob

Z said...

good analogy, tiob.
And I agree about our having to cede to government for such personal decisions...and our HEALTH! That does seem to make our lives less meaningful.

Anonymous said...

Whenever Man tries to play God, Man throws HIMSELF under the bus.

I hope you see what i mean?

~ FreeThinke

Elmers Brother said...

I heard the panel was also recommending that innoculations begin at age 35.

Mark said...

I said long ago I don't discount the possibility that Obama is a closet Muslim bent on destroying America form the inside.

More and more, everything Obama does convinces me even more that I was right.

Does anyone agree with me yet?

Mark said...

On the sidebar of my blog, I have this list, provided to me by my all time favorite blogger:

Truths About Liberals
1. Always expect the worst from a liberal and you will never be surprised.

2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

3. You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of doing.

4. Liberals don't debate, they argue.

5. The only standards liberals have are double standards.

6. Liberals feel, conservatives think.

7. Whenever you don't understand a liberal's motives, just look for the money.

8. Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

9. The Liberal creed is, "Do as I say, not as I do.

10. Liberals get older, but they never get smarter.

11. There are no honest liberals. If they were honest -- especially to themselves -- they would not be liberal.

12. A liberal's business is nobody's business, but everyone's business is a liberal's business.

13. Liberals have an inflated sense of self-worth. They are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter. (Sarah, Palin, George W. Bush, ad infinitum are morons.)

14. Liberals lack a sixth sense that is standard equipment in conservatives -- common sense.

15. Liberals never stop hating.

16. There are only two types of liberals -- the deceivers and the deceived.

17. Every time liberals get on their high horse, they get bucked off.

18. Liberal programs are so wonderful that they have to be forced on people.

19. Liberals always choke on their own medicine.


Ducky embodies every one of those truths.

Anonymous said...

Mark is close to 100% correct, but the odd things about this is that "liberals" would say the very same things about us.

The main difference is that "liberals" are more aggressive and also more devious in promoting their agenda, and far more vehement and vociferous in defending their precious objectives against the (relatively mild, well-mannered criticisms presented by elected Republican representatives and official spokesmen. (Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are obvious exceptions, but neither is elected or appointed -- and ain't THAT a shame?)

When we DO use more forceful tactics -- as seen at the Town Hall Meetings and the Tea Party March on Washington -- we are described as "insane," "out-of-control," "embarrassing," "off-the-wall," "naive," "moronic," "ingnorant rednecks," etc.

In many instances these opinions about "us" are not cynical or spiteful -- they are frighteningly sincere.

~ FreeThinke

Susannah said...

FreeThinker~ "Frighteningly sincere" Indeed. You are so right on, here...

Oh, & "vociferous!" Love that word!!!

;)