Alex Jones is a fucking joke

[LoudMcCloud]

[ame=http://youtu.be/0qp1ll9J1Cc]Alex Jones - Media blames Right wing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Death Panels will take care of the Elderly.

 

[SAYIT]

Must Watch TV - 42 lame Alex Jones predictions:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA&feature=player_embedded]42 STUPID Alex Jones PREDICTIONS - YouTube[/ame]
What a BOZO. No wonder our CT loons love him.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

[ame=http://youtu.be/pQxpNrI1zUE]Alex Jones - Whats the big deal? Rant - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

watvh alexjones.conspiracytheory.tv

 

[daws101]

Death Panels will take care of the Elderly.

that was bullshit when you assclowns first whined about it and it's bullshit now.

 

[paulitician]

Death Panels will take care of the Elderly.

that was bullshit when you assclowns first whined about it and it's bullshit now.

Ah, more ignorant hubris from the deranged Sock Puppet. You and most Politicians didn't even bother to read the Bill. Death Panels are a real possibility. It's been done in other Socialist Nations that adopted similar Laws.

 

[daws101]

Death Panels will take care of the Elderly.

that was bullshit when you assclowns first whined about it and it's bullshit now.

Ah, more ignorant hubris from the deranged Sock Puppet. You and most Politicians didn't even bother to read the Bill. Death Panels are a real possibility. It's been done in other Socialist Nations that adopted similar Laws.

again Pauline is making a false accusation alin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Posted on August 14, 2009

Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck. It skyrocketed up the Google search index and was quoted by George Stephanopoulos while interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC News’ "This Week." Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made similar claims while speaking out against "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” at a town hall on Wednesday.

President Obama addressed these concerns about death panels and unplugged grandmothers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He said:


Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." Our previous article was a response to the false claim that the health care bill would require forced counseling to push euthanasia. And it’s this provision on end-of-life counseling that’s the primary basis for Palin’s remarks.

On Aug. 12, Palin attempted to clear up her argument with a detailed Facebook post. She discussed Section 1233 and said that "it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." Palin goes onto argue:


Palin, Aug. 12: The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans." The legislation is 1,017 pages long with sections that cut costs, some that increase care, and some that do both. In fact, the counseling sessions would add to government expenses since Medicare would have to reimburse doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates officially that Section 1233 will cost a net total of $2.7 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, proposals to offer reimbursement for such counseling have attracted bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has." Isakson also commented on the recent confusion around the issue:


Isakson, Aug. 10: I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

Palin also attempts to buttress her case by quoting some writings by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy adviser to the president. Here she’s echoing claims made elsewhere, twisting the meaning of Emanuel’s writings and taking them out of context. We examined those claims in an Ask FactCheck item we posted earlier today, and won’t repeat the details here.

Finally, for those inclined to get their information from Facebook postings, may we suggest FactCheck.org’s own page?


Posted by Justin Bank on Friday, August 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with death panel, health care, President Obama, Sarah Palin.


FactCheck.org : Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

as always your lies trip you up! even more amusing is your "source"
Sarah Palin.
bahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[paulitician]

that was bullshit when you assclowns first whined about it and it's bullshit now.

Ah, more ignorant hubris from the deranged Sock Puppet. You and most Politicians didn't even bother to read the Bill. Death Panels are a real possibility. It's been done in other Socialist Nations that adopted similar Laws.

again Pauline is making a false accusation alin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Posted on August 14, 2009

Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck. It skyrocketed up the Google search index and was quoted by George Stephanopoulos while interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC News’ "This Week." Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made similar claims while speaking out against "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” at a town hall on Wednesday.

President Obama addressed these concerns about death panels and unplugged grandmothers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He said:


Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." Our previous article was a response to the false claim that the health care bill would require forced counseling to push euthanasia. And it’s this provision on end-of-life counseling that’s the primary basis for Palin’s remarks.

On Aug. 12, Palin attempted to clear up her argument with a detailed Facebook post. She discussed Section 1233 and said that "it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." Palin goes onto argue:


Palin, Aug. 12: The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans." The legislation is 1,017 pages long with sections that cut costs, some that increase care, and some that do both. In fact, the counseling sessions would add to government expenses since Medicare would have to reimburse doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates officially that Section 1233 will cost a net total of $2.7 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, proposals to offer reimbursement for such counseling have attracted bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has." Isakson also commented on the recent confusion around the issue:


Isakson, Aug. 10: I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

Palin also attempts to buttress her case by quoting some writings by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy adviser to the president. Here she’s echoing claims made elsewhere, twisting the meaning of Emanuel’s writings and taking them out of context. We examined those claims in an Ask FactCheck item we posted earlier today, and won’t repeat the details here.

Finally, for those inclined to get their information from Facebook postings, may we suggest FactCheck.org’s own page?


Posted by Justin Bank on Friday, August 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with death panel, health care, President Obama, Sarah Palin.


FactCheck.org : Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

as always your lies trip you up! even more amusing is your "source"
Sarah Palin.
bahahahahahahahahaha!

Like i said, just more ignorant hubris. Neither you or most of your beloved Politician Heroes even bothered to read the Legislation. You simply don't know shit, yet you feel you're an authority on the subject. Go read the Bill, and then get back to us.

 

[daws101]

Ah, more ignorant hubris from the deranged Sock Puppet. You and most Politicians didn't even bother to read the Bill. Death Panels are a real possibility. It's been done in other Socialist Nations that adopted similar Laws.

again Pauline is making a false accusation alin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Posted on August 14, 2009

Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck. It skyrocketed up the Google search index and was quoted by George Stephanopoulos while interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC News’ "This Week." Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made similar claims while speaking out against "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” at a town hall on Wednesday.

President Obama addressed these concerns about death panels and unplugged grandmothers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He said:


Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." Our previous article was a response to the false claim that the health care bill would require forced counseling to push euthanasia. And it’s this provision on end-of-life counseling that’s the primary basis for Palin’s remarks.

On Aug. 12, Palin attempted to clear up her argument with a detailed Facebook post. She discussed Section 1233 and said that "it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." Palin goes onto argue:


Palin, Aug. 12: The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans." The legislation is 1,017 pages long with sections that cut costs, some that increase care, and some that do both. In fact, the counseling sessions would add to government expenses since Medicare would have to reimburse doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates officially that Section 1233 will cost a net total of $2.7 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, proposals to offer reimbursement for such counseling have attracted bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has." Isakson also commented on the recent confusion around the issue:


Isakson, Aug. 10: I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

Palin also attempts to buttress her case by quoting some writings by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy adviser to the president. Here she’s echoing claims made elsewhere, twisting the meaning of Emanuel’s writings and taking them out of context. We examined those claims in an Ask FactCheck item we posted earlier today, and won’t repeat the details here.

Finally, for those inclined to get their information from Facebook postings, may we suggest FactCheck.org’s own page?


Posted by Justin Bank on Friday, August 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with death panel, health care, President Obama, Sarah Palin.


FactCheck.org : Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

as always your lies trip you up! even more amusing is your "source"
Sarah Palin.
bahahahahahahahahaha!

Like i said, just more ignorant hubris. Neither you or most of your beloved Politician Heroes even bothered to read the Legislation. You simply don't know shit, yet you feel you're an authority on the subject. Go read the Bill, and then get back to us.

whatever you say pauline. who the fuck is us?

 

[paulitician]

again Pauline is making a false accusation alin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Posted on August 14, 2009

Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck. It skyrocketed up the Google search index and was quoted by George Stephanopoulos while interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC News’ "This Week." Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made similar claims while speaking out against "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” at a town hall on Wednesday.

President Obama addressed these concerns about death panels and unplugged grandmothers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He said:


Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." Our previous article was a response to the false claim that the health care bill would require forced counseling to push euthanasia. And it’s this provision on end-of-life counseling that’s the primary basis for Palin’s remarks.

On Aug. 12, Palin attempted to clear up her argument with a detailed Facebook post. She discussed Section 1233 and said that "it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." Palin goes onto argue:


Palin, Aug. 12: The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans." The legislation is 1,017 pages long with sections that cut costs, some that increase care, and some that do both. In fact, the counseling sessions would add to government expenses since Medicare would have to reimburse doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates officially that Section 1233 will cost a net total of $2.7 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, proposals to offer reimbursement for such counseling have attracted bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has." Isakson also commented on the recent confusion around the issue:


Isakson, Aug. 10: I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

Palin also attempts to buttress her case by quoting some writings by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy adviser to the president. Here she’s echoing claims made elsewhere, twisting the meaning of Emanuel’s writings and taking them out of context. We examined those claims in an Ask FactCheck item we posted earlier today, and won’t repeat the details here.

Finally, for those inclined to get their information from Facebook postings, may we suggest FactCheck.org’s own page?


Posted by Justin Bank on Friday, August 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with death panel, health care, President Obama, Sarah Palin.


FactCheck.org : Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

as always your lies trip you up! even more amusing is your "source"
Sarah Palin.
bahahahahahahahahaha!

Like i said, just more ignorant hubris. Neither you or most of your beloved Politician Heroes even bothered to read the Legislation. You simply don't know shit, yet you feel you're an authority on the subject. Go read the Bill, and then get back to us.

whatever you say pauline. who the fuck is us?

Well let us know after you've read the entire Bill. Good luck. See ya in about a month.

 

[emilynghiem]

I originally posted this spoof under Humor, but maybe it belongs here instead?

If Alex Jones and others don't have better ways to use their media access,
I propose a media contest to hire politicians or public figures to star in dance music video spoofs to raise money for charities that solve problems instead of bitching about them:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/humor/289311-political-spoof-on-myself-included.html

============================================

“One Day in Cyberspace”

A short time from now,
In a forum not too far from here,
An intelligent discussion took place…

White Racist Teafag: I hope we smash the Muslim MF who did this!

Random Libtard: Who’s WE? You’re the enemy dividing this nation with your racist bullcrap!
I hope and pray -- I mean, think and meditate -- it’s some disgruntled taxpaying Obama-hater just to prove you’re wrong and he’s right for once. About who our enemy really is!

Passive-Aggressive Libertarian: What? To justify more drones, and take away more guns? Really?

Unidentified Independent: If anything, this PROVES guns are not the problem. That bill was toast after this hit the media!

Conspiracy Theorist: You’re all deluded by media cover-up. Can’t you see big government is the real bogeyman behind these false flags, controlled by corporate hands playing us like puppets?

Lost Visitor: Excuse me, Gentlemen. Is this the Library?

Group: What Library? What Gentlemen?

Independent: Who reads books anymore? We get all our information online. That’s why we’re meeting here, to project our biased perceptions back and forth and create our own reality. Why are you here?

Visitor: I’m donating these books on spiritual healing. To promote medical research for mental health reform by curing criminal illness. So billions wasted on failed prisons can be re-invested in medical programs, health care and education per State, instead of fighting over federal mandates and taxes.

Independent: So YOU’RE that crackhead “Forgiveness Freak” who keeps rambling on about conflict resolution and restorative justice! The weirdo Dante called a “special troll” – that’s YOU isn’t it?

Drifter: Hey, be nice to my special friend! She can’t help that she’s from another planet and talks funny.

Anonymous Poster: All your base belong to us!

Independent: Be polite fuckwad! So who do YOU think is behind this? Which theory do YOU want to be right?

Conspiracy Theorist: Watch out, or she’s going to blame all us men for the rape, crime and war in the world. And for patriarchal politics we invented to bully and blame each other by race, religion and party!

Visitor: Actually, I’m hoping the kids are right on this one. About achieving peace by agreeing to stop hurting each other. I’m voting for everyone to stop and listen to what they are really saying and asking.

Random Lib: Be honest. Who do you think is responsible? A domestic terrorist or foreign Jihadist?

Visitor: Whoever it is, I just hope the people responsible are touched by the message put out by the children asking for Peace. And come to terms with misdirected anger injuring the very people who want most to reach out and help others like them who are suffering. I ask everyone to pray for those people to ask forgiveness and help to take full responsibility for their wrongful acts, not blame it on others …

Rightwing Conservative Enemy of the State: OMG! What planet did you say you’re from?

Visitor: … And we all agree to work together on restitution that helps the people affected and heals the wounded, and prevents worse political violence in the future. That is what I’d like to see come from this, for the sake of our children. Instead of angry rhetoric and projected blame that doesn’t solve problems.

Libertarian: What kind of crack are you on! Maybe all drugs SHOULD be banned, I was so wrong!

Random Lib: No way, we should distribute it freely! If I could stay high like her for just 30 seconds. Man! I could solve all the world’s problems overnight. Can you hook me up with your dealer?

Conservative: Y’know, guys. I’m just going to lie down on the floor before I fall out of my chair.

Random Lib: Don’t hit your fat head on your way down. And no peeking at my ass, you Tea Party Faggot.

Conservative: STFU! I need an aspirin, not your gay-marriage ass in my face!

Drifter: I’m not sure I’m ready to hear what your ideas are for restitution for something like this.

Dante: Should we start a new thread? Or a whole new section for this under the “Twilight Zone”?

Visitor: I’ll save that for another day. Here are some books to get started. The more we understand how spiritual healing works, there is no conflict between natural laws of science and faith-based teachings about forgiveness, so people can solve their own problems and don’t need to be preached at.

Independent: Thank you, Jesus! If there is a God, please make her leave! Please!

Visitor: In honor of our kids who deserve better, I’d like to invite all groups to organize a Peace and Justice network under a “Justice” branch (focusing on rule of law to stop abuses) and a “Peace” branch (focusing on diversity and inclusion), where I’d like to dedicate a national campaign to all the kids asking for Peace, and adults asking for Justice, to stop political bullying if we’re going to teach that it’s wrong.

Random Lib: Hey are you okay down there? Are you listening to this crap? How are we going to organize a Constitutional convention of political parties if you can’t even sit through ONE discussion like a man?

Conservative: I’m praying and listening to God. If this is going to take Jesus coming, I want to be ready.

Visitor: Yes, organizing teams online to address the meaning of Jesus as “universal salvation” and as “equal justice” will help prove a consensus on God, and a consensus on Law and government. By focusing on “forgiveness” as the key factor in reconciliation between people from different groups, regardless of party or religious affiliation, we can quit blaming each other for the wrong things. Since proving these correlating patterns repeat across all populations globally, requires tracking statistics on a database, I’d like to dedicate this as an academic project to the Chinese student in math and statistics…

Independent: I guess there is no God, if she’s still talking. What cruel God would punish us this way?

Dante: Yeah, and include all your research on “spiritual healing” to stop false medical practices in China based on cultural superstitions. Which will save endangered Asian Bears and Pangolins destroyed for their magical healing powers. I saw where you posted this same garbage on other threads and forums!

Libertarian: Don’t forget the tripped out idea, about minting labor-backed currency against the debts owed to taxpayers and to China? Using microloans to create jobs saving endangered historic and environmental landmarks across America. While building campuses to convert sweatshop and slave labor into work-study programs to end problems with illegal immigration, trafficking, and other crimes.

Independent: Now you’re BOTH smoking the same crack! How do I get a hold of this stuff?

Visitor: These ideas came from different parties. The solutions come from combining them together.

Independent: I don’t mean that, I mean the drugs you’re whacked out on! Geez!

Conspiracy Theorist: What kind of books are these?

Conservative, gets up: The kind where you turn the pages and read from left to right, you idiot.

Conspiracy Theorist: I mean, if spiritual healing is free, and can cure diseases from cancer to mental illness, then political bureaucracy just enables prisons and big pharm to profit off crime and sickness?

Visitor: There’s more to it than that. There’s still division among Christian denominations over the practice of spiritual healing, in addition to theists and nontheists falsely divided over faith and science, creation and evolution, when there is no need for conflict between secular laws and spiritual laws.

Drifter: Good luck mediating all that!

Independent: I can’t even read this garbage!

Conservative, reaches over: Here, you hold it like this, and flip the pages that way.

Independent: I mean, these are written by Christians so everything they’re saying is biased.

Visitor: If you don’t believe the studies, go replicate your own. That’s all I’m asking help for scientists and doctors to do. To show the natural process of forgiveness and healing is universal for all people.

Conspiracy Theorist: So you really believe all this forgiveness and spiritual healing is going to create a global circle of people “singing Kumbaya” and even bringing terrorists and communists to join in?

Visitor: We can’t control what other people do, just what we do with our words and our resources. Good day, Gentlemen. And I hope you enjoy the books and make the most of each other’s company.

Independent: Who the hell calls anyone “Gentlemen” anymore?

Conspiracy Theorist: Shut up, asswipe. Can’t you be civilized?

Conservative: You all need to watch your fucking language. Hypocrites!
===========================================

 

[LoudMcCloud]

[ame=http://youtu.be/qFbcpvhOxus]Alex Jones - Rat Bastard Rant - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SteadyMercury]

your beloved Politician Heroes

Dude, you're the only one in this thread with a username and icon indicating juvenile infatuation for a political figure.

 

[paulitician]

your beloved Politician Heroes

Dude, you're the only one in this thread with a username and icon indicating juvenile infatuation for a political figure.

Dr. Paul opposed 'Obamacare.'

 

[emilynghiem]

your beloved Politician Heroes

Dude, you're the only one in this thread with a username and icon indicating juvenile infatuation for a political figure.

Dr. Paul opposed 'Obamacare.'

Yes, also Dr. Milton Wolf, Obama's cousin by marriage.

And I haven't read up on Dr. Carson yet, as the media hype to shut him down or up
has preceded or superceded that already.

 

[SAYIT]

your beloved Politician Heroes

Dude, you're the only one in this thread with a username and icon indicating juvenile infatuation for a political figure.

A retired pol who likely quit the biz when he realized the ranks of his "believers" were filled with peeps like ... well, like Pauli.

 

[paulitician]

The tide is turning. Alex Jones is hated & ridiculed by many, but he is forcing more & more people to wake up. It reminds me of what Mahatma Gandhi once said...

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

 

[daws101]

The tide is turning. Alex Jones is hated & ridiculed by many, but he is forcing more & more people to wake up. It reminds me of what Mahatma Gandhi once said...

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Gandhi would have bitch slapped jones !

 

[SAYIT]

again Pauline is making a false accusation alin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Posted on August 14, 2009

Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck. It skyrocketed up the Google search index and was quoted by George Stephanopoulos while interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC News’ "This Week." Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made similar claims while speaking out against "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” at a town hall on Wednesday.

President Obama addressed these concerns about death panels and unplugged grandmothers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He said:


Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.

Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." Our previous article was a response to the false claim that the health care bill would require forced counseling to push euthanasia. And it’s this provision on end-of-life counseling that’s the primary basis for Palin’s remarks.

On Aug. 12, Palin attempted to clear up her argument with a detailed Facebook post. She discussed Section 1233 and said that "it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." Palin goes onto argue:


Palin, Aug. 12: The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?

The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

And the concern that these sessions are "part of a bill whose stated purpose is ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ " while true, is hardly the whole story. One of the bill’s other goals is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans." The legislation is 1,017 pages long with sections that cut costs, some that increase care, and some that do both. In fact, the counseling sessions would add to government expenses since Medicare would have to reimburse doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates officially that Section 1233 will cost a net total of $2.7 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, proposals to offer reimbursement for such counseling have attracted bipartisan support. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has." Isakson also commented on the recent confusion around the issue:


Isakson, Aug. 10: I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

Palin also attempts to buttress her case by quoting some writings by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy adviser to the president. Here she’s echoing claims made elsewhere, twisting the meaning of Emanuel’s writings and taking them out of context. We examined those claims in an Ask FactCheck item we posted earlier today, and won’t repeat the details here.

Finally, for those inclined to get their information from Facebook postings, may we suggest FactCheck.org’s own page?


Posted by Justin Bank on Friday, August 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with death panel, health care, President Obama, Sarah Palin.


FactCheck.org : Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

as always your lies trip you up! even more amusing is your "source"
Sarah Palin.
bahahahahahahahahaha!

Like i said, just more ignorant hubris. Neither you or most of your beloved Politician Heroes even bothered to read the Legislation. You simply don't know shit, yet you feel you're an authority on the subject. Go read the Bill, and then get back to us.

whatever you say pauline. who the fuck is us?

That would be all the silly fruit loops rolling around in Pauli's pinhead.