Page 68 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1858636465666768697071 LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,360 of 1405
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1341  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Did you actually read the Himmelstein article?
    Yes I did. Did you? It says they used cluster sampling, not simple random sampling. But that's beside the point. What Goodman really said was the "paper's conclusions about illnesses in households were based on medical interviews conducted with 391 people. The paper does not specify how those people were selected."
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1342  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    They "choose" not to buy insurance like I "choose" not to buy a Rolls Royce.
    No, that's just a lie you choose to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Obama, by the way, said there were 30 million "who cannot get coverage."

    What that means, I don't know. All I know is everyone has been accepting the census bureau numbers for decades until, all of a sudden, those numbers may actually lead to health care reform!

    The minute the vested interests are threatened, they start trying to poke holes in it.
    I'm not the one using those numbers at all. You are the one trying to use these people as "victims" in order to forward your wants. They are your political pawns, not mine.

    You can't seem to differentiate between what you want, and other alternatives, which are out there if anyone wanted to consider them. You insist on pushing a false choice, when that is...well false. You want to "help" these 46 million people, by punishing 250 million, and by massively expanding government which has PROVEN (by its own claims) itself to be wasteful of BILLIONS of dollars.

    I want to stop these people from wasting billions of dollars, and stop victimizing these 46 million (or whatever the number is) at the hand of inept government. You want to insure that EVERYONE is victimized by the same inefficiency, waste and abuse. I want everyone to be freed from that.

    You, like many leftists or statists (you can say whether those labels fit) rely on creating false choices with the solution always being--government. Well, I'm not buying into that lie, and if enough of us refuse, then this little scheme (well, big scheme) won't work, which is why you have to keep distorting our views, and trotting out 46 million victims you blame us for.

    Well, we aren't responsible for the state they are in, and don't have the power to fix it. Government has (and has maintained a system) that DOES fail these people, taking our billions and billions of dollars and wasting it, instead of helping these people like they are supposed to.

    There is enough money--but government wastes it. Your solution--more of the same.

    KAM
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1343  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The health bills actually reduce the deficit.
    Another lie being perpetuated. If you bothered to look past the propaganda, you would be able to see the slight of hand, which is quite obvious in some cases.

    It isn't the CBOs fault--they are only able to evaluate what they are given, but of course that is highly manipulated, AND changed.

    Further--even if that claim were true--that is NOT the same as reducing costs. Deficit is merely the difference between spending and taxes, and they accomplish this claim (which will prove false) by raising taxes--which has its own destructive problems.

    Total fantasy/distortion.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1344  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Well, considering that politicians have been considering health care reform since Theodore Roosevelt, the fact that all the statistics show we're nearing a crisis after 100 years of making few changes makes sense to me. Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton--all tried to fix the system but the vested interested (mainly the AMA at those times) stopped them. You think all these Presidents (both Republican and Democratic) just made it all up?
    No, I think they helped make it the problem that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I, too, support ACTUAL reform. A single-payer system is ACTUAL reform--one that works everywhere in the industrialized world but here. It will reduce government spending substantially.
    Really? How has that single-payer system for the elderly (medicare) done with medical costs? Have they gone up or down? There is plenty of money to pay for that then? No, false--it is racing towards insolvency, and is subsidized by non-beneficiaries.

    Other attempts at universal coverage (TN, MA) are economic disasters.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Do I believe that current reform will be the end all? Absolutely not--but it moves us in the right direction. It will help the millions of people who have no option of even going to a physician now. It's a stop-gap measure to full reform.
    No, its a stop-gap measure to total government takeover. That's not reform in my eyes and incompatible with the concept of limited government. Its the same old song--more government, with no accountability. Why? Because its designed to create dependency, and people that are dependent do not bite the hand that feeds them.

    But, as I stated in an earlier post--I'm happy to call this bluff. Go ahead and do exactly what you want, on one condition--a sunset clause that (within reasonable error, and assuming independent verification--not government bookkeeping) goes off when this fails to do as promised (like many other government programs.

    Go ahead--go single payer if you want, as long as we can finally prove what a total sham it is. I'd win either way--either we'd get rid of this government mess, or it would work.

    KAM
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1345  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    And you agree that a person who goes into bankruptcy with $50,000 of debt and only $1100 of medical debt should be classified as a medical bankruptcy? You agree that "uncontrolled gambling" should be listed as an illness for which a person should be included in the group of medical bankruptcies?
    He won't answer you directly. Not his style.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1346  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He won't answer you directly. Not his style.
    Oh well, I have to try.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1347  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So when Bush gave out all those no-bid war contracts to his friends at Halliburton, Bectel, etc, that wasn't the government enriching anyone?
    What part of government doesn't have its own money do you not understand?

    You are again shifting gears here. Naturally government takes our money and buys things with it (or gives it away).

    If you've got some claim of wrongdoing with Halliburton--that they didn't deliver what they promised or if we overpaid, I'm against that too. Make a list if you want and I'll give you my view on each.

    This is no different than government taking a big chunk of the money I earn (my money) and giving it to someone to provide housing, or healthcare or whatever. Its all the same thing--government takes from some and gives it to others. Some you cheer, some you complain about.

    Perhaps you still don't understand. I'm for reducing government fraud/waste in all forms first, and then cutting other places that are marginally useful, and for cutting the Federal government out of things it isn't empowered to be in.

    I'm for ending this criminal game of the Federal government taking money from the States and individuals and making them beg for it back. The money we pay to the Federal Government is for running the Government, not for redistribution to whoever has the best seat on the Ways and Means committee.

    If a State wants to spend its own money on something in the State, that's their business, and their financial choice. For things like the military--that protects the Nation as a whole--then we pay for that, and it is used for that--not manipulated and handed back in lesser form.

    It seems to me that you are perfectly fine all of this--as long it is for something you want, and against it if it is something you do not want. That is not a principled position--its simply an expression of preference.

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1348  
    Let's back off the personal attacks by implying that people are fools or idiots because they believe differently than you do, please.

    We all get testy from time to time. I know that I'm guilty of it, and it's usually in response to an attack.

    But let's all just bring it down a notch in here, give the others a little credit for trying, and have a decent debate.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1349  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, basically, everything you don't believe, despite all the evidence before you, is a "lie"? It's tough to debate with someone with those blinders on.
    I'm not responsible for your willful ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    What other alternatives that are out there? I am basing my case on evidence that single-payer works everywhere else.
    Yes, it "works" as long as you avoid all the negatives and pretend they do not exist. Are there some good points? Sure, but there are bad points as well. You insist on denying this apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Nothing else has been shown to work anywhere else. How can something that works everywhere be a false choice--versus your choice, for which you cannot show even one place it works. Just one. You want to change 1/6th of the economy based on what you think might work but don't have any example of where it works? That's hubris.
    No, its you simply pretending that, everything is magically the same--because you want it to be. You want to pretend that we have the same country as others, when they are in fact very different--including what is Constitutionally allowed.

    Free markets don't have an example of working? Nonsensical statement. Direct payer is exactly what worked before the Cabal of insurance companies and government ruined that and forced us into the failed system we suffer under today.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    How exactly does this health care reform bill massively expand government? The public option, which will actually affect very few people?
    You've already made it clear that THIS bill is simply a step towards Single-payer. The lie this ISN'T the case has already been revealed. Single payer doesn't cover a "Few" it covers "all."

    The public option is designed to funnel people into it--in order to move towards single payer. Hard to keep track of the lies used to push this from the ultimate goal when you are arguing both isn't it?

    Government regulation requires all sorts of government regulators--its very simple to realize this is an expansion of government. Additionally, just looking at the Taxes and Fees that will need to be collected (about a trillion minus any fraud savings--which I'm guessing will suddenly be a much smaller number) is in itself an expansion--to the tune of half a trillion to start most likely.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1350  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So the Republicans who pushed Medicare Part D through weren't conservatives? So Reagan wasn't a Conservative? So, Bush wasn't a Conservative?

    I'm confused. If conservatives are for fiscal restraint, when did we actually have a conservative government?
    Now you are starting to get the picture. Even Reagan who had many conservative beliefs failed to adhere to a truly conservative policy in terms of spending.

    Look up "lesser of two evils" if you want to understand my view of Republicans vs Democrats.

    KAM
  11.    #1351  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The health bills actually reduce the deficit.
    you really believe that? What flavor is your Kool Aid?
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1352  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I understand that you have the classically conservative position that government should not direct everything. The money people earn is their own. Military, and not much else, should be run by government.

    I have a very different opinion, of course. Government can play an equalizing role in society so the rich and poor have access to the basic: access to healthcare, housing, food, etc.
    If by "government" you are referring to the Federal(national) government, then of course you are advocating an anti-constitutional ideology. In essence you advocate violating the Supreme law of the land, simply because you want to. Of course refers to the FEDERAL government. State governments can choose to involve itself in any of those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I find that, throughout history, particularly when money is involved, the rich oppress the poor through low wages and terrible work conditions, if left with no oversight.
    I find throughout history, Governments oppress most everyone, and give them no opportunity to "opt out." No one need deal with any "rich" person they don't want to. We have this thing called Freedom here. OVERSIGHT however, is acceptable under the Constitution, but of course oversight isn't what you advocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I also hate when governments overspend. I hate that we have a $12 trillion debt--but to somehow stop everyone from getting healthcare because of that debt (which will get bigger if we don't change our system so everyone gets healthcare, actually) is morally unconscionable to me--particularly when the debt doubled for unnecessary wars and an unnecessary enlargement of Medicare.
    If we had no debt, the Constitutionality of this wouldn't change.
    Its a moral issue for you? Interesting, so your morals should violate our Constitution. I wonder how you'd like Conservatives using their morals to violate your Constitutional rights. Their morals often include Worshipping God--well, forget that First amendment--Christianity is now required. Sorry--anything else would be morally unacceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet, when the free market reigned, which is has in healthcare, it didn't lead to everyone getting coverage. Medicare came about because the private world failed to cover the elderly. This healthcare reform is coming around because the private world has failed yet again. Only after such failures is government forced to step in.
    Sorry, that's totally incorrect. We haven't had a free market for healthcare in many, many years. I have no idea how you can say that with a straight face. We have an indirect payer system which is a massive wedge which BLOCKS a free market system.

    The elderly just died without any healthcare prior to 1964 huh? I know this is hard for someone who doesn't respect the Constitution to understand, but we are responsible for our own lives. I think its great if we can help others, but it is IMMORAL for someone to take (by force--which is what the government does) what is mine and give it to someone else without my consent.

    Government "steps up"? I think "steps in" might be more accurate. But since that's your model--let's look at that? How have those costs worked out? I believe I heard that they are about 9 times higher than predicted, and of course Medicare is headed for insolvency. That's working out great long term. You are fooling yourself if you think that's just somehow going to work out.

    The poor--oh, right the 300 Billion we spend that is still FAILING to work? Why is that? Is it the free market or government to blame?

    It amazes me that anyone can cite these financial disasters as justification to do more of the same.

    How many people would benefit from an economy that isn't drained of Billions a year by inefficient government waste? Think that 40 years of that sort of inefficiency doesn't have an impact?

    The government steps in to "solve" and problem, wasting money, and then says we need to "step in" again, and the problem still isn't solved, but more money is wasted. And again, and again. How many times are you going to advocate repeating the same sort of mistakes with the mantra THIS time it will work? THIS time it will be different. Ridiculous. It won't, and more and more people will be swept into a position where the government CREATES need, where they can't pay for their own food, housing or healthcare, because the Economy is a disaster or at least damaged.

    You never bother to think--what if we DIDN'T have this massive government burden on our economy. Did you ever consider that we might not have so many poor people? That everyone who wanted a job could have one, and could afford to pay for (non-inflated) medical care that results from the "benevolent" actions of an incompetent government.

    I'm tired of accepting the flawed premises and assuming that we have to keep repeating the same mistakes and can never undo the damage that decades of idiocy have created. ONLY by reversing these failures can we succeed long term. The rest of you--all you are doing is putting a happy face on an inevitable failure.

    And you will win, because people such as you have convinced enough of the public that they DESERVE something from someone else.

    KAM
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1353  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Well, since you believe Obama's actions are enough to show he supports big government. I can say Bush's actions are enough to show he thinks government is bad.
    So, in other words, you don't directly support your claims, whereas I made no such claim that you want me to support. No matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Bush created the privately-run Medicare Advantage Plans, which cost 16% more per patient than Medicare. He tried to push social security into the private markets. He created Health Savings Accounts as a tax shelter. He tried to make government smaller--but played a shell-game by hiring consultants, often at greater expense, to do the same jobs, particularly military jobs. He pushed vouchers for private schools. He loosened government regulations on financial institutions and Wall Street.

    All these show his distaste for government running anything...yet he was running the government.
    And? Too bad he failed at most of these efforts--they could have gotten government off my back in a variety of ways, and improved liberty for individuals.

    Well, HSAs are great in my view. It enables people that pay tax to not get taxed for money they spend on healthcare. What a novel idea--the government taking less of my money.

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1354  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, now you understand my position when it comes to the lesser of two evils. If there has to be a government that spends money, I'd go for the government who spends money on the causes I support.
    And herein you run into the difference between us. I support government spending on necessary things that they are Constitutionally empowered to spend money on (some I like some I do not). I oppose them spending money on things they are not empowered to spend money on.

    You on the other hand advocate or oppose something, simply because you want it or don't want it. That's a preference, not a principle.

    I'd love for the Government to send me a check for a Billion dollars--that would be great for me. I want a billion dollars, and I can do a lot of good with it. However, there is absolutely no justification for me to expect or demand that, thus I cannot rightfully ask for it or expect it.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1355  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Wow! That's a re-writing of history. The reason we have insurance companies is that direct payer doesn't work. Pooling funds to share risk works better than hoping you alone have enough money to cover you in illness.
    No, its merely history that I don't have time to elaborate on fully.

    Actually, indirect payer schemes is what has led to escalating prices, which has in turn created more need for insurance. I'd agree that now--it is very difficult to reverse this damage in terms of major medical care, however, that is a viable insurance model, whereas the idiocy of covering common care (which was NEVER a necessity--until prices were artificially elevated) with insurance is not a viable model and this has led us to where we are today.

    If you have any actual interest, you can look back at a post that daThomas linked about how insurance came about and expanded (greatly enabled by the government). The government's fingerprints are all over this problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    No, the public option will only become bigger is the private insurance companies can't bring prices down. This is just like the experiment you were supporting: Give the private insurance companies a chance to lower their costs for the consumer. If they can't, they will have to fail--free market, right?
    It is highly doubtful that continuing in this flawed model (that the government helped create). I did not suggest that as an experiment--I suggested altering things much more significantly, returning Insurance to a model that is viable. No one is even talking about this, although high deductible insurance is sort of a back door attempt at this (that still carries a lot of unnecessary overhead).

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    This healthcare bill tries to keep private insurance at all costs. It is bending over backwards to give private insurance as much room as it needs (The everyone must buy insurance part).
    No, it creates a fake system of "competition" designed to insure that insurers (funny eh) fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    you can't even buy the public option if you have any health insurance at work. So, it will only affect a very small number of people...unless the health insurance industry fails...
    Right, so what happens when someone changes jobs?

    And you expect me to believe that the Government (at least this current administration and congress) who rails at how horrible the insurance industry is, will just suddenly decide to give them a fair shake, and wish them best of luck at success. That's a laugh. I of course cannot prove this, I'm just not that gullible. Time will prove this for me.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1356  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I support government spending on necessary things that they are Constitutionally empowered to spend money on too! We agree!
    No, because you refuse to acknowledge (based on your statements for what you advocate) the Constitution DEFINES a limited government, instead of one where anything can be justified. You advocate things that are blatantly anti-Constitutional. However, you are in good company with most politicians.

    I suspect you would read (wrongly) the Constitution in such a way that you can justify pretty much anything. If you can justify the Federal Government providing SPECIFIC support to individuals you prove that.

    KAM
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1357  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet you so readily accept and celebrate when the CBO says a bill will cost alot...

    I like Cherry Kool Aid.
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate. In other words, it looks expensive and the CBO says it will be expensive. It will probably be expensive.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1358  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If he had succeeded in putting Social Security in private markets, we would have a whole generation of elderly without social security right now.
    Highly unlikely given that it was only a portion, and as I recall--wouldn't change the benefits for those already in it. Further--you perhaps buy into the falsehood that there is some fund where money would be shifted--there isn't and never has been.

    I'd still jump at the chance to bet on myself rather than the government--even if it meant I'd abandon all the money I've already paid.

    Might not be back soon.

    If not, Everyone have a Great Thanksgiving.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1359  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As you didn't support yours.
    You only think that because you imagine I made a claim I did not. That's probably natural when you are in the practice of putting words into people's mouths and attempting to define reality as you like to support your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet have you looked at the health insurance plans that come with HSA's. Studies show that nearly all of them give you very limited benefits. So, I hope anyone who relies on HSA's don't end up with a bad disease that requires lots of medicine or hospitalizations. Once again, the private world takes your money and tries all it can to keep it.
    Health Insurance plans do not come with HSAs. HSA's require a High deductible plan as I understand it--not the same thing.

    And yes, I happen to have looked at one quite closely just recently in fact. I'm not sure I want to discuss my personal life with you any beyond that.

    The private world takes money that you agree to pay them, period. If they take more that is a crime. The government on the other hand takes whatever it wants, give it to whoever it wants, and I'm the criminal if I refuse. Refuse long enough and men (or women) with guns come to your house, threaten you with violence and throw you in jail.

    I NEVER have to pay a private organization anything unless I choose to. I MUST pay government what THEY choose I pay.

    I'm sincerely sorry to hear that you prefer government force over free choice.

    KAM
  20. #1360  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Micael, who doesn't like to have a good cold beer?
    Depends on how one defines cold. I like a good cellar temperature ale (~10-13C/50-55F), or lagers only slightly colder (~7-10C/45-50F). Anything colder than that ruins it for me (unless it's a NAIL, then freeze it).
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Of course, I can see your point. Perhaps states should be really like countries, with outonomous government (I think it is like this right now right?).
    To some extent, yes. Originally, states were more autonomous, but with the post-Civil War amendments (incorporation) and 20th Century dependence on Federal tax redistribution they are somewhat less so. I've no problem with the former, but the latter has been a real mixed bag.
    My only concerns about the USA are the lack of a good and structured public system that serves the interest of all and not just of a few... And of course, death penalty and the right to carry guns.
    I'm with you except for the gun thing. I'd much rather see the standing military reduced exponentially and return to a pure defensive posture. The only way that can work is for the citizenry to return to their statutory obligations to be prepared should they be needed. Not that I'm saying everybody should carry guns, but I'd be perfectly fine with guns being treated like cars should be. I say 'should be' because I think we're too lax in many ways on existing driving laws and regulations.
    When you don't know the country by the inside, sometimes we create some stereotypes. I should really visit US sometimes.
    Most of it is great in my experience. We're a really varied place. One could probably even go an entire lifetime without learning everything about it as a whole. I do really recommend, though, that if you do decide to do it one day, don't just stick to a big city or two.
    I just don't want to get mis-unsdestand. Theres a lot of anti-americanism nowadays but that's not my case. I just think we all have ower bad and good things and we could have a more fair world if we try to be less self-centered.
    Wholeheartedly agreed.
    On topic again, I just can speek for what it comes to EU press about the current situation. My opinion is that every time someone talks about public system, a crowd of radical non informed pro and anti come out on the street and most of them dont even care to be informed on that subject.
    And that's just Congress.
    I just can't see what is the alternative for poor people to get access to health, perhaps someone can explain me, i'd like to know. A piece of insurance that are free "social insurance" as a mandatory contribution of insurance companies? Or an obligation of the private hospitals to do a percentage of pro-bono?
    Well, I posted a link to how we do it in my state. We're certainly not the best example for a whole host of things, but we do usually try to look after each other. Our biggest problem has historically been the politicians so willing to take advantage of that to look after themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    ... I need to jump in and annoyingly counter each and every point you make to someone else sometime.... or did I do that?
    LOL...you should realize by now that the only way to annoy me is to intentionally mischaracterize what I say. Breaking things down into more conversational chunks doesn't annoy me at all. I came into the discussion thing through Usenet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    and I guess that means I'm a stupid guy...
    Again with the false dichotomies? That doesn't follow.
    glad you're both pleased with yourselves.
    I am pretty pleased with myself at the moment. Been putting in a lot of extra time on some things so I can take a five day weekend for Thanksgiving.
    to me, it's like having to say that I'm refering to Germany's Nationalist Socialists Party's swastika symbol while we're all talking about WWII, and not the ancient Hindu's version. give me a break.
    Things are rarely so cut and dry.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, if I wanted to pretend I was Toby, I would continue the discussion of the semantics of what I was implying, which seems quite clear to me.
    FYI, it's a really bad sign for your viewpoint if you have to bring ad hominems referencing someone not remotely involved into things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maturin View Post
    Good evening, everyone. I'm new to this thread. So, is there any specific point that most everyone agrees on in this healthcare debate?
    Probably only that the current state of things is pretty chaotic and could use some fixing.
    What I mean is, are we trying to understand from all sides an issue that could have a dramatic effect on us, or is everyone here just rehashing the same old partisan talking points? Debating for the sake of debating?
    The ironic thing is that for the most part, it's overwhelmingly the latter. I say that because I am obviously the target of the accusation of debating for the sake of debating which is not entirely accurate. While I am certainly more interested in meta-debate in most cases, it is from the standpoint of trying to really get into the perspectives of others and find out what's really behind them. What I see far too often is that too many others are simply only trying to 'vent their spleens' and get their viewpoint out there. In that vein, they view any sort of questioning of their views as an attack which must be met in kind with either dismissiveness, derision, or degradation.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions