Safety Month botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Should Rush be fired for such a derogatory remarks?

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Mar 6, 2012 6:55:36 AM PST.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1126-1150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 12:48:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 12:52:01 AM PDT
Lientje says:
Superman: Birther threads >> Most active product forums / Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President

*****
Tell me more about this birther thread. Is there one that is actually called a Birther forum? I check into the
Barack Obama forum three or four times a week, and that is the Birther Forum I am aware of. There is also
a Jerome Corsi forum for those who want to prove their idiocy 24/7. Neither of them are active. Probably as
many days go by when no one posts as when they do. I see Gonzales on the Barack forum; I don't go to the Corsi
forum enough to know if he posts there. Never heard of Potter.

And by the way, what is your nickname?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:12:10 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
tune in any time

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:13:56 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
I can read and, unlike most here, seperate facts from BS

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:17:01 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
duh. People stopped shopping there and they went out of business. Which part of that is hard for you to grasp?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 7:21:28 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
ooooohhhh. So now you would like it to be illegal to make a bad movie?
Actually, it's a fine example! Just like cable TV. People complain that it's a rip off, but just keep paying the bill month after month. You don't **need** movies. You don't ** need** cable TV!!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:45:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 9:50:27 AM PDT
A customer says:
See what happens when you assume. I am a moderate "American Independent"
who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Hillary won my state of CA 52% to 40%
over Barry.

Hillary won all the big states. Americas worst nightmare became reality, President
Barry Obama, is a radical after all. We tried telling everyone, the college kids wouldn't
listen, now 50% of them cant find a job. I am not so sure they will be so "enthusiastically" voting
for Barry in 2012?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:49:29 AM PDT
A customer says:
Lily White says: "Jerome Corsi forum for those who want to prove their idiocy 24/7."

Superman: Uh huh, that's where they are 24/7. The call me " Übermensch ", that was the best they could do. I just laugh at them :)

Posted on Apr 24, 2012 11:36:24 AM PDT
dss says:
Superman ™ says: "President Barry Obama, is a radical after all. "

Seriously? Compare Obama's health care plan to Hillary's. Which is more radical? Then compare it to the health care plan that Republicans submitted to Clinton. Hint, Republican plan less radical than the Clinton plan by definition.

Look at Obama's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan - those were radical?

Calling him a radical is cognitive dissonance.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:43:02 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"I can read and, unlike most here, seperate facts from BS"

That's not evident from your posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 11:44:55 AM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Superman: Uh huh, that's where they are 24/7. The call me " Übermensch ", that was the best they could do. I just laugh at them"

I agree. Ubermensch gives you too much credit. Stuporman is a _lot_ more reflective of your postings.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 1:26:39 PM PDT
BillK 8 says:
sorry about your cognitive skills

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:13:16 PM PDT
A customer says:
Oh, another edumacated liberal. You get your guberment check yet?

You gonna cry?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:18:15 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
I'm sorry you don't have any, but that's no reason for you to be envious, skippy.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 2:21:08 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Oh, another edumacated liberal. You get your guberment check yet?"

Why? You planning another round of hysterically bad robbery attempts, stuporman?

"You gonna cry?"

You really -are- perversely fixated on other people's tears. That's pretty creepy, chuckles.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:21:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 24, 2012 8:40:42 PM PDT
dss,
You write about the students at Georgetown University: "What of those who were diagnosed with a condition that their doctor prescribed the pill for only to have Georgetown interrogate the student and then deny coverage? This happened to 20% of such students."

1) the students knew full in advance they were attending a Catholic college with religious restrictions.
2) the students, some 20%, you cite were suffering cancer and needed hormonal treatment? I find that statistic quite high, nevertheless, they could easily have forfeited Friday night at the movies and purchased the drugs at the pharmacy out of their own pocket.
3) it is ridiculous to dramatize such a plot when a simple trip to the drug store would remedy all female ailments.
4) it is well within the Catholic schools' right to have rules of conduct on campus.

You write regarding ending Interstate commerce restrictions: "Then they can all incorporate in the few states with the weakest laws. Then a state we have zero influence in will be in charge."

The Federal Congress can mandate "no dropping" and "no exclusion of preexisting conditions" and "portability" across the board for all states as the Constitution allows by passing a simple 10 page bill, and throw out that 2,700 page monstrosity. Somewhere, the consumer has to take control of the market, DSS.

You respond to my question 'But who regulates the regulators? Nobody' with: "The voters."

Not one single vote was cast to appoint Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health, a giant bureaucracy which rules us by bureaucratic decree, which virtually usurps 1/2 of all tax money. This is absurd. What voters? What representation? Enforcing the antii-trust laws would work miracles.

You write regarding DOCTOR ASSISTED suicide being included with health insurance: "I call it assisted suicide. Patient requested and patient performed. Euthanasia is something other people would do to someone else. They are quite different, don't use those terms interchangeably."

The Doctor is there assisting but he really isn't there assisting? This self serving rationalization that the world owes us a living and should pay for all our little whims could easily backfire and result in mass genocide. Do you really want to open the door to elder abuse, in-laws and outlaws laying a guilt trip on expensive care, eugenicists or bureaucrats cashing in on private estates to balance their budgets? How truly callus.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:34:13 PM PDT
DSS,
You ask: "And no regulations is better how? Again it's up to us to police the government and this is much easier to do at the state level that the Health Care Act will allow us to do."

There is a huge difference between "no regulation" and CONSUMER REGULATION. The same fair business practices should apply to all insurance industries once we overturn the McCarran Ferguson Act exempting insurance from the anti-trust laws which allow them to fix prices and run monopolies.

Insurance reform does not need 2,700 pages mandating we purchase a product with threat of fines and prison sentences to make a product affordable. NOTICE, DSS, that the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT overturn the McCarran Ferguson Act. The insurance companies are still exempt from the anti-trust laws.

Now why is that? Because the STATE politicians want big fat campaign contributions and can still fix policies and prices artificially high, and that is precisely what is going on right now. The consumer is completely left out of the picture. With higher and higher prices, most businesses will pay the cheaper fines, skip private insurance altogether, and put their personnel on the Public Option, just as Obama laid out in his campaign tactics before the labor unions.

This is creeping Fabian Socialism, and it is not going down in my lifetime, heaven help me.

When the Supreme Court strikes this bill down, then what do you plan to do for an affordable alternative?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:38:53 PM PDT
Mark Time says:
Stuporman says:
"You gonna cry?"

What a surpprise!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 8:58:43 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Not one single vote was cast to appoint Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health"...This is absurd. What voters? What representation?"

No one voted for any other cabinet member, ambassador, or any Supreme Court justices, to name but a few. So, do you actually have a point, or are you simply engaging in misdirection?

"a giant bureaucracy which rules us by bureaucratic decree"

The so-called "giant bureaucracy" of the Department of Health and Human Services, just like any other government entity, has to abide by the laws of this great nation. So exactly what "bureaucratic decree" do you think "rules us", and who, exactly, do you think came up with the "bureaucratic decree" in the first place?

"which virtually usurps 1/2 of all tax money."

The US budget for 2011 was $2.3 trillion; HHS costs for 2011 were $878 billion, or about 38 percent of the total - no where near your alarmist 50 percent. BTW, of that $878 billion, Medicare and Medicaid were almost $754 billion, roughly 86 percent of the total. So we get it, you don't like Medicare or Medicaid. Feel free to haul your a** to some country that doesn't have programs like that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2012 9:06:00 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"This is creeping Fabian Socialism, and it is not going down in my lifetime, heaven help me."

LOL! You talk a good game. BTW your use of "creeping" and "Fabian" together is rather bombastic.

"When the Supreme Court strikes this bill down, then what do you plan to do for an affordable alternative?"

Alternatively, what will YOU do when the SCOTUS upholds the bill?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 2:28:43 AM PDT
dss says:
Rachel Verdon says:
"1) the students knew full in advance they were attending a Catholic college with religious restrictions."

But they didn't know that they would have a condition that their doctor would want to treat with hormones.

Verdon: "2) the students, some 20%, you cite were suffering cancer and needed hormonal treatment? I find that statistic quite high, nevertheless, they could easily have forfeited Friday night at the movies and purchased the drugs at the pharmacy out of their own pocket."

Recently, you have started to misquote me ... are you just too tired of this debate to actually read? What I clearly said was, of the those students receiving medical prescriptions for the pill, 20% were denied this prescription by Georgetown.

Verdon: "3) it is ridiculous to dramatize such a plot when a simple trip to the drug store would remedy all female ailments"

Your attitude is what is ridiculous. Just because they are attending a prestigious school, doesn't mean they aren't on a tight budget. If they need hormonal drugs, the doctor may want them to take a particular brand that suits their particular problem. These can cost up to $100 a month. Just running out and getting whatever at a pharmacy would be stupid and could be damaging.

Verdon; "4) it is well within the Catholic schools' right to have rules of conduct on campus."

B.S. Public conduct, yes. Private conduct, absolutely not. You give them too much authority. Kind of ironic.

Verdon: "The Federal Congress can mandate "no dropping" and "no exclusion of preexisting conditions" and "portability" across the board for all states as the Constitution allows by passing a simple 10 page bill, and throw out that 2,700 page monstrosity. Somewhere, the consumer has to take control of the market, DSS."

The Affordable Health Care Act does mandate no dropping and no exclusion of pre-existing conditions. However it cannot continue to require the no pre-existing conditions rule if the personal mandate is struck down. The problem is those that will not get insurance until they need it. They're not paying in, but when they get sick, they will buy coverage and exploit the system. Insurance companies will need to raise premiums on the rest of us to cover that. Explain how this would work without the mandate. Don't skip this... honestly I want you to explain it.

The consumer cannot "take control of the market" if insurance companies are allowed to incorporate in states that don't provide any protections. Let's say they go to a state that has passed a so-called tort reform bill which limits payouts to under 500k. You won't get a lawyer to take a multi-year interstate case for the possibility of one third of that. That state could also limit your right to sue in other ways and you will have no vote in that matter.

We both want interstate competition. But I want it with the protections in the Affordable Health Care Act that allows my state to regulate this business. Not some state I've never been to that will bend over backwards to get their business.

Verdon: "You respond to my question 'But who regulates the regulators? Nobody' with: "The voters."

"Not one single vote was cast to appoint Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health...."

Secretary of Health is a cabinet position. It's part of who we elect for President. That's one of the reasons we have much more power on the state level than on the federal level. On the state level, we vote for the Attorney General. On the federal level, it's a Presidential appointment. On a state level, we can vote on referendums that do what our polititions won't. That's why we need our states to have more power. You can't deny this.

Verdon: "You write regarding DOCTOR ASSISTED suicide being included with health insurance: "I call it assisted suicide. Patient requested and patient performed. Euthanasia is something other people would do to someone else. They are quite different, don't use those terms interchangeably."

"The Doctor is there assisting but he really isn't there assisting? This self serving rationalization that the world owes us a living and should pay for all our little whims could easily backfire and result in mass genocide. Do you really want to open the door to elder abuse, in-laws and outlaws laying a guilt trip on expensive care, eugenicists or bureaucrats cashing in on private estates to balance their budgets? How truly callus. "

You have a truly cynical and paranoid world view. Doctor assisted suicide is at the request of the patient and preformed by the patient. The doctor is making an easy death possible for those who are already terminally ill (I believe the law is less than an estimated six months to live). Their life ends at their own hand, by their own choice. How you get from there to mass genocide makes no sense whatsoever. I don't believe that allowing someone to end their suffering is callus. Quite the opposite. However, I didn't call for it to be covered by insurance; I only noted that you will not convince the insurance companies not to cover it where it is legal.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 2:59:27 AM PDT
dss says:
Rachel Verdon says:
"There is a huge difference between "no regulation" and CONSUMER REGULATION. The same fair business practices should apply to all insurance industries once we overturn the McCarran Ferguson Act exempting insurance from the anti-trust laws which allow them to fix prices and run monopolies."

There is no such thing as consumer regulation when dealing with billion dollar industries. And those `fair business' practices will be the lowest common denominator practices when they incorporate in the state with the lowest standards. I tried to explain this to you with what we saw happen with the banks. It used to be that banks could not operate across state lines. When this was repealed, the majority of them went to Delaware to issue credit cards from. Because Delaware does not have usury laws. Look how high interest on credit cards jumped. Your own states usury laws cannot protect you because they only have to answer to Delaware. Have you ever gotten a credit card and then a few months later get a notice in the mail about changes to your agreement? Have you ever read those? Suddenly, if you use that card again, you have passively agreed to arbitration to settle any dispute. Arbitration where they will choose the arbitration company and that company will select the arbiter (otherwise known as conflict of interest). And the kicker, it will private and you have agreed not to discuss it. You want to challenge that law? Move to Delaware. Not exactly "fair business practices."

Rachel Verdon says:
"Insurance reform does not need 2,700 pages mandating we purchase a product with threat of fines and prison sentences to make a product affordable. NOTICE, DSS, that the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT overturn the McCarran Ferguson Act. The insurance companies are still exempt from the anti-trust laws."

There are no threats of prison sentences. Cite a source or retract that statement.

It doesn't repeal that act, but it does help states enforce anti-trust within their borders, which is a right they already have.

The states don't set prices. And this system is far from socialism, it is a capitalistic approach to health care reform.

Verdon: "When the Supreme Court strikes this bill down, then what do you plan to do for an affordable alternative? "

I am praying they won't. But I already have complete comprehensive coverage that includes no co-pays and reimbursement for drugs. My personal plan is not to quit my job.

What are you going to do? Since your plan seems to be surrender to the insurance companies and have those who can't afford or simply won't buy insurance to continue to depend on ER and the government.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 3:07:56 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
" There is no such thing as consumer regulation when dealing with billion dollar industries."

They only get away with what people like you allow them to.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 3:21:27 AM PDT
dss says:
dss: " There is no such thing as consumer regulation when dealing with billion dollar industries."

BillK 8 says: "They only get away with what people like you allow them to."

On the contrary, they only get away with what the anti-regulators allow them to.

Why don't you attemp to refute my example instead of just making random one liners that don't contribute to the debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 11:37:17 AM PDT
BillK 8 says:
it's something I learned from libs...

...but, since you're the one making the claim, why don't you offer some substance? Please do show us how any government regulation can be as effective as the previously discussed example of Circuit City. Free market and CHOICE is what has made America great!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 12:41:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 12:42:46 PM PDT
dss says:
Circuit City is just a random example of a company that couldn't compete with the mega stores. I never heard of any massive customer complaints or boycotts that brought them down.

The example I'm asking you to address is the much more relevant banks and credit cards. What can consumers to bring down those outrageous interest rates and if it's so easy, why haven't they? What are you options if you have an issue and think that the bank hired arbitrator might not have your best interests in mind? How do customers change that obvious example of injustice? The same type of injustice we will face if insurance companies can sell nation wide under the banner of the least protective state in the union.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3417 1 hour ago
MORE REASONS FOR GUN CONTROL .....Louisiana sheriff calls white deputy's death 'cold-blooded murder' by a black guy 58 1 minute ago
Social security checks next year.. up $2 ; Medicare cost deducted..$25 275 1 minute ago
law abiding citizen...............WHITE a vocal gun rights advocate - killed daughters, age 22 and 17, on the street during 'family argument' 15 1 minute ago
Texit 6 2 minutes ago
Iran bans pet dogs ... kills'um for allah 10 4 minutes ago
You Dems expected Hillary to be treated with kid gloves. Instead she's going to be beaten down and bloodied in the toughest presidential campaign ever. 94 5 minutes ago
And the Winner is™ IX.5 ... You're Not the Boss of Us ;~) 3750 5 minutes ago
The Death Penalty - Yay or Nay? 18 7 minutes ago
MvM's summer shanty,an Oasis from politics for the Forum friends! 329 11 minutes ago
Do Liberals Feel STUPID for voting for Traitor Obama? Twice? 64 12 minutes ago
West Virginia Flood - At least 26 dead 9 13 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  123
Total posts:  1343
Initial post:  Mar 5, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions