Palin's kids are fair game

[tvashtarkatena]

Now you fucking idiots can stop yer searchin'.

[prole]

[prole]

[prole]

[Hugh Conway]

just think that shit talking a 1 year old with a mental deficit is cowardly.

 

dude, this is spray. WTF do you think we do all day, everyday?

[tvashtarkatena]

We make fun of far stumpier mental midgets than Trig...you come to mind, AKA.

[Bug]

No shit.

You're not allowed to post here unless you have the mental capacity of a one year old with a mental deficit and the vocabulary of his dad.

 

Maybe you should go post on backhackers.com or try the club sensitivo forum.

[Bug]

Oh wait.

You do qualify.

Carry on.

 

 

I use that one sentence per line thing for dramatic flair.

It also helps the other deficit thinkers here to understand things that go beyond STFU, or "Drill for the thrill".

Well maybe not.

But I like to think I'm a better person for making the effort.

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wFt-BTi8jI

[tvashtarkatena]

You're finally catching on to the trailer trash thing...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

...shit talking a 1 year old with a mental deficit is cowardly.

 

I agree. And I've read this entire thread a couple of times now, trying to find where, exactly, Gary engaged in "shit talking a 1 year old with a mental deficit" so I could share in everyone's indignation. But I can't find it. Can someone please show me the instance of Gary "shit talking" Palin's child that has everyone so worked up? I can see where he "shit talked" Trig's mother, but not a word against Trig.

 

Read the title of the thread, Einstein.

 

[E-rock]

Throughout this entire thread, I have been very careful not to make any comments myself regarding Palin's children in specific. Seeing the vivid descriptions that you guys are so quick to spew, I can't help but think that you guys cannot see your own hypocrisy in the mirror, that you guys can't leave her kids alone.

 

I don't know what Scott the Alkoholik is on about. But although you have "been very careful", you're still indirectly calling for the political sacrifice of a child, because of a ridiculous statement made by the child's dumb mother. I'm not after you because you called baby Trig bad names, I'm after you because you're obsessed with turning Palin's dim-witted political arguments on their head in order to arrive at QED: If Sarah shuts up about her kids we won't pick on her kids, and than she can't get all sour-grapes on us - otherwise other people (but never me) can't be blamed for picking on her kids. It's a pointless exercise.

[tvashtarkatena]

Stepping back a bit, why does a good portion of This Great Nation seem to think that it matters who pays the docs?

 

Single payer, private insurance, Marvin the Martian, the amount paid will be about the same. Who cuts the check matters little. Arguments about 'overhead' are basically a bullshit smokescreen...there won't be a significant difference cost-wise. Larger groups do, theoretically, have more purchase bargaining power, but, past that...

 

Docs, and docs alone, wield the majority of the power to increase or decrease costs. They, and only they, order the procedures and prescriptions. The real issue is whether or not docs treat patients as a) Revenue streams to be maximized (maximize procedures + prescriptions, regardless of outcome) or b) patients whose outcomes come first (order the minimum for a given desired outcome).

 

The New Yorker had a good article on this recently, written by a doc, Article about the most expensive (Medicare cost-wise) county in the U.S. The reason? Nearly all docs in that region had bought into the 'enterpreneurial' view of a patient: maximize the revenue stream. This actually produces worse patient outcomes (no procedure or drug is risk free).

 

In contrast, regions with similar demographics that put patient outcomes first (docs on salary, GPs who know patients well at the helm, collaborative structures where practitioners in various disciplines discussed with each other how best to achieve patient outcome), had much lower per capita Medicare costs.

 

Unfortunately, the article concluded, the U.S. is headed the direction of 'enterpreneurism' in health care rather than an 'outcomes come first' philosophy.

Edited August 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Gary_Yngve]

I don't know what Scott the Alkoholik is on about. But although you have "been very careful", you're still indirectly calling for the political sacrifice of a child, because of a ridiculous statement made by the child's dumb mother. I'm not after you because you called baby Trig bad names, I'm after you because you're obsessed with turning Palin's dim-witted political arguments on their head in order to arrive at QED: If Sarah shuts up about her kids we won't pick on her kids, and than she can't get all sour-grapes on us - otherwise other people (but never me) can't be blamed for picking on her kids. It's a pointless exercise.

 

E-rock, you make a good point, and thanks for keeping the ad hominems away.

I agree that kids should not become collateral damage from a political debate, just as Palestinian civilians shouldn't be killed when Hamas fires rockets from their houses and uses them as human shields.

 

However it's a tough call on whether to play fair with someone who's not playing by the rules. The moral high ground could cost you victory from being tactically limited, or playing dirty back could cost you the victory by turning public opinions against you.

 

You certainly got it right that her statements combined with her cult following really grate me. I would have a more conservative political stance if folks such as her, Newt, Rush, and Pat Robertson were not present.

[prole]

I would have a more conservative political stance if folks such as her, Newt, Rush, and Pat Robertson were not present.

 

But then poor and working folks would realize they've been voting against their own interests all this time...

[olyclimber]

OH SHOCK VALUE HELLO!

[Hugh Conway]

OH SHOCK VALUE HELLO!

 

FYI PORTER LOVES THE SHOCKER