home

St. Patrick's Day Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:45:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Remembering Teddy, When Irish Eyes Are Smiling

< Will A Center Right Health Bill Energize The Dem Base? | No Parades >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    St. Patrick's Day Open Thread | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    THE EARLY DAZE, part 8 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    The memoir blog is a new post heavier.  Peace, y'all.

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    I'm 3 episodes behind now...I gotta get on the ball.

    Parent
    With Kucinich flipping (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Makarov on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    and getting nothing (legislatively) in return for his vote, it doesn't look like there's one Democrat left in Congress anymore.

    Someone reported he was going to get the ERISA exemption that would enable states to establish their own single payer systems. While I don't know how I would vote in that circumstance, I could understand Dennis seeing that as reason to vote for the bill.

    The lesson in all of this is clear. We have a health care bill that greatly favors corporate interests, and beyond the Medicaid expansion includes few progressive principles. The reason is simple - progressives were unwilling to withhold their vote for something better.

    If Lynn Woolsey and others in the CPC had ever bothered to define what they meant by a 'strong, robust public option', they would have had a chance to get one. They didn't, and voted in the first round for a weak, neutered public option without Medicare's provider network or reimbursement rates. After that, it was a simple matter of using Rotating Villains to kill even the potential for future progressive reforms.

    Last week, I was sure the Senate bill would fail. With even Kucinich caving, I'm not sure we can rely on Blue Dogs alone to kill this thing now. I hope I'm wrong, but passage looks to have at least a 50-50 chance now.

    Obama - too big to fail (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    Kucinich confirmed that Obama is now the same as Wall Street banks.  

    In his first (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    year or so, with all the major problems he had handed to him, and with his political viability on the line with the HCR bill, Obama does in fact deserve to have his presidency saved when it's a close question involving a less than progressively pure Congress trying to grind out a mostly helpful bill.

    If it takes a DK pulling a Bob Kerrey on what is overall a worthwhile first step towards reform, then I will applaud Dennis for listening to reason, for being a loyal Dem, and for not being stupidly stubborn in his principled purity as he would have cleared the path for Repubs taking over Congress then the WH.

    Parent

    Let me get you a napkin, (4.00 / 3) (#26)
    by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    you have some (concord grape) kool-aid on your chin.

    Parent
    Repubs of course (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    would love to see Obama fail on this bill.  Then they could go to the electorate, with a much weakened Dem president, and show how Dems are incapable of governing, that we should put people in charge next time who can get things done, etc.  

    Repubs, a few Blue Dogs (i.e corporatist DINOs) and a dwindling number of lefty purists want Obama to fall short.

    What will Michael Moore now say?  He's lost Kucinich, whom he just praised to the hilt on nat'l teevee the other night, and he's lost the most lefty-lib in the senate Bernie Sanders.  Will MM accept the AMC Pacer of a bill, or will he once again pick up his marbles and hitch a ride with the never-satisfied Ralf Nadir?

    Parent

    Moore also (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    said the bill should be passed.  even tho it sucks.

    Parent
    I must be a simpleton... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    this "pass a piece o' sh*t" bill logic truly escapes me...the brainiacs realize that Congress track record for "fixing it someday" is abysmal at best, right?

    Like Creedence said...

    First thing I remember was askin' papa, "Why?",
    For there were many things I didn't know.
    And Daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
    Sayin', "Someday you'll understand."

    Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mother's son
    You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
    'Cause, "Someday" Never Comes."



    Parent
    I agree the equasion is simple (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    we either take what we can get and try to build on it or go back to square one.

    I choose A.


    Parent

    From what I know of building... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    if the foundation is made of dog poop, whatever you build on it will fall, and hard.  The foundation is the most important part of a structure.

    Parent
    Yeah, well I remember (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    Creedence, too.  Didn't they also say,

    "Long as I remember the rain been comin' down.
    Clouds of myst'ry pourin' confusion on the ground.
    Good men through the ages tryin' to find the sun
    And I wonder, still I wonder who'll stop the rain

    ...Five year plans and new deals,
    wrapped in golden chains,
    and I wonder, still I wonder:  
    Who'll stop the rain?"

    The "rain" here being our decades-old broken and disastrous health care system.  

    Parent

    But will this bill... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    pump out our flood damaged healthcare system?  Will it stop the rain?

    I'm not smart enough to answer that...but from what I know of the players and the way these things have played out the past 30 years, I have to expect the worst...the non-connected will be further underwater.  

    The health-industrial complex, otoh, will stay high and dry...through hell and high water, that much we can count on.

    Parent

    you know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    after saying that I looked.  its not that clear.  in one video he seems to endorse passing it with its flaws, in another the same assumption might not be made.

    maybe he is covering his behind.  not a small task.

    Parent

    What Michael Moore said... today (none / 0) (#63)
    by cenobite on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health care "reform" bill. This bill is a joke. It has NOTHING to do with "health care reform." It has EVERYTHING to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law,
    every American who isn't old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn't provide it. What company wouldn't love the government forcing the public to buy that company's product?! Imagine a bill that ordered every citizen to buy the extended warranty on all their appliances? Imagine a law that made it illegal not to own an iPhone? Or how 'bout I get a law passed that makes it compulsory for every American to go see my next movie? Woo-hoo! Who wouldn't love a sweet set-up like this windfall?


    Parent
    Sorry, I didn't finish this (none / 0) (#64)
    by cenobite on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:32:45 PM EST
    [Lots more about how the bill is awful], then:

    Please, Democrats -- just say that -- then pass this poor excuse of a bill. Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don't know if he'll be able to get back up. And then NOTHING will get done. We can't have that. (And thank you Dennis Kucinich for hanging in there right up to the end and being the only one out of the 435 members to speak the awful truth.)

    Now the question is, what do you have to say? I think "I'm sorry Mr. Moore" is appropriate, don't you?


    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    Im sorry you are talking out both sides of your face Mr Moore.
    in THIS video talking about Stupak he says, and I quote:

    "this has been shocking.  It unconscionable he would try to stop even this watered down pathetic version of a health care bill."


    Parent

    I'll just assume you missed the part (none / 0) (#106)
    by cenobite on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    Where he said to pass the bill.


    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    I did.  but I found another video where he seemed to be saying it should not be passed so I assumed that was the point.

    honestly, serious people can disagree.  
    and its pretty easy to tell the difference.


    Parent

    Shame on Mike... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    the same tired "but Republicans will gain if we try do something right" logic that prevents anything substantially positive from ever getting any accomplished...ever.

    The same tired logic that makes it a sin not to vote for the D, even though the D hasn't represented you for over 30 years minimum.

    If trying to do right helps the R, I say f*ck it, lets help the R and try to do something right.

    Parent

    llike I said (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    wonder if he will throw Kucinich under the bus.

    Parent
    Why would he do this (none / 0) (#109)
    by cenobite on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    Since he has exactly the same position as Kucinich?

    That is, this bill sucks but we can't afford to kneecap Obama, so pass it (I personally disagree with this, I think it's a crappy bill and it shouldn't be passed.)


    Parent

    Tips on eating healthy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    and losing weight (discussion from the last o.t.).  Here's an old-fashioned but effective way I learned about a dozen yrs ago when I needed to knock off some accumulated weight:  grape juice diet.  

    It works by providing your body at the cellular level with the sugar-energy it can easily and efficiently assimilate, thus putting yourself on track, over time with consistent use, to be in a position to easily change bad dietary habits -- and like it.

    1.  Concord grapes only (whole grape).  Dilute 2-3 oz of grape juice with 1 oz water 4x/day thusly:  sip the mix 1/2 before each major meal, then one final time before beddy-bye.  

    2.  7 days/wk for first 6-8 wks, then you can dial it back to 5 days IF you've been consistent each day and achieved the goal of no longer craving sweets/starch/fat.  Once this change quietly kicks in, you begin to actually enjoy raw or lightly prepared veggies and various fruits w/o experiencing a psychological resistance.

    3.  Add daily exercise for maximum weight loss benefits.


    Ah, the rub (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    Exercise. Hate it - know I have to do it, but still hate it anyway.  

    Can the grape juice be the low sugar kind or is it better to somehow squeeze them from actual grapes?

    Parent

    Find something productive (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    to do that requires physical effort.  Just plain ol' exercise for the sake of exercise gets really old really fast for a lot of us.  But if you volunteer, say, to help maintain a community garden, or set up and tend a veg garden for an elderly neighbor or some other volunteer activity, the motivation to keep at it is a lot higher.

    And it's not so much that regular physical exercise burns calories itself, it's that it jacks your metabolism rate up.

    I've always HATED "exercise", but now I have to spend a couple hours every other day splitting firewood in the winter and several more a day with my veg garden, plus more splitting and stacking of next winter's firewood, etc., during the warm months, and now I can literally eat whatever the heck I want.

    There are plenty of days when I really, really don't wanna, but since I'm actually producing something I need for that physical effort, it's nowhere near as onerous as "exercise."  I'm on the far side of middle age, and I'm in the best physical shape of my life.

    Parent

    Well, yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    Exercise need not be a rigid dreary daily regimen of hitting the treadmill every day or jogging or grinding it out on a bicycle.   Mix it up.  Variety is usually better, in exercise and diet and most everything in life.

    Anything that (ideally) gets you outside and working up a slight sweat.  Gardening.  Weeding.  Pruning trees and clipping hedges.  Working outside fixing up the house.  Tennis.  Nine holes of golf carrying your own clubs and not going the easy route with the electric cart.

    I suggested vigorous (not lollygagging) walking because when most people think "exercise" to help lose weight, they tend to think of heavy duty jogging or cycling or swimming endless laps or going to the gym to hit the treadmill for an hour.  Sounds like a turnoff from the get go.

    Whatever works up a sweat for you, for roughly an hour a day.  Preferably outdoors except for severe weather conditions.

    Parent

    So true. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    I've never really had a weight problem. But recently, after taking a new job where (literally) there is a never-ending mountain of work to do, all of which requires being completely sedentary locked in a chair in front of a computer, I've started to gain.

    I want desperately to have a job that requires being active but I am trapped on the money hampster wheel, and can't figure out a way out (like just about everybody else I guess).

    Parent

    A lot depends, too (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:55:58 PM EST
    on age or time of life-- for sure for women and probably for men too somewhat.

    I ended up quitting the rat race and starting to freelance from home just at the, ahem, wrong time of life, when my metabolism was slowing down naturally.  Without the brisk mile-plus walk from the station or the garage to my office, plus having the luxury of lounging around in sweatpants so weight gain wasn't as noticeable as in office dress, I really put on the inches without even realizing it.  Bad timing!

    (Then I started walking for exercise around the little river near where I lived, which was great-- until I suddenly discovered birds!  Creeping around slowly with binos to look at the birds is not, not, a good way to get exercise.)

    I managed to get some of it off by watching what I ate and forcing myself to walk a bit, but I'd long ago reconciled myself to just being thicker permanently.  So I was really thrilled to realize that extra padding was slowly, slowly melting away just from the regular work living in the country demands of you if you're not wealthy enough to pay other people to do it for you.

    I kept several nice classic pieces of clothing I thought I'd never wear again but just couldn't bear to get rid of from my thinner days, and I can wear them again now.

    It doesn't happen quickly.  You can put it on pretty quickly under the right circumstances, but you can't take it off again as fast.  Took a couple of years for me, but since this one of those genuine "lifestyle changes" they talk about, albeit really involuntary, I'm comfortable I won't put it back on again as long as I'm able to stay this active.

    Parent

    You're totally right, but (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:04:54 PM EST
    I've never found walking to be interesting enough to not be a tedious chore, either.  Walking around the same blocks in the same neighborhood gets just as old for me as any other form of exercise.  When I had to jump in the car and drive somewhere to find a new place to walk, that was just one more barrier between me and the exercise.

    Some of us just really suffer from inertia problems, and I'm definitely one of those.  I also have a pretty violent aversion to routine.  So I need to be able to sort of seize the moment when I have the impulse to go be active for the short few minutes it lasts!

    So just to say for some of us, it's almost impossible to do consistently unless there's something actually interesting and productive that comes out of it.


    Parent

    Ideally of course (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    you want as fresh and pure as possible -- so taking whole Concord grapes (no other kind will do, sorry) and putting them through the juicer is best if you can.

    You can buy good whole Concord grape juice bottles in the stores (avoid those already diluted with water) or online in some places by the case.

    Exercise:  pick your time of day -- morning or late aft/early eve.  All you need to do is a vigorous walk 50-60 min/day, every day, where you at least work up a slight sweat.  So, interval walking is recommended to get the heart rate up but not overdo it.  Obviously, take it easy (20-30 min) if you haven't exercised in a while -- your feet will pay the price for overdoing it too quickly.  Work up to 60 min/day over time.

    Parent

    Exercise: shorter version (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    Become a Dalmatian owner  ;)

    Parent
    re: exercise.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    Can I also offer my almost six months old lab pup. In addition to the walking (if you don't trip over him or his leash!) benefits, I promise you will also either get very toned arms or dislocated shoulders.

    Parent
    #1 above should read (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    "sip 1/2 hour before major meals."  Thank you.

    Parent
    If this works for you, great (none / 0) (#81)
    by cenobite on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    But it's important to remember that fructose is toxic, and is likely a direct cause of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.


    Parent
    Fructose is not "toxic" (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    and does not cause metabolic syndrome or diabetes.  Large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup, ie from sodas, in the diet can cause those things, but that doesn't mean plain old ordinary fructose in moderation is at all harmful.  We evolved as human beings eating a primarily vegetative diet, for heaven's sake.

    Parent
    It's a big world wide web (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    of information, counter-information and intrigue out there on the internet.  You're not likely to find 100% agreement on anything, particularly anything having to do with the area of diet and weight loss.  

    Study up and inform yourselves, always.  Be your own judge.  Use common sense.  Don't allow yourself to be buffeted about like a leaf in the wind from the backing and forthing from the rarely-unanimous experts in this field.  

    And, obviously, if you have a serious underlying medical condition, you should research well and/or check with your doctor first if you're nervous about whether something even as benign and natural as grape juice would exacerbate a negative situation.

    Parent

    Thanks everyone! (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    I have a job where I sit at a computer all day, and the only movement I really get is clicking the mouse (don't have much to type even - that's why I'm here all day!)

    It's getting nicer out, so I'm trying to motivate myself to go outside.  I've never been an active person, but I realize it isn't going to get any easier as I get older!

    Parent

    Hee Hee. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    For the flat earthers in Texas.

    Reading stuff (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    like this emphasizes why I personally think this bill, for all it's flaws, is so important.

    Although it also begs the question - why aren't these people in jail?  And yes, it's absolutely infuriating that we are now going to be giving them even more money.

    This to me is the key:

    "The DMHC randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California, one of WellPoint's largest subsidiaries, canceled the insurance of policy holders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.

    The result: The agency concluded that Anthem Blue Cross lacked legal grounds for canceling policies in every single instance."

    Emphasis mine.  This $hit has got to end.

    So did they get their premium (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    increase approved? And what in the bill stops that from happening? If they can't drop/deny "costly" people, who is going to be making up the "lost" profits?

    Parent
    healthy people (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    Probably young healthy people for the most part.  And I'm ok with that frankly.  

    In this bill, as of 2014 - "It ... limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to heath status, gender, or other factors. Premiums can vary only on age (no more than 3:1), geography, family size, and tobacco use".

    Parent

    How will the young people pay for it (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    when a 50yo may pay up to 3x more? And don't the pre-existing get zapped up to 30% more? And if young people = 20-30yo, many can stay on their parents insurance until 26, so they won't be paying a full premium price.

    I wish they would have taken geography out! And if tobacco is in, obesity should be also . . .

    Parent

    right now (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    I think older people can pay up to 5x more.

    I don't see anything where pre-existing gets zapped with 30%, in fact, it seems like the part I quoted would suggest otherwise.

    Geography would be nice... but I guess it makes sense.  Hospitals, cost of living, income levels are all different.  I know my state will never be on the cheap end.

    Agree with tobacco and obesity.  

    I expect premiums will continue to go up.  But don't fret, they're gonna have to explain why now, or something... That's definitely the weakest link in this bill.  But I still think it's > what we have now.

    Parent

    Weak links break and cause great damage (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:28:35 PM EST
    I expect premiums will continue to go up.  But don't fret, they're gonna have to explain why now, or something... That's definitely the weakest link in this bill.  But I still think it's > what we have now.

    So, they have to explain....okay, as long as they explain, then.

    When people have to take grocery money to pay for health insurance, they sure won't be able to come up with co-pays and deductibles to actually achieve CARE. This is so much bigger than a weak link.

    This also isn't about Obama and his political well-being. It is about the healthcare of ALL Americans. I wish people would see this for what it really is instead of minimizing the impact on our lives to nothing more than a setback that will surely get fixed before anyone suffers...'cause heaven knows the gov't really, really cares about the people.


    Parent

    They can deny you (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 07:56:48 AM EST
    already for having too high a BMI.

    And not everyone's obesity is from laziness and lack of will power.  Whereas, you do not have to smoke or use tobacco to survive, fat people still have to eat and some medications cause weight gain.  "Obese" people just aren't like that woman who wants to weigh 1000 pounds to be the heaviest woman on the planet - "obese" can be someone who's 5'5" and 180 pounds.  And as we talked about above - 1) it's expensive to eat healthy, and 2) weight doesn't come off quickly.

    I agree there should be incentives for healthier living, but please do not lump people who choose to use products that are bad for them with people who are obese - completely different set of facts.

    Parent

    That's what I was thinking... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    even if the bill will make such practices by insurance companies punishable by hanging, there will be a loophole, a backdoor, a kickback...some way to make the ins. co's maintain their margins.  They are too big to fail, too big to lose...and they won't accept any less....even if it means their lobbying bills far exceed what they're saving by dropping their policy holders at the first sign of serious illness.

    Parent
    that sounds like giving up (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    There's always gonna be power and money on the other side.  That doesn't mean you quit fighting it, or don't provide the tools to fight it.  If the tools are there, at least that means you might have a chance at winning.  Although there are never any guarantees.

    But if you never bother to confront it it certainly isn't going to disappear on it's own.

    Parent

    What tools? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    Exactly what do we have to "fight" with when we are mandated to buy their product?

    Parent
    it funny (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    I dont remember all the hostility to mandates here when it was Hillarys idea and Obama was against it.


    Parent
    Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    Back at the primaries again?  The support is for a mandate with a public option.

    Parent
    maybe we should (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    ask Hillary if she supports passage of the bill.

    Parent
    I personally don't care what she thinks (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    and I would have an issue if she did the same without a public option/expansion of medicare etc.
    Now that we are done with that . . .  

    again, what tools? (see if you can answer this time with out a primary revisit . . )

    Parent

    History (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    Let's see, being for mandates when Hillary said it was ok, but when Obama is for it the same people who were for it are agin' it.

    Nice to see how "principal" works round these parts. You'd think that the many of the people commenting here are either politicians shills.

    Parent

    Gee try again (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    The support was for a mandate 'with' a public option.  You still haven't moved on from the primaries.  You won, get over it.

    Get over it. (this is from Aug of 2009... move on man)


    Parent

    Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    The support was for a mandate 'with' a public option.
    Yes, was, is the operative word here. Obama also was for the public option, but with all pols, promises change like the wind.
    - In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign's website, candidate Obama promised that "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan." [2008]
    think progress
    You still haven't moved on from the primaries.

    Well looks like you are the one who has not moved on, considering that your cultish defense of anything Clinton and bashing of anything Obama, seems frozen in time. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is different in any way than Obama when it comes to promises. But here all "promises" that Hillary made are etched in stone and revered like the 10 commandments that never happened, and used as a measuring stick for Obama's and the rest of the wishy washy Dems abject failures. The context here for most, is always if only...  


    You won, get over it.

    I won? Well glad to see that your mind is sharp as ever, not. I supported Hillary during the primaries, but saw little difference between Obama or Hillary as they are both interchangeable as far as their Democratic Party mainstream positions go. Yeah I would have preferred to see Hillary as POTUS, not only to see all the cultist TL immigrants head explode trying to defend her center right positions.

    Parent

    A little dramatic (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    aren't you.  Who are you even writing to?  Cultish defense of who?  What are you even talking about?  These comments of yours are beyond tedious.  I never mention Clinton. I hardly ever mention Obama.  I don't discuss politicians individually often.

    Quick search on the word 'Hillary'... guess who has mentioned her 15 out of the last 30 comments?

    Ha! Ha! Move on, just move on already.

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    Nothing here, move on. To give you the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to point out deep denial or outright dissembling, maybe it is that your frame of reference is distorted.

    Having been at TL years before the anti Obama cultists arrived here, it used to be that the trolls were GOPers. After dkos started trashing Hillary supporters many fled to TL considering it a safe haven to bash Obama and praise Hillary.

    Yes it is true that the bulk of the cult left TL when it officially supported the Dem nominee, namely Obama. Those that have stuck around, including you, are producing the exact same comments since the primary.

    So you may think that it is so normal at TL to only trash Obama, since your perspective is limited. This group exists to trash Obama because for them, and you, Everything Obama does is bad, everything. That is a ridiculous position, imo.

    And clearly it all stems from things he did to poor Hillary. Unconsionable things, that can never be forgotten, like give the finger to Hillary, or the outrageous sexism that he was seen to have by, among a litinay of other things, calling someone sweety.

    To make believe that there is nothing here, move on, must only be due to the fact that from your point of view, that is what TL exists for.

    Most of us, who existed here before the Hillary cultist onslaught, saw Hillary, Obama, Bill Clinton, etc as pols who occasionally did the right thing, but on the whole kept a right wing agenda, or at least an anti-progressive agenda, in place.

    Parent

    Tiny violin (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    Here's my summary of your latest anti-TL screed....

    deep denial blah, blah, blah
    outright dissembling
    your frame of reference is distorted.
    anti Obama cultists blah, blah, blah (yaaaawwwnnn)
    trolls
    TL considering it a safe haven to bash Obama and praise Hillary.
    cult left TL  blah, blah, blah
    normal at TL to only trash Obama
    This group exists to trash Obama
    poor Hillary
    like give the finger to Hillary,
    that is what TL exists for.
    cultist onslaught

    Blah.  If you can't stand this site, why do you bother?

    Parent

    Your Words, Not Mine (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    If you can't stand this site, why do you bother?

    Thanks for the reality check. It is now clear that you believe that you and your refugee pals are TL.  Hate to break it to you, but TL is not close to being entirely a PPUMA Kaffee Klatch, despite your efforts.

    Sure has shifted to the right, though.


    Parent

    Tiny Concert (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:46 PM EST
    Add a few instruments to your violin.

    Let's try this one more time.... you are replying to the wrong commentor.  I don't write the comments you are whining about.  

    Stop whining.  It's unattractive.

    Kaffee Klatch site?  You really can't stand TL, can you.

    I would say congratulations for moving on but by calling people refugees, you mean those from the primaries, so again you seem a little stuck.  Poor you.  Move on already.

    Parent

    Pretentious Aren't We? (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 07:06:15 PM EST
    I know it must be tough coming down from the lofty position of TL censor, but no matter how much you want to be TL, you are not TL, but a lowly commenter just like me.

    As far as your characterizations go, and complaints take it to your ex boss. I am not here to please you. And yes you and your cronies tried to turn TL into your personal Kaffee Klatch, but it did not work. YOu do not represent the site in any way matter or form, as much as your inflated ego dreams of it.

    And as far as calling people refugees, what else would you call yourselves. Most of the Klatch speaks of the old days at dkos as so oppressive that they had no choice but to flee. Must have been great before the cults formed and those who were not for the one became outcasts. Now of course anything, or anyone that supported Obama during the primaries is still to be shunned by the Klatch here. You wear it with pride, sort of a back at you finger flick, no?

    Parent

    right about (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:01:27 AM EST
    that

    Parent
    Oh the hypocrisy! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    Yeah, just pretend there's no difference between supporting a mandate with a public option as part of it, and ridiculing/then supporting a mandate with no public option, ...

    ... and hope no one will notice.

    That's the ticket.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    Wanna buy a bridge? Falling for someone because their campaign promises would have been a certainty, and using that as a measure of what would have been? What a great system you have got there.

    The subjunctive world is great for proving your points, as nothing ever happens.

    It is really amazing the difference some here see and saw between Hillary and Obama. Must be about race and sex, but more likely too much kool aid.

    Parent

    No thanks (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:27:45 PM EST
    I prefer the factual to the fairytale.

    It's not a question of what "would have been."  It's a question of you accusing others of hypocrisy for supporting mandates when Hillary favored them andnot supporting them when Obama embraced them, conveniently ignoring the fact that she favored them as part of a public option plan, while he (who attacked others for the very idea of mandates) is pushing mandates with no public option.

    Kinduv a big difference there, no matter how deep you try to bury your head in the sand.

    BTW - Reality is a vast improvement over True Prog Fantasyland ...

    Parent

    Politics (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    Hillary favored them andnot supporting them when Obama embraced them, conveniently ignoring the fact that she favored them as part of a public option plan, while he (who attacked others for the very idea of mandates) is pushing mandates with no public option.

    Sounds about right. And I have not accused you of hypocrisy, just hero worship, always a bad idea when it comes to a politician, even if their name is Clinton.

    Parent

    Yes. You did. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    You accused anyone who complained about Obama's support of mandates while supporting mandates as part of Hillary's plan of being hypocritical:

    Let's see, being for mandates when Hillary said it was ok, but when Obama is for it the same people who were for it are agin' it.

    Nice to see how "principal" works round these parts. You'd think that the many of the people commenting here are either politicians shills.

    Unless, of course, you can think of some other way to interpret that remark.

    Parent

    In case you've forgotten, Hillary's (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    vision was "everybody in - nobody out," which would have been a true universal plan; in order to make sure that "everybody" was in, she did have a mandate in her plan.

    Obama, on the other hand, was opposed to mandates, for no other reason than that Hillary's plan had one, and he thought opposing it would appeal to the same people who loved his re-born Harry and Louise ads.

    Now, Obama has embraced the mandate, rejects any government-adminstered plan, limits participation in the exchanges to a small segment of the population, guarantees billions of dollars to the insurance industry in the form of premiums or government subsidies, imposes fines on those who do not comply with the mandate, favors a tax on high-premium plans, delays the implementation of the exchanges for another 4 years, and structures it so we will all be paying for the plan long before it is ever available.  Premiums continue to rise, co-pays and deductibles are going in the same direction, and nowhere in all of this is any actual CARE - you know, the thing people want and need.

    Given that Hillary is not the president, what she would have done is irrelevant, except for the sure knowledge that there is no way she would have been venerated and catered to and had excuses made for had she pulled what Obama has.

    Now, why don't you call your friend Beavis and the two of you can ring doorbells and leave flaming dog poop on people's porches before you run away giggling; Lord knows you've left enough of that here the last couple days.

    Parent

    Tell it, sister! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    Well said, top to bottom.

    Parent
    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    Hillary would have done this, and would have done that which evidentially was not too popular in this democracy, because she lost the nomination.

    And the fact that Obama and every politician under the sun shifts with the prevaling winds to save his or her a$$, correctly or not, indicates to me, that Hillary's vison, as you put it (rather religious framing, no?) would not have lasted 10 seconds with this congress.

    It really amazes me that smart people, who have been reading BTD, continue to believe that Hillary would be different from other politicians when in the seat of power.

    Given that Hillary is not the president, what she would have done is irrelevant, except for the sure knowledge that there is no way she would have been venerated and catered to and had excuses made for had she pulled what Obama has.

    True the obama freaks would be having a heyday, but the Hillary cult would be acting exactly as those venerating Obama as if he was walking on holy ground. How do I know? Because the Hillary worship during the primary by you and others here, was, and continues to be, exactly the same as the hero worship of Obama by his cult and there was almost zero difference between the candidates. Odd how both worship groups imagine themselves as better than their mirror image, when they too are exactly the same.  

     

    Parent

    the tools (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    in this case being the fact that those practices are now banned.  You can't fight them if they aren't against the rules.

    Right now it is easier for them to skirt the existing rules.  If recision is allowed in some cases - they can always claim that case, and to prove them wrong you have to spend a lot of time and money to investigate.  If you ban it outright, there is nothing for them to hide behind.

    Also the existence of a mandate means that people won't be buying insurance at the last minute after they get sick - which is the claim the insurers are currently making when they kick people off the rolls (whether it's true or not).

    Parent

    You are incorrect here (none / 0) (#110)
    by BTAL on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    and with your "young" comments.  The young and less well off financially will pay the "fine" as it is less money.  That will result in significantly higher premiums for everyone.

    Parent
    Entrenchment (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:40:21 PM EST
    You take a system (broken health insurance business model) and strengthen it and entrench it and then you are going to fight it?  You pump money into the broken and currupt system and then come up with more money to fight it?  Increase the power and monopoly of the private for profit insurance industry and then fight it?

    The bill creates a greater fight than we started with.  I would hope Grayson's MCR bill goes somewhere but it's rational, simple and cost effective so it's doomed.

    Parent

    You're absolutely right... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    I have given up even trying to compromise with the corporatocracy, forget about beating 'em back a few pegs.

    I'm resigned to finding life, liberty, and happiness in spite of 'em...under the radar, by hook or by crook.  We certainly can't win, not within anything resembling the current government construct.

    Parent

    the yearly truth about St Patricks day (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    the "snakes" were the Druids. who chose the snake as their symbol long before their starring role in the garden of eden myth.
    so when you celebrate this just remember you are celebrating the genocide of an extremely civilized and learned group of people. who happened, because of their gnostic beliefs, to be a huge threat to the Pope and the "faith" crap he was selling.

    Don't tell me... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    what I'm celebrating guy...(j/k:)

    I am celebrating half of my heritage...a heritage of drunkeness and civil service...St. Pat's baby, NY Irish-American style....where Corned Beef from the Jewish butcher is considered Irish food:)

    Though it ain't NY style anymore at the parade...it's Disney style.  No Guiness on the parade route?  No whiskey, no "water of life"?  No nuthin'? Outrage!

    Parent

    please (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    mt freakin family name is O'Casey

    Parent
    I knew we had to be... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    long lost kin...drink up cousin!

    Parent
    Erin (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    go braless

    Parent
    Hope so... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    I'll be on Emerald Isle West come 6 o'clock and could always use a good show:)

    Parent
    honestly I am a little conflicted (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    being mostly Irish and also, I believe, a Druid in a former life.  but not conflicted enough to not get drunk.

    I said I was mostly Irish.

    Parent

    Druids (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:29:51 PM EST
    always make me think of Spaceballs

    "just what I needed, a Druish princess"

    Parent

    you dont (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    look Druish

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    I had always thought the lines:

    "Are you Bluish? You don't look Bluish...

    referred to Jewish people. Druish makes more sense. Glad to have solved that one. Thanks Capt'

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    it definitely was referring to Jewish people.

    Parent
    +1. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:05:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    Guess I am just entertaining myself...

    I thought it was a funny joke.. I mean bl is two consonants, je is a consonant and a vowel. That's is a big argument for druish though, as it is more like bluish than jewish... lol

    Parent

    "Oh sh*t.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    Spaceballs...there goes the planet."

    I musta seen that one 100 times....loved Jim J. Bullock as Prince Valium.

    Parent

    A genocide? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Link please?  I've read from many sources that pagans were banished - never heard anything about them being unilaterally slaughtered.

    Parent
    then you probably (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    used the church as a source.  

    Parent
    Your source? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    Still waiting....

    Parent
    You sound like Jeane Kirkpatrick..... (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:40:10 PM EST


    Parent
    totally (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:49:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I have so often heard (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    the supposedly deadly comeback from conservatives of "Blame America First."  Usually said in an attempt to whitewash some very bad stuff.

    Kirkpatrick was particularly virulent and I believe coined the phrase "Blame America First" when referring to U.S. efforts in Central America.....Well, guess what?  The U.S. government in the 1980s was complicit in genocide....

    Parent

    Not quite (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    But you are in a mood today, aren't you?

    I guess you don't celebrate President's Day (Washington owned slaves, Lincoln wanted black people to leave the country and colonize elsewhere), Oktoberfest (a holiday that has been turned into one that celebrates and promotes drinking and in fact where large portions of young people get alcohol poisoining), Cinco de Mayo (celebrates war), Chinese New Year (communist repressive country), Memorial Day (celebrating those who served as oppressors and imperialist invaders), Halloween (black magic and evil spirits), or Thanksgiving (originally dedicated by Lincoln during a time of war).

    Parent

    for the record (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    I never said I didnt celebrate St Patricks day.
    I am already started.  I just want people to know what they are celebrating.

    Parent
    Capt. Howdy (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    does not link.  No proof needed.  

    Parent
    Oh the poor wee druids, (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    like lambs to the slaughter they were.
    The core points of druidic religious beliefs reported in Roman sources is their belief in metempsychosis, and their practice of human sacrifice.


    Parent
    not surprisingly the only (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    source that has ever said that about the Druids is,

    wait for it,

    the catholic church.

    Parent

    OMG, TY! The scales have fallen from my eyes! (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    The Romans, the ones who "said" (ie, wrote) that about the Druids, were the only ones who had much actual contact with them and

    wait for it,

    could write.

    But, hey, I'm sure the real truth is that the Druids were the one and the only peaceful people, filling the days with soaring choruses of Druidic Kumbaya and living in blessed harmony with all of god's creatures, in an oasis of contemplative purity.

    Wee Bambis they were...

    Parent

    a littel google goes a long way (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    of course the Romans are famous for being impartial arbiters:

    The Romans had met the Druids before in conquered Western Europe. While the Romans were happy to make a peaceful settlement with most tribes/groups in England, they had no intention of doing the same with the Druids.

    The Druids were priests. The Britons both respected and feared them. It was believed that a Druid could see into the future - they also acted as teachers and judges. They were considered to be very learned people. It could take up to twenty years of learning to become a Druid. However, we do not know a great deal about what they learned as Druids were not allowed to write any of their knowledge down.

    In their own way, the Druids were very religious. It was this particular issue that angered the Romans as the Druids sacrificed people to their gods. Caesar, in particular, was horrified by the practice and his writings give us a good idea of what went on in Druid ceremonies  -though from his perspective only. The Romans had once sacrificed people but they now saw it as a barbaric practice that they could not tolerate in one of their colonies. The Romans determined that they would stamp out the Druids.

    However, they had to be careful. The Druids travelled freely throughout England as the Britons were too scared to stop them. Therefore, they were not simply in one place where the Romans could attack in force. In AD 54, the Emperor Claudius banned the Druids. In AD 60, the governor of England, Suetonius, decided that the only way to proceed was to attack the known heartland of the Druids - the island of Anglesey in the hope that if the centre of the Druids was destroyed, those Druids in outlying areas would die out.

    Boats were built for the Roman foot soldiers while the Roman cavalry swam across with their horses. The Druids shouted abuse at the Romans and cursed them but they could not stop the Roman army from landing. Any ceremonial sites on Anglesey used by the Druids were also destroyed but many of them were in secret places and some survived.



    Parent
    Well, ya got me hanging, what's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:59:47 PM EST


    Parent
    that you (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    are full of it.

    Parent
    Full of it (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    in that I claimed that the Druids did not practice human sacrifice and then post a quite lengthy quote which says they did?

    Oh yeah, that was you...

    Parent

    try re-reading (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    Caesar, in particular, was horrified by the practice and his writings give us a good idea of what went on in Druid ceremonies  -though from his perspective only.

    in other words the only one who ever really "wrote this" was Caesar and since "the Romans were happy to make a peaceful settlement with most tribes/groups in England, they had no intention of doing the same with the Druids" and the Romans clearly saw them as a threat it sort of "taints" that opinion.

    btw
    it also says:

    The Druids were priests. The Britons both respected and feared them. It was believed that a Druid could see into the future - they also acted as teachers and judges. They were considered to be very learned people. It could take up to twenty years of learning to become a Druid. However, we do not know a great deal about what they learned as Druids were not allowed to write any of their knowledge down.

    it sort of wanks your little rant it seems to me.
    of course that just MO.

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    that blurb was from "historylearningsite.co.uk".
    argue with them.  Im done.

    Parent
    I cast serious doubt on (none / 0) (#67)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:35:32 PM EST
    them singing Druidic Kumbaya.  
    Kumbaya is an African-American Hebrew (YAH) spiritual song from the 1930s.

    A) The druids didn't know any African Americans.
    B) It is somewhat doubtful that Druids knew any Hebrews.
    C) The druids were all dead by the 1930's.

    On the other hand there are other sources, but once some people make up their mind, nothing dissuades them.

    Parent

    thats the ticket (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:40:26 PM EST
    make something up and then discredit it.
    happens a lot here.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    would this be the same Natgeo that runs endless "documentaries" on Erik Von Daniken and the Bible?

    Parent
    Have you heard the Druidic "Hallelujah?" (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    Cohen's version is good, but the Druish one makes your scalp tingle...

    Parent
    No, probably because (none / 0) (#91)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    my heart isn't into it.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:07:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Nonetheless... (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    St. Patrick wasn't Irish either. And Dublin pubs didn't serve green beer until recently.

    But, as I am part Irish - I say Erin Go Bragh!

    Parent

    On jury duty today (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    Waiting to get called. If there is a Irish cop in the case I may have to fess up to partiality

    I believe that the Supreme Court does this (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    to people who persist in filing bogus petitions.

    Finland (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    has the opposite view of sentencing than does the U.S., which locks up so many....

    Here is an interesting article....

    As a sidenote on the culture wars:  social conservatives loathe Europe for some odd reason.  They hate France.  The absolute worst that can happen as a result of health care reform is that we become like Western Europe.  As if Western Europe were some kind of h*ll on earth....

    Western Europe has a lot to offer....quite lovely in many areas....but oh so threatening to conservatives....  

    It all goes back to religion.  Europe is not very religious and the social conservatives are really terrified of that concept....It represents an existential threat to them....The Tea Party folks are more often than not motivated by conservative religious ideas--as they often lapse into anti-choice rants....  

    Just how many Tea Party (none / 0) (#59)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    events have you attended?

    Parent
    either you reading comprehension (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    is bad or you have no idea what goes on at tea parties.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#70)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    I am not the one denying that the druids sacrificed people.  I am also not the one who thinks reincarnation is real.

    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    OK!

    Parent
    Reincarnation being real (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    Not sure where Captain really is on such....

    But as to fantastic claims regarding an afterlife....do you really want to look at that on a scientific basis?    

    Parent

    Used to not believe (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    in that sort of New Agey stuff, but on reincarnation I'm now a believer.

    That's one thing I have in common with Gen. George C. Patton!

    Parent

    Who knows (none / 0) (#116)
    by coast on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    maybe you were Gen. Patton. :)

    Parent
    Apparently believes (none / 0) (#101)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    was a Duid in a former life.

    But as to fantastic claims regarding an afterlife....do you really want to look at that on a scientific basis?

    Do you really want to discuss the possibility of being reincarnated?  I mean, I realize that we are not at the "reality based community," but still.

    Parent

    Let me try this again (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    Reincarnation has every bit the scientific basis as the belief by conservative Christians in life after death.....

    So, if you ridicule one a-rational (irrational according to some) belief system, be prepared for that ridicule to come back around--as in you reap what you sow, referring to a more traditional, accepted metaphor.............

    Conservatives love to heap scorn on New Age beliefs or Eastern beliefs as hooey, failing to recognize the vulnerability of their own beliefs.....as in (again talking the language of religious conservatives) take out the beam in your own eye before criticizing the mote (speck) in your neighbor's eye....

    But if you are an equal opportunity hooey haranguer, then heap high a helping....Otherwise,.....

     

    Parent

    that was well said (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    I agree completely.  

    Parent
    I'll heap scorn (none / 0) (#142)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    on anyone who believes in reincarnation that doesn't admit the fact that in a previously life they were most likely:

    a) a rapist
    b) a racist
    c) or a baby killer.

    and in almost all cases anonymous and forgotten.  'Cause we cannot all have been the Dalia Lama in a former life.

    I also heap scorn on spoon benders and people who think they have been abducted by aliens.

    I save the ultimate scorn for the fakey Christians who go to church for an hour on Sunday, but act like a pathetic a$$hole the rest of the time.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    I'd say it's about as believable as going to heaven/hell.

    Personally, I think we all become worm meat, but I realize there are many out there who disagree.

    I'm gonna quote Dr Molly's quote from the militant agnostic here - "I don't know and neither do you"

    Parent

    I know... (none / 0) (#111)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    ...but I could never, ever explain it.  It's something one has to experience to comprehend and understand.

    But, you're on the right path about the physical vessel turning into worm food.

    Parent

    Well, that's intriguing. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:31:52 PM EST
    What do you mean exactly?

    Parent
    "I don't know and neither do you" (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    precisely
    but fwiw it was a joke.


    Parent
    Joke (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:46:36 PM EST
    You can't do that about religion...conservatives are threatened by all that weird stuff....New Age stuff, Hindu, Buddhist stuff....

    The narrow mind as invincible--because it has no idea how stupid it sounds.....  

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    well, I do it a lot.
    my entire family is VERY serious about religion so it sort of a defense mechanism.  I have often asked them why the hell I would want to go to heaven.  its going to be all the people I hated all my life.

    but if I had to choose one or the other it would be eastern.  thats true enough.

    Parent

    Good for you.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:16:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Just saw one (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    yesterday on the news where the speaker was going on about having brought with him "an abortion."

    Parent
    Louie Gomert (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    from Texas yet.  in one sense we are fortunate in our enemies.

    Parent
    Saw one (none / 0) (#108)
    by me only on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:23:51 PM EST
    on TV news?

    Parent
    Yep--looked real to me (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    Wouldn't be caught dead in person....Looks like a freak show to me.....

    Parent
    come on (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    they are all just "regular people".
    check out the regular people in the open thread.

    Parent
    never really celebrated (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    St Patty's day.  I was a public school girl in a catholic school world with no irish blood to speak of, despite looking the part.  Growing up I did have the day off from school because it's "evacuation day" in Boston (the day the british evacuated - really they just looked through the history books to find ANYthing that happened on that day to give the city an excuse to cancel school).

    Unfortunately my office doesn't recognize evacuation day.

    The "Druids" were just the (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    priestly class of the Celts.....

    Druids were not an entire ethnic group--they were like Rabbis....

    Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization pretty much makes the case that the pre-Christian Celts, before being converted by St. Patrick, were a very rowdy bunch, probably practicing human sacrifice....

    Caesar did write about (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    the Druids of Celtic Gaul....and there were Greek writers before that....

    And, of course the Catholic Church wrote about the Druids in the Dark Ages....Check this out:

    In the lives of saints and martyrs, the druids are represented as magicians and diviners. In Adamnan's vita of Columba, two of them act as tutors to the daughters of Lóegaire mac Néill, the High King of Ireland, at the coming of Saint Patrick. They are represented as endeavouring to prevent the progress of Patrick and Saint Columba by raising clouds and mist. Before the battle of Culdremne (561) a druid made an airbe drtiad (fence of protection?) round one of the armies, but what is precisely meant by the phrase is unclear. The Irish druids seem to have had a peculiar tonsure. The word druí is always used to render the Latin magus, and in one passage St Columba speaks of Christ as his druid. Similarly, a life of St Beuno states that when he died he had a vision of 'all the saints and druids'.
    the Druids had a poweful (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    hold on the imagination of the unwashed masses.
    which is why the Church and the Romans hated them.

    its not a accident that a snake was the source of the knowledge of right and wrong.

    Parent

    Cool (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    or Awesome as they say now....

    Love the subject....

    Parent

    have you read (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:44:17 PM EST
    The Mists of Avalon?
    if not you definitely should.

    Parent
    I'll check it out.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:52:33 PM EST


    Parent
    good (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    The Mists of Avalon is in stark contrast to other retellings of the Arthurian tales, which consistently paint Morgaine as a distant, one-dimensional evil witch or sorceress; with no real explanation given (or required) for her antipathy. In this case Morgaine is cast as a strong woman who has unique gifts and responsibilities at a time of enormous political and spiritual upheaval; as she is called upon to defend her indigenous matriarchal heritage against impossible odds. The Mists of Avalon stands as a watershed for feminist interpretation of male-centered myth by articulating women's experience at times of great change and shifts in gender-power. The typical battles, quests, and feuds of King Arthur's reign are described as supporting elements to the women's lives. The story is told in four large parts, Book One: Mistress of Magic, Book Two: The High Queen, Book Three: The King Stag, and Book Four: The Prisoner in the Oak.

    it one of the few thing I have read more than once.

    Parent

    The Catholic Church (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    did a number on Mary Magdalene, calling her a prostitute on no textual evidence at all.....

    She had been deemed ("deemed" used to be a cool word, imo, until it was overused into oblivion yesterday) an apostle in the Gnostic Gospels....

    Parent

    St. Patrick's Day Open Thread | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment