'Good To See Ya': Obama, @Pontifex meet for first time in Vatican City http://t.co/FwtoEHvobN pic.twitter.com/gWVl6G66Ik
— NBC News (@NBCNews) March 27, 2014
"Obama is the ninth president to make an official visit to the Vatican..."
"It was not entirely a meeting of minds. The Vatican has made clear its concern at the Affordable Care Act, which mandates employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception."
"But although Obama and Pope Francis have differing views on contraception, abortion rights and gay marriage, they have common ground on poverty and social justice – themes at the heart of the president’s 2008 election campaign."
NBC News (video at the link)
181 comments:
Interesting photo. One man looks real -- the other, posed.
Liberals always hope that the next Pope turns out not to be Catholic.
... they have common ground on poverty and social justice...
Probably not.
My bet is that Pope Francis turns out, just like all the other Popes before him, to be Catholic.
Gonna be a while before the liberals get that black queer female-identified transgender man as Pope.
Barry's turning into a tall bobble-head doll.
Our friend, Fr. Fox, has been posting some great pics of Catholic Churches in Rome.
His blog, Bonfire of the Vanities, is a great addition to your blogroll, Lem!
I read it every day!
I'll bet the Pope would be less of an ignoramus when it comes to actually helping the poor.
Obama doesn't know how to help the poor, he understands how to increase the numbers of poor. Which helps the democrats.
The Catholic Church has a long and illustrious history of helping the poor. And, I mean a history of success.
Which Obama is now gutting in the interests of free contraception and free wheeling sex.
Hey, they will always have their love of communism in common.
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'Thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality."
Pope Francis
"Pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope."
-Rush Limbaugh
phx,
The difference is that the Pope would undoubtedly, I think, believe that charity and personal responsibility are the vehicles to attain those goals, not state force and the abdication of individual responsibility.
Limbaugh is wrong, here. Or else, he's not quoted in an entirely accurate way.
And, you might have noticed, phx, that Obamacare, by systematically destroying Catholic charities that object to abortion and contraception, is eliminating the Church's ability to maintain its charitable facilities.
Rush Limbaugh needs to hang it up. Keep the show- but phase into better conversationalists. He has lost his edge. I was in my car yesterday and I was so unimpressed with him. I think Rush and Hugh Hewitt should exchange time slots and radio stations.
The stated goals of communism and the Catholic Church are remarkably similar. After all communism and communion are words that share the same root.
The method by which you achieve those stated goals is mighty important.
The difference is that the Pope would undoubtedly, I think, believe that charity and personal responsibility are the vehicles to attain those goals, not state force and the abdication of individual responsibility.
The only problem with your response as I see it is the false either/or in the above.
As far as Limbaugh being misquoted or out-of-context, that's possible. Although Rush being Rush...
This is an old and interesting triangulation: The Church, Caesar, and Man.
People will naturally line up and show affinities accordingly.
The only problem with your response as I see it is the false either/or in the above.
Maybe it's not false either/or, maybe it's a problem with the prejdicial language. Or the fact that you and I don't really know what the Pope actually means. Need to come back to it when I have more time maybe.
ST - find out for us what the Pope means in terms of government policy if you're looking for something to do.
The triangulation as I see it is God, the needy, and the fortunate ones.
ST - find out for us what the Pope means in terms of government policy if you're looking for something to do.
I'll ask my priest friends when I see them. Remind me, because I might neglect to respond. I have a lot of priest friends accrued through a lifetime as a Church musician.
Pretty busy right now. The Old Dawgz are happening! We just landed a gig at Bethel Woods, site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival!
Rehearsal later today.
Or, we might ask Fr. Fox, author of Bonfire of the Vanities.
If you aren't reading his blog, you are really missing out.
phx wrote: The triangulation as I see it is God, the needy, and the fortunate ones.
That's an Ecclesiastic formulation.
@ phx - ST - find out for us what the Pope means in terms of government policy if you're looking for something to do.
That's where Rush and the lefties get it wrong, imo.
I doubt that the Pope was talking about "government policy". He was talking about how we should all behave. (and I'll add - without government coercion)
Related: Why is Harry Reid so wealthy? His only job has been in public office.
One believes in God, the other thinks he is God (can't wait until the Sunday after his death).
phx said...
The difference is that the Pope would undoubtedly, I think, believe that charity and personal responsibility are the vehicles to attain those goals, not state force and the abdication of individual responsibility.
The only problem with your response as I see it is the false either/or in the above
You should live so long.
I doubt that the Pope was talking about "government policy". He was talking about how we should all behave. (and I'll add - without government coercion)
Sounds like you're in the same position as ST and myself: just guessing so far.
Interesting photo. One man looks real -- the other, posed.
The Pope is looking at a person, while the President is looking at the camera.
Oh heavens, don't make me explain the holy father's recent exhortation. Just read it.
And don't get all worked up, especially by other people's reactions.
Remember: when the Church issues a document aimed at explaining Church teaching, it isn't something out of the blue that replaces everything that went before. Quite the contrary; it presupposes all that went before.
So it's kind of like this:
Pope issues letter that says something about economics (for example)...
In the U.S., it's like a house falls out of the sky: where did that come from?
In Rome: someone walks down a really long bookcase, and adds a spiffy new volume to a long line of volumes that obviously have been there awhile.
In short, the headline: "Pope says something new" is almost axiomatically false.
I was amused when Chuck Todd said something about Obama feeling more affinity with Francis than Benedict because of his views on economics...
Showing that whoever's sentiment that was (Todd's, or Obama's, or some staffer's) doesn't know squat about Benedict, whose statements on economics weren't very different. People just didn't pay much attention for various reasons.
Thanks for the nice words, btw.
Oh heavens, don't make me explain the holy father's recent exhortation. Just read it.
What a turnaround a few centuries make.
Phx:
LOL. I just meant...I'm on a sabbatical. Trying to present the pope's 100-page-plus document in a combox sounds a lot like...work.
@Fr
;)
BTW I enjoyed your blog and photos from your sabbatical. Great stuff.
Conservative Catholics don't like this Pope. They fear he will change the church for the worse. In my lifetime, this Pope is the most Jesus like IMO. That said, it's early, he's only been Pope a year.
I second the request that Bonfire of the Vanities is added the Lem's blogroll. Excellent writing! And the Sunday homilies that were posted before Fr. Fox's current sabbatical are wonderful.
Did you notice that for once in his presidency, Obama DIDN'T bow?
The prez is just trying to get his approval #'s up.
I have the padre's blog on my favorites. The man can shoot.
I very disappointed in this Pope so I am not surprised.
But then the only thing that would satisfy me would be if he excommunicated everyone in the Obama administration so it is unlikely he will do anything to make me happy.
Like I was sayn'!
It occurs to me that the Obamacare attack on the Church is not just a coincidence.
The Church was the most effective and dogged opponent of state communism.
Maybe Obama is trying to eliminate the opposition.
Michael:
Actually, the President did give a small bow. Ambiguous, but...he did.
Actually, the President did give a small bow. Ambiguous, but...he did.
Glad you chaps know what to focus on. Otherwise we might be wasting our time.
Ambiguity is his strong suit.
phx, You are a waste of time and life.
Actually, I was about a mile away when the President arrived, sitting in a room with some other priests. We could barely talk over the noise of a helicopter overhead. That helicopter was circling for hours afterward.
Not black.
Glad you chaps know what to focus on.
A nonsensical statement of the type you are accustomed to making.
No "chaps" said or focused on anything.
A single person made a statement.
When you employ this tactic, as you often do, I question your basic intelligence and decency. You have an obsession with converting everything to your desire to see Democrats win elections.
@phx
In other words, that was a Ritmo tactic.
Just heard a helicopter go by, so I checked the White House site; the President's still here in Rome.
He visited the Colosseum. Now he's on the way to the embassy.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Actually, I was about a mile away when the President arrived, sitting in a room with some other priests. We could barely talk over the noise of a helicopter overhead. That helicopter was circling for hours afterward.
Not black.
"Elicottero nero" has a menacing ring, doesn't it?
In case you're wondering why I wasn't out and about in Rome today...
No "chaps" said or focused on anything.
A single person made a statement.
You can't count, can you?
Now don't get into it with ST, you're already just wrong and you're going humiliate yourself by having a temper tantrum.
Let it go, unless you can magically make one from two, alchemist.
phx, You are a waste of time and life.
Tetchy tetchy.
phx, You are a waste of time and life.
Hey Zeus himself could hardly have said it better, I suppose.
Phx:
About the bow...
I don't defend the President very often. I thought I owed him one.
I don't defend the President very often. I thought I owed him one.
"Actually, the President did give a small bow. Ambiguous, but...he did."
Well, a robust defense like that! I guess you must be even.
Now don't get into it with ST, you're already just wrong and you're going humiliate yourself by having a temper tantrum.
This "you are suffering from rage" thing has become the predictable response from lefties.
What is that all about? When lefties run out of arguments, the next line of attack is always "you are filled with rage."
I suspect I'll come out the winner in an argument with you, phx, and that that is precisely the reason why you use this distraction tactic.
Honest to God, where does anyone get the idea that ST is filled with rage? Baffling!
Expletive-filled response to phx from ST in five...
While I appreciate it if you want to keep the level of discussion from going into a rage in this thread ST, and I commend you for it, you can't deny your history.
Nobody has conniptions like you and you must be suffering from blackouts if you really believe what you just wrote. But don't expect me to buy that black is white, white is black stuff.
Just sayin'.
I am one of the happiest, most content people you are ever likely to meet, phx.
You, like other leftists, have simply concluded that all disagreement with you is based on hatred and bigotry.
Which is why you keep employing this same fucking tactic over and over.
[The expletive was to keep you happy.]
That tactic is all propaganda all the time. I didn't even have to count down for you to employ it.
So, what's your next gambit?
I know how much pride you take in thinking that you provoke people to apoplexy.
Keep going.
Let's see what you've got.
Your success in this endeavor is mostly in your imagination.
I commend you for it. Let's both remember this conversation so we don't have to dispute this any longer.
If anyone's interested in reading more about Francis's economic views, there's a good piece in The Economist looking at his first year as pope. It makes the point that, as a Latin American, he "tends to see capitalism in terms of its effects on the third world”, and "the form of capitalism he knows from Latin America is, for the most part, not liberal, but corrupt and crony-ridden."
The article also talks a bit about his "Peronist side", which it says "shows in his use of a classic populist technique: going over the heads of the elite to the people with headline-grabbing gestures and comments. And it is visible in his view of political economy, which also has much in common with post-Marxist protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the Spanish indignados and Italy’s Five Star Movement."
The whole article is worth a read.
themes at the heart of the president’s 2008 election campaign
LOL. Even NBC has to go back to the 2008 campaign. Ouch. I guess they didn't like the 2012 campaign and the winner of it. Should we remind them of the status of Gitmo?
@Lydia,
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, written by a Latin American priest, had a profound effect on the South American and Central American wings of the Church.
Been a long time since I read it. Don't know if the Pope is an advocate.
I just hope that the Pope doesn't sprinkle any holy water on Obama.
That would have disastrous consequences.
"themes at the heart of the president’s 2008 election campaign"
That is a very cogent point. Obama wants to school typical white people who cling to their guns and their religion. He wants to take both away from them.
He is in fact the Anti-Christ. Or at least one of the lesser demons. Just sayn'
Lem, thanks for adding Bonfire of the Vanities to your blog roll.
Animatronic Obama is broken today. Bowing function temporarily off line. Can only tilt to your left (his right). Gummy smile still works, though.
Pope's views on poverty and social justice derived from years of study of Christian teachings.
Obama's views on poverty and social justice derived from vaguely recalled lyrics of Three Dog Night's "Easy to be Hard."
Obama's views on poverty and social justice derived from vaguely recalled lyrics of Three Dog Night's "Easy to be Hard."
Right, Obama doesn't know anything about the Chicago ghettos. Community organizers just eat bon bons and play golf.
You think the Pope has more in common with Mitt Romney than Obama?
Obama's views on poverty and social justice derived from vaguely recalled lyrics of Three Dog Night's "Easy to be Hard."
Go ahead and trash Obama but at least sound like you have a clue while you do it.
ST, I might be wrong (and I'm taking a risk by not googling it) but I don't think Freire was a priest.
Gustavo Gutierrez was and is, among others like Jon Sobrino. So, Liberation Theology was definitely a movement led and developed by priests, just not limited to priests (or theology). And it's worth noting one of their main critiques was that the Church was not exactly illustrious in its treatment of the poor in Latin and South America.
There were Marxist uses by all in 70s and early 80s, and Marxist leanings by some. They got really strong pushback by the Church for some of the elements, especially the Marxist implications, which JPII was especially sensitive to. And any Bishop or Cardinal who came into power during or after JPII would have been part of that pushback. Francis was not a liberation theologian but he rightly adopts a lot of their critiques and themes that were on target. Behind the scenes, however, are those critiques of the methodology of the Marxist elements, which means that he and Obama are not really on the same page. Francis pushed back against the sorts of people Obama saw as mentors.
This is all from memory, so I might be wrong but I remember reading an article that talked about his critical response to liberation thought.
Which means, in my impression, he's not on the side of the right or the left but the side of the people.
"It was not entirely a meeting of minds. The Vatican has made clear its concern at the Affordable Care Act, which mandates employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception."
That's fine. Many other people, I'm sure, are concerned about The Affordable Priest Act, which mandates a priest in every diocese regardless of their pedo-history.
To his credit, Fran seems to take that issue more seriously than others - but they really should give up the celibacy-fetish. I'm sure it can be a spiritual thing to do from time to time, but putting pussies and penises on pedestals rather seems to be causing that church a lot more harm than good. It's hard to argue that it's become anything other than a distracting cause, really.
Does anyone really disagree?
You think the Pope has more in common with Mitt Romney than Obama?
Definitely. Romney and Pope Francis were both active in their respective Christian churches. Obama was an atheist or lapsed Muslim until Michelle. Romney and Pope Francis both came from large families -- Obama came from a broken family and was raised by extended family. Romney and Francis are not biracial -- Obama is. Romney has given more to charity than Obama has.
I could go on, but first: what is it about Obama that makes you think he resembles Pope Francis? Be specific.
I could go on, but first: what is it about Obama that makes you think he resembles Pope Francis? Be specific.
Concern for others. Not looking down on the less fortunate.
But you did do an interesting job of touching on some questionably relevant surface attributes.
Not looking down on the less fortunate.
You must be referring to the takers.
Don't forget the Pope comes from a large, intact family. I'm sure he feels more kinship with others who also come from a large intact family.
Those others from "broken families and raised by extended families" ... not the Pope's kind of people.
The Pope's top drawer.
Romney has given more to charity than Obama has.
The Pope measures his kinship with others by the size of their wallet. He's that kind of a Pope.
Okay, I'll stop.
Concern for others. Not looking down on the less fortunate.
Thanks for answering what phx is unwilling or unable to answer.
I see no reason evidence that Obama has more actual concern for others. He is certainly hyped that way. He certainly campaigned that way. But what has he delivered?
People used to argue that GWB's motivation for invading Iraq was to address and or avenge certain "daddy issues." I can just as easily argue -- and I have long suggested -- that Barack Obama's drive to change American health care is driven by his mother's avoidable experience with American healthcare. He simply doesn't care if even a majority of Americans lose their extant coverage -- he wants his pound of flesh from the insurance industry.
phx said...Okay, I'll stop.
Except you never started, did you?
I see no reason evidence that Obama has more actual concern for others. He is certainly hyped that way. He certainly campaigned that way. But what has he delivered?
Are you concerned about the uninsured? Is the Tea Party? Are you and they more concerned about them and the poor or are you more concerned about the quality of insurance of the already-insured and the economic hardships of the middle class?
It's a simple issue of priorities. Refusing to act and declaring all action to be a way of making things worse, while offering no solutions, is ipso facto lack of concern. It's just a way of creating cop-outs by framing irrationally hypothetical alternatives as somehow worse.
This, despite the fact that they're 1) Not rationally explicable, 2) Downright hypothetical.
While the plight of the real stares everyone else right in the face, and for all to see.
Obama's failures are reflected in Nate Silver's emerging numbers.
The gathering strength of anti-incumbent politics -- against Democrats in particular -- is rooted in Obama's failures. Deny it if you like (and I realize November is a ways away).
People used to argue that GWB's motivation for invading Iraq was to address and or avenge certain "daddy issues." I can just as easily argue -- and I have long suggested -- that Barack Obama's drive to change American health care is driven by his mother's avoidable experience with American healthcare.
And so what if it was? He'd be a good person to not care about what his mother and so many other people like her went through? You're effectively implying that someone who treats people horribly is a better leader.
If you want leadership by sociopath I can offer some pretty notorious examples.
Obama's failures are reflected in Nate Silver's emerging numbers.
Nonsense. Such was to argue that Republicans did poorly by electing Nixon and Ford over Reagan or Goldwater. The time was not ripe for the latter in 1968 - 1976. But the people woke up and got over their short-term outrage and closed-mindedness by 1980.
You can praise the short-term tactics all you want. But in the long-run you the GOP has nowhere to go, nothing to offer. They're opposition is all knee-jerk and based off of resentment of a removal from power. But that has nothing positive to offer America.
Obama, like Republican moderates decades before, is planning for a long-term strategy and vision that the Republicans lack. They can't simply pretend it's always 1980, no matter how much that gives them in this election cycle or that. In the long-run, they're still going nowhere and still standing for nothing but extremism, power and political resentment.
But feel free to go to elections celebrating the options and scenarios you have.
Are you concerned about the uninsured? Is the Tea Party? Are you and they more concerned about them and the poor or are you more concerned about the quality of insurance of the already-insured and the economic hardships of the middle class?
The uninsured are not yet a majority. You and a host of others refuse to address other issues which prevent illegal immigrants and young males from signing up.
If you are asking whether I am concerned about the majority of people, my answer is yes. If the core of legislators and executive branch administrators who passed and signed ACA had been honest about the "you can keep your insurance" question, they would have lost support and it would have never passed. My evidence for this the growing disillusionment of the majority and also the continual need to postpone compliance for political reasons.
Are you concerned about the uninsured?
Obamacare has created more uninsured people than existed before its debut.
And, it has jacked up the price of insurance, causing hardship to millions more.
The "uninsured" stuff was a canard to begin with. The 30 million uninsured claimed by the Dems were mostly young people who didn't, and still don't, want to pay for insurance.
Claiming that you are more compassion than your interlocutor is a tactic that I can only describe as fraud.
phx said...Okay, I'll stop.
Like I said. He never answered me. He never even started.
Total pussy.
I'm out of here until I get credible reasons of why Obama is like Pope Francis...FROM PHX.
@R&B: You and I can go on and on and never convince each other of anything.
More reasons why Romney has more in common with Pope Francis than Obama:
Same sex marriage, abortion, and threats to free expression of religion.
Obama stands squarely opposed to both of them.
That Ritmo is a veritable fount of compassion, isn't he?
He's never funnier than when he starts on that stuff.
The uninsured are not yet a majority.
And apparently hence, in your unusual mind, of not being cared about. So noted. Compassion by political expediency, you exhort. Well, just make sure how you phrase that on cameras held by waiters "behind closed doors."
You and a host of others refuse to address other issues which prevent illegal immigrants and young males from signing up.
Oh. Well, so sorry.
Please feel free to tell me why I should care more about illegals than citizens or about males than every citizen and their raw numbers and maybe I'll see where your point is in here and address it.
If you are asking whether I am concerned about the majority of people, my answer is yes.
Again, so individual situations are meaningless, even though our republic recognizes and prioritizes individual rights. Well, welcome NTs, to Chickie's Morality by Social Majority Game. If it doesn't kill MOST PEOPLE we should leave the number that it does kill to rot. Again, so noted. In all its depravity.
If the core of legislators and executive branch administrators who passed and signed ACA had been honest about the "you can keep your insurance" question, they would have lost support and it would have never passed.
The more you bang on about this talking point, the weaker it gets. Insurance contracts are and were changed, cancelled modified with abandon given the status quo ante. The idea that the ACA was designed to prevent insurance companies from making ANY changes to plans is a ridiculous standard that you didn't expect of your own preferred regulation prior. So to pretend that it was going to make policy modification go away entirely is just a nonsensical claim - and one you never claimed to care about before. And therefore, we conclude, after. But it does offer you a political point. Bravo.
My evidence for this the growing disillusionment of the majority…
It's not growing but shrinking.
...and also the continual need to postpone compliance for political reasons.
SInce you're the one who only has a political (not a moral one, YET) agenda with this, it's hard to take your criticism of a "political reason" seriously.
"Community organizers just eat bonbons and play golf."
Inadvertent albeit unavoidable truths hurt
Same sex marriage, abortion, and threats to free expression of religion.
Obama stands squarely opposed to both of them.
WTF? "Both…?"
@R&B: You and I can go on and on and never convince each other of anything.
As long as you refuse to come up with good reasons for what you want or attempt to follow the reasoning of others who want different things. Yeah, sure.
But let's talk about how majorities are growing to oppose SSM, abortion, etc.
Just about everything you've said is bunk, Ritmo.
The healthcare system was working fine, for the most part.
There was no need for "reform."
It wasn't reform anyway. It's corruption. You're happy about the money grab because you are a Democrat.
None of this has been about compassion or insuring people. In every way, Obamacare has made things worse, except for corrupt Democratic politicians and bureaucrats.
You are very easily conned by the "compassion" bullshit. It appeals to your vanity.
That was Democrats use that language. To rope in suckers.
Claiming that you are more compassion than your interlocutor is a tactic that I can only describe as fraud.
Hmmm. As fraudulent as claiming "compassion" to be an adjective?
And, you sure do enjoy playing English teacher grading the students, Ritmo.
That's one of your funnier games, too.
Playing English teacher on a web comments thread just makes you an asshole, Ritmo.
You're good at that.
WTF? "Both…?"
Obama stands squarely opposed to both men on those three issues.
Sorry for the confusion. My bad.
I must add that Obama's unwavering support for late term abortion is perhaps his looniest political position. One would hope that he could still evolve, no matter what his personal feelings (which are important to R&B).
World view sponsored in its entirety by high school production of "Hair."
The healthcare system was working fine, for the most part.
Thomas proclaims a stupid opinion as fact and talks about everything else as bunk. Par for his course.
The American healthcare system spent more per capita (by twice) to cover less proportionately and offer worse outcomes by anyone's measure. Only someone completely ignorant of the industry in question would say something so impossible to agree with.
If Thomas has more to offer than the same old chest-beating he'd name a metric for defining "success" and say how it outperformed. But he won't. And he can't.
No one with any knowledge, no insurance CEO, no politician, no doctor, no patient would proclaim such wholesale nonsense as he did. But that's why he thinks they're beneath him. They'd offer facts to illustrate their case; but he's sure his opinions are superior to their facts.
Talk about arrogance. Less generous people call it stupidity. Or senility.
Either way, it's a laughable pile of crapola.
And, Ritmo, Republicans will win a presidential election again in the future.
Jesus, you get obsessed with the dumbest shit.
When a Republican is president, the Republican press will start crowing that the Democratic Party is dead and will never win an election again.
Are you too young to have any historical perspective, or are you just too hard head?
The American healthcare system spent more per capita (by twice) to cover less proportionately and offer worse outcomes by anyone's measure.
And under Obamacare that figure will skyrocket to a unimaginable level.
The "worse outcomes" bit is simply wrong.
Playing English teacher on a web comments thread just makes you an asshole, Ritmo.
You're good at that.
I'd be more charitable of your vandalization of grammar if you'd bother saying something on the topic every now and then that was at least in some way rationally meaningful.
You got anything other than the dumb kid stuff tonight, Ritmo?
Ritmo, you wouldn't know "rationally meaningful" if it crawled up your ass.
And under Obamacare that figure will skyrocket to a unimaginable level.
The "worse outcomes" bit is simply wrong.
More opinions. More predictions. No citations. Typical ST.
Now, do you want to stop with the stupid jerk routine?
Well, Ritmo, I've worked in healthcare and pharma.
What about you?
And, Ritmo, Republicans will win a presidential election again in the future.
Jesus, you get obsessed with the dumbest shit.
When a Republican is president, the Republican press will start crowing that the Democratic Party is dead and will never win an election again.
Are you too young to have any historical perspective, or are you just too hard head?
Who ever claimed otherwise? Show me where I said something contrary to that.
I take it throwing flimsy straw men and calling others stupid makes you feel smart. Is it working?
Who ever claimed otherwise?
All that crowing about Republicans living in 1980, yada, yada, yada.
Ritmo is the future!
That's another one of your favorites.
Do you really give a shit about anything? Your act always suggests you don't.
Well, Ritmo, I've worked in healthcare and pharma.
What about you?
Sure. I've got anecdotes of my own, too.
When you get results from studies, though, you learn about facts and objective data. Do you know what those are? You've offered none.
You should try it sometime, though. It would clear up your Opinionitis dramatically.
I know the healthcare system inside out, Ritmo.
Numerous family members on every level of the system.
I've worked in it. I've worked in pharma.
There was nothing substantially wrong with the U.S. healthcare system that Obama needed to fix.
It was all corruption and greed for power.
All that crowing about Republicans living in 1980, yada, yada, yada.
Literacy would help ST realize that "having a 1980s agenda" =/= "never winning another election again".
Man, I pointed it out in plain terms. They have tactics, but no long-term strategy. They could win an election, or a couple, but with no lasting legacy. Again, you seem to have trouble understanding these simple things and instead therefore resort to straw men.
Or perhaps it's not your fault and you just don't understand terms like "tactics", "strategy", "legacy", etc.
Is that it?
Do you know what those are?
Yes, I worked on numerous clinical trials, asshole.
How about you?
How did you get so fucking stupid and so fucking arrogant about your stupidity, kid?
You're a dope.
Ritmo, why don't you shut up?
You're a damned fool and you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm a damned fool for talking to you, but it amuses me sometimes.
I know the healthcare system inside out, Ritmo.
Numerous family members on every level of the system.
I've worked in it. I've worked in pharma.
There was nothing substantially wrong with the U.S. healthcare system that Obama needed to fix.
It was all corruption and greed for power.
Please, Doc. My name is Shouting Thomas and I have a raging case of Opinionitis obstinata. It's probably the worst you've ever seen.
If I am exposed to facts then I might start relying on them and that would do worse damage to me than sunlight and a stake through the heart would do to Dracula.
You've got to help me, Doc. Please. Just no facts. I beg of you that much. Facts will literally kill me.
Obamacare had nothing to do with fixing anything.
It was a power and money grab.
Ah, the rage and facts bullshit.
What facts you got, kid?
Ritmo, why don't you shut up?
You're a damned fool and you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm a damned fool for talking to you, but it amuses me sometimes.
Lol. Shorter ST: "Facts FRIGHTEN and ANNOY me!"
Help protect me from facts. Please.
Two comments for every one of mine. It must be his tactic.
Good ST. Tactic over strategy. Just the way the GOP likes it.
I have nothing to do with the GOP.
Don't really care about politics.
I do find your wiseass thing amusing, sometimes.
What facts you got, kid?
I cited at least three back yonder, Old Timer. If you ignored them then chances are you'll ignore them now.
And until the end of time.
But that's ok. Your opinions are more important. Opinions beat facts every time. That's what they learned you.
Yes, I'm an old timer.
I'm more experienced, wiser and more educated than you... in the very fields you're BSing about.
You should pay attention, but you've demonstrated repeatedly that you are too damned stupid to do so.
Why are you so proud of your ignorance and lack of experience, Ritmo?
It's funny!
I do find your wiseass thing amusing, sometimes.
Hey. At least we have that, then!
ST, you should just plainly consider that I'm a fan of what can come of reasoning and facts in this regard.
What you do is called "argument from authority". It's a logical fallacy, and hence rationally wrong. Error. Does not compute.
So seeing as how much you hate facts and how intriguing I find them, why not just agree to disagree.
Yes, I can keep playing this rhetorical game with you, too. But at some point, It just goes in circles unless you have as much respect and/or interest in facts as others.
"I am old and experienced" is an appeal to neither, of course. God help me if I ever resort to that. Sure, you can pull it out every now and then.
You're problem is it's really the only card up your sleeve, though.
So why do you keep bothering about this? You really come across as someone who resents the facts and knowledge that others possess, not for their own pride, but because they rightly consider those things to be important in coming to important decisions. Not perfect. Just important.
Why can't you just leave a factual argument alone, then? You really seem to resent anything not having to do with reverse-ageism.
What do you want me to do? Get a guy older than you who disagrees with you? And then you would suddenly take seriously what I am/we are saying?
I hope you realize that's the way you seem to be begging to frame this ridiculous game.
Tell me one fact you got.
I do, Ritmo, basically regard you as a silly child.
ST v Ritmo death match. Always entertaining.
Thanks, spinelli.
I always aim to entertain!
And, Ritmo, even if he is a dope, is pretty funny with his preposterous BS.
I gave you three. They were about the financial per capita waste of the system (unparalleled in the U.S.), the lack of covered population (highest among industrialized countries) and poor performance (37th in outcomes).
If you didn't listen to them then, why should I take seriously your request for me to repeat them now?
Some times I think you just want to get the last word in.
(P.S. Worse outcomes doesn't mean we lack some kick-ass technology. We have some very good and innovative technology. It just means we're still getting poorer outcomes across the population and despite of that).
Oh boy. 4 last words to get in. I never saw that coming.
I do, Ritmo, basically regard you as a silly child.
Lol. Like old men never do ridiculous things.
Are you sure you worked in health care? And you never saw an old fart do a stupid thing?
That's just not credible.
I answered each.
Obamacare will, and already has, driven cost sky-high in comparison to whatever that past "per capita waste" might be.
Obamacare has created more uninsured than existed before, and has created financial hardship for those already insured.
The poor performance thing, I don't agree with.
You just didn't like my answers.
How many times do I have to answer your "facts" before you realize I've answered them?
Obamacare will, and already has, driven cost sky-high in comparison to whatever that past "per capita waste" might be.
Cite it. Cite your prediction, O Karnac the Magnificent.
Obamacare has created more uninsured than existed before, and has created financial hardship for those already insured.
Cite it.
The poor performance thing, I don't agree with.
Oh cool. An opinion. No citation necessary - because after all it's NOT A FACT! What a save! Score one for Opinionitis!
You just didn't like my answers.
No shit. No facts were in there. So there was nothing to agree or disagree with. Just predictions and opinions. It's like arguing with a psychic. A palm reader. A seer. It's not reality. Hope you like it that way. Lol. ;-)!
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
~Wikipedia
I'm as calm, cool and collected as a cucumber, Mike. Thomas just doesn't like my facts (or my age). I certainly didn't initiate any comments in response to him, but I did him the courtesy of responding to a number of his insults and objections.
...sows discord on the Internet…
On the whole internet?
The internet must be saved!
Oh shut up Haz man, the only time this place gets interesting is when Rizty and ST, get into it.
The bone I have to pick with Pope Francis is that he serves to legitimize President Obama who is in fact diametrically opposed to most of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Obama signed on to a bill that would force doctors to let babies born in a botched abortion die on cold metal table instead of taking measures to save a human life. Obama wants to force nuns to provide abortion and birth control on their health plans. Obama is I am sure ready to force Churches to administer the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. It is the next logical step in his desire to strip those benighted souls who cling to their guns and their religion.
He should be treated with cold contempt. Much as Pope John Paul treated the communist masters of the Soviet Union and Pope Pius endured the ravages of Hitler and Mussolini.
But that is too much to ask I guess. It is easier to bend to the secular progressive drumbeat of the media culture than to stand for the little children who die every day because of people like Barack Obama.
Who will speak the truth to power if not Il Papa? Or is he enjoying the accolades of those who would trash the values and traditions of the Church?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Can there be a Rhino Pope? Just sayn'
I think you are very unfair to Shouting Thomas. He was patient zero in the clinical trails of Viagra.
Show some respect to your elders dude.
The costs to the consumer in terms of higher premiums and deductibles for unwanted insurance services is a fact, Ritmo. Admitted by the Obama admin. I've absorbed a 20% increase in premiums without any apparent benefit as a result of Obamacare.
The Obama admin is retreating daily from the mandate it once claimed was essential. Why? It's transparently obvious that they fear the impact of that mandate on the fall elections.
I've read pretty consistently that at least 10 million have lost their insurance. And, the "uninisureds" who were supposed to be lusting after insurance aren't. So, Obamacare has increased the number of uninsured.
The poor performance thing.. eh? I've observed a lot of doctors, nurses, hospitals and ER rooms in operation. I have seen through that very experience that you lack, that we're doing fine.
If there was one area where the U.S. system needed some rearranging, it might have been the use of the ER as a GP for the poorest of the poor.
I think you are very unfair to Shouting Thomas. He was patient zero in the clinical trails of Viagra.
Hey. I'm all natural and organic, Troop. My Johnny Jump Up is rarin' to go.
I think you are very unfair to Shouting Thomas. He was patient zero in the clinical trails of Viagra.
Trooper York you are too much! Accept no substitutes.
There sure is a lot of discussion about my junk in these web discussions.
Who's been peeking?
@phx
So, have I reached the point where you've diagnosed "rage" yet?
Repect, ST. But again, one person is one person. I never claimed any one person would never have things worse. That's why I used the term "per capita". Here's a comparison of where our per capita costs stood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
It's so not hard to find. And for this, a goodly percentage, (not necessarily you. Or me. But America. It's a bigger place than one person) were not covered. How does a country spend twice as much and cover less as a percentage? Again, that's only success if someone can only define success or failure personally. But even Chickie knows that numbers matter. Repeat after me: Numbers matter. The country is bigger than a few people.. even if those people have personal experiences!
If there was one area where the U.S. system needed some rearranging, it might have been the use of the ER as a GP for the poorest of the poor.
But you leave this as an afterthought… as if the emotion you feel in your own personal experience magnifies it to the point of diminishing the problem of this one, despite numbers. Throwing out a bone of diagnosis doesn't decrease the severity, man.
I think you are very unfair to Shouting Thomas. He was patient zero in the clinical trails of Viagra.
Show some respect to your elders dude.
Lol. I will do my best, Troop.
Yes, I worked on numerous clinical trials, asshole.
How about you?
How did you get so fucking stupid and so fucking arrogant about your stupidity, kid?
You're a dope.
But I see how hard you are trying to control yourself and as I said, I give you credit for the effort.
The ER problem wasn't really about the delivery of healthcare.
It was about costs.
I did some time as an EMT, Ritmo.
I observed plenty of healthcare delivered in the ER.
It was always top quality.
Fuck you too, SeanJ.
Geez Chickie. Really?
I have more respect for ST than I used to. He's a persistent dude, and yet demands others be witty or patient. But it makes you a better or more interesting debater. I used to think he was an ass, but he's an ok guy. When his Viagra is available.
(Sorry, had to throw that one in. ;-))
But I see how hard you are trying to control yourself and as I said, I give you credit for the effort.
Well, I wouldn't talk to you that way, phx.
You're an adult, even thought I do mostly disagree with you.
Ritmo is a blustering, childish nincompoop.
I did some time as an EMT, Ritmo.
I observed plenty of healthcare delivered in the ER.
It was always top quality.
Problem is, EMTs and ER "observers" aren't footing the bill of the hospital or system.
An administrator knows that his costs are in competition with other hospitals and systems.
That might not matter to you, but it's still a business. If the money's gone, the doors close. It happens. It's not good.
There are ways that hospitals and systems rank themselves against each other. Forget other countries, if that's distracting or unpatriotic. The problem is that the folks running the system have to think about these things. To them, it matters. Money matters and quality rankings matter.
You need to talk to them, I think. Their experiences are personal and well-informed, also. No less than yours are.
Well, I wouldn't talk to you that way, phx.
Well, yeah, but you have talked to me that way.
But I'm all for making peace and trying to keep it reasonable even while we fucking disagree.
And sometimes we agree with each other about things.
But I'm all for making peace and trying to keep it reasonable even while we fucking disagree.
Now, that was witty.
Ritmo is a blustering, childish nincompoop.
There you go again - raising the level of discussion and being completely respectful of the need to avoid trollishness. Thanks, ST!
Where's amartel? He's supposed to tell us when Haz leaves.
This "rage" thing that the lefties always throw in is interesting.
It's premised on the notion that anybody who disagrees is a bigot and a hater.
But, it also seems to be about how persistently you disagree.
So, how many times can you continue to disagree before you have reached the threshold of "rage?"
Keep yer pecker to yourself chicken dude.
So, how many times can you continue to disagree before you have reached the threshold of "rage?"
Depends how many facts are left out of those disagreements. You can only ignore so much input and rely so much on personal feeling without being obviously too emotional to be objective about an issue.
Don't be dense ST, it's not something with lefties at all.
It's about you getting out of control when you argue. You, as in "Shouting" Thomas. I don't suppose your nickname tipped you off or anything?
Get real about it. You do sound like you're having blackouts when you pretend you don't have what some "lefty" here called screaming death matches with Ritmo - or something like that.
That's on you. Embracing it would be a better look than denying what's evident enough that even righties talk about here.
You need to talk to them, I think.
I have.
I've talked at some length with John Hall, who I first met when he was a member of the band "Orleans."
I played in a house band for a blues jam session with John for some time.
He later became a U.S. congressman for my district, and one of his areas of particular interest was how the cost of ER care was paid. We've discussed the issue at great length.
So, yes, I do know what I'm talking about there. John's a progressive, so I'm not exactly in accord with his solutions.
You, as in "Shouting" Thomas. I don't suppose your nickname tipped you off or anything?
The name "Shouting Thomas" was the name of my music act with my late wife.
It was meant to invoke a Gospel tradition in music. Nothing more.
Well, I'm here to tell you, it's a name that works!
Just for the heck of it, a user named "explore.org" has cams of the Santa Monica beach, and ocean reefs. They go on for hours. I'm finding it relaxing.
Sorry to invoke your late wife, ST. Wasn't my intent.
Good, phx!
I've always been good at communication!
You're always good with me ST. You make a genuine effort to reach out and extend a hand from time to time. That shit goes a long way with me and covers you myriad of sins against me. Plus, you're a music dude.
Sorry to invoke your late wife, ST. Wasn't my intent.
It's been ten years, and I've been insulted about the death of my wife in every way possible by several million people on the web.
Not saying you did that.
And, I'm not saying that her absence doesn't still hurt. Believe me, it does. People like Myrna come along once in a lifetime.
I'm genuinely sorry for your loss. Politics doesn't mean anything to me compared to that stuff.
We fight, we bicker. I'm usually right. But let's have a drink on me.
Plus, you're a music dude.
Well, we Old Dawgz got good news today.
We're returning to Bethel Woods next fall.
We fight, we bicker. I'm usually right. But let's have a drink on me.
I'd prefer a doobie, but I appreciate the sentiment.
The name "Shouting Thomas," by the way, was conferred on my wife and I by a music reviewer in the Woodstock Times.
That 11:07 comment…. ST's cool. Every now and then he does or says something to prove it… just when I begin to lose hope.
Anyway, upthread I saw we debated whether younger or older people do sillier things, despite the wisdom of the elderly. It reminded me of a story I heard told by Howie Mandel. I'm not sure how funny he's stayed, but a few years back he did have a good yarn about an old doctor (Sure, let's turn the tables on them).
Anyway, he told the old doctor that he was hearing a humming noise coming from his testicles, and that it was bothering him. The old doctor said he didn't hear anything.
SO Howie said that he told him it was faint, and that he'd have to put his head lower an listen closely. The old doc did, but still heard nothing.
Exasperated, the old doctor asked if there wasn't something more to the story. Howie replied that, Oh yeah! He forgot! It only happens when it's dark.
So the old doctor turned off the lights, put his head down near Howie's crotch, and then listened to Howie start to hum.
Shaken, the old doctor quickly switched the lights back on, jumped up, and angrily accused Howie of making the noise himself!
It sounds funnier when you hear him tell it and make the sound effects.
@Ritmo
Took a coupla seconds, but now I get it.
Need the drummer to do the kick and snare hite for it to really work.
In his defense, I think he got the old doctor to turn off the lights and try it again once or twice before he admitted to it. That might have made it funnier.
The Santa Monica beach thing is great.
Spent quite a bit of time there with Myrna. Good memories.
What a nice way to end the evening. Good job warriors!
Post a Comment