Disqus - Latest Comments for Degrance

Re: Give the Porkulous Money Back

Degrance — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:34:34 -0000

You sir are an idiot.

I happen to be one of those state employees who isn't currently unemployed because of the stimulus "bled away" by "dysfunctional state governments"

You clowns really enjoy sticking it to public sector workers. We're just regular Joes doing our jobs at substandard pay as compared to the public sector. Most of us because we really believe in public service.

But where would you jerks be without us to use as a punching bag every time you need a bogyman.

Government works and works well 90% of the time. You earn a living finding the 10% and painting the other 90% with that broad brush.

Get honest. It would be refreshing to hear one commenter who admits to the good and the bad in any system and works to expand the good and reduce the bad. Unfortunately it is much easier, and pays the same, to just go with simple slogans, demonizing things you oppose, and deifying the things you support.

Re: The Health Care Debate: What Price is Life? A Stranger’s Life? Your Child’s Life?

Degrance — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:02:26 -0000

What both you and the author you quote missed is the fact that medical care is currently rationed in the US. Right now it is rationed by companies that have a profit motive in denying as much care as they can get away with.

Health Care Reform is about changing the locus of control of rationing so that it is done by medical professionals and not bookkeepers.

That said your premise is correct. Decisions must be made. Part of the solution is changing our culture of "life at all costs" and move a little more towards quality of life and end of life support. An expansion of the hospice infrastructure would be a good first start. At some point it is better to help someone die well than to squeeze every second of life out of their tortured bodies.

Re: What so many liberals don’t understand about adultery

Degrance — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:59:45 -0000

AustinRoth, you continue to miss the point. The Democrats have the support of their constituency because, by and large, we agree with their policies.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have the support of the "values voters" because the Republicans are systematically giving the false impression that they share the "values" of this group. They do not. They never have. They never will. They milk the religious right for votes and then ignore them for four years except to throw them a bone in a speech or to pass an unconstitutional law that they know will never be enforced and eventually overruled in the courts.

Fortunately the religious groups are beginning to see the light, as it were.

http://watchmanswords.blogspot.com/2005/10/reli...
"The reality is that Bush 43 is no different in practice than Reagan or Bush 41. They talk the talk. They go to church (well not so much Reagan, but you get my point). They pray out loud. But they don't take the concrete actions that would change the things that matter most to people of faith. They do not care about moral values nearly as much as they care about motivating voters. So they say what we want to hear and count on us to keep living in blissful ignorance of the fact that nothing ever happens. It's time for that to change."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washington/15...
"In the last several weeks, Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the most influential Christian conservatives, has publicly accused Republican leaders of betraying the social conservatives who helped elect them in 2004. He has also warned in private meetings with about a dozen of the top Republicans in Washington that he may turn critic this fall unless the party delivers on conservative goals."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/200...
"Some religious conservative leaders feel shirked by the GOP right now. They argue that religious conservatives are the most loyal Republican voters and that the party should take their issues more seriously."

Re: What so many liberals don’t understand about adultery

Degrance — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:49:21 -0000

I think you are completely missing the point. The point is that a significant number of the Republican fallen were out there preaching "family values" and setting themselves up as the pinnacle of virtue while they were already trashing several commandments on a daily basis.

We are not upset at them because they fooled around. We are upset because they fooled around while falsely and cynically building the Republican brand as the godly party in order to dupe that segment of the population that shouts AMEN when ever somebody yells "Jesus" from the soapbox.

Republican office holders and seekers are by definition ungodly. I don't know how much you know about politics but to even get on the ticket for anything but the most insignificant local office you have to make several deals with the "devil." If those "values" voters had even a inkling of what their moral champions had to do in order to get elected they not only wouldn't vote for them, they would escort them to the city limits with torches and pitchforks. If they could somehow see what was actually in their hearts they would blanch. I worked as a nonpartisan in the legislative arena for years. I worked with ultra conservative legislators on a daily basis. If their constituents knew what these folks really though of them . . .

You say. "Millions of voters want to elect leaders who set a certain standard for individual behavior." That is the problem in a nutshell. Because of this anyone who wants to run for office has to lie their ass off to even get past the primaries because no one living can hope to pass this litmus test. People need to vote the issues, not some preposterous moral code.

The worst part is that Republicans often get to have it both ways. They lie their asses off, then when they get caught all they have to do is falsely beg Jesus for forgiveness on national television, maybe cry a little, then go back to doing exactly what they were doing before, AND go run for reelection. The "values" voters will only see they he "got himself right with Jesus" and pull the lever for the adulterous, venal, lying, covetous, bastard again.

Re: American Idol: The Underdog Unexpectedly Triumphs (Guest Voice)

Degrance — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:00:04 -0000

Kris Allen won because Idol's core audience, rednecks, are homophobes and would not support the better, but gay, performer.

The best artist has never won Idol. It is always the most "white bread" artist. The blandest. The "safest." That's what you get when you let democracy choose talent.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Degrance — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:06:31 -0000

nicrivera & tidbits

"Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The government doesn't and couldn't "fund abortion." If there is funding involved it is for health care, of which abortion is a small part. Excluding abortion from government funded health care, in effect, only hinders the poor from getting proper medical care. If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman's ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

The logical conclusion from your viewpoint would be that the rich abort on a whim because they have unlimited access to abortion. Is that your thesis?

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Degrance — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:54:43 -0000

"What does it mean? It could be a sign that if Obama flops and the GOP doesn’t give independent voters an affirmative reason to support them (just blasting Obama won’t be enough) there could be an opening for an independent candidate in 2012, even if such a candidate has the system stacked against him/her."

I can't make out, due to the poor formatting, whether this is a quote or a statement by the author but this statement is pure drivel. I can see no relevance between party affiliation being down and interest in a third party candidate. I think what this is indicative of is fatigue with the silly bickering that goes on in place of national politics these days. People long for the days when there were reasonable people on either side of the debate and they worked things out (yes it did use to be like that, at least as compared to today)

Having said that Bernie Sanders has my vote if he wants to challenge the two party system. I'm proud to say he is my senator and the only nationally prominent independent that I know of.

Re: Steaming Ahead in Slo-Mo

Degrance — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:38 -0000

You can hardly blame Obama for GOP obstructionism. Maybe, after Frankin is seated and we get to 60, we can fill the rest of the positions that require Senate confirmation in a week or so.

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/29372/tea-party-protest-no-matter-how-big-a-net-plus-for-gop/

Degrance — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:04:03 -0000

Does anyone have an objective view of world events anymore or are we doomed to have everyone parrot whatever talking points are issued by the various cliques that make up our media now a days?

These protests have been going on for years every April 15th. This year's protests were not any different than last year, or the year before, or five years ago. The only thing different is that some idiot in the "news" business decided to highlight them because they thought they could boost viewership for a few days.

There is no story here. The protests were indicative of nothing but hype. There is no more, or less, grass-roots movement than in previous years. The "protesters" had no unifying idea that brought them together. April 15th is the traditional day for loonies to come out with any complaints about the government because that it the one day a year that is tied most strongly to taxation.

Anyone suggesting that these "protests" are in some way indicative of the national mind-set are deliberately misinforming their audience. As long as we accept these manufactured stories as real news we are contributing to the mess that is reporting today and postponing the time when we have a functioning press corp again in the US.

Re: Wait, Obama Is Worse On Civil Liberty Legalisms Than Bush?

Degrance — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:03:16 -0000

As has been suggested several times by people who have not lost touch with reality:

The lawyers in this case are bound by their duty to their client to use any legal framework available in the best interests of their client. It is up to the court to determine whether these motions are in accordance with the law. If they are, it is congress who must amend the law, not the executive branch.

I am having a very hard time not seeing this as the same sort of quasi-factual reporting that Fox engages in. Much ado about nothing.

Re: Israeli Army Vindicated

Degrance — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:58:45 -0000

Unless I am misreading the article this is essentially saying that the army looked into allegations of its misconduct and decided it was innocent.

I'm sorry but any time any military does an "internal investigation" of alleged wrongdoing and discovers itself to be squeaky clean my BS meter posts. How about if some disinterested party, like the Red Cross or Amnesty International, takes a look at the facts.

Re: Go Get 'Em, Evan Bayh

Degrance — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:11:03 -0000

Are people just used to having something to snark about every day for the last 8 years and can't break the habit?
This story seems to be basically, someone said something and someone else said, "You're not being helpful."
This is news how? This relates to the constitution how?
Looks like you're just helping Bayh pander.

Re: Poor And Homeless In The 21st Century

Degrance — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:46:25 -0000

Why would any homeless person not have a cell phone?
Just because you can't afford rent doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, afford a phone. Besides getting a job, as Dyre42 suggested, they are a lifeline when you are in precarious circumstances. The homeless are vulnerable. But how much less vulnerable if they can call family or 911 in case of emergency. Were I homeless I'd skip lunch sooner than give up phone access.

Re: The Gift That Keeps on Giving... Or Not

Degrance — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:05:42 -0000

I can't decide whether this is the silliest "news" story of the week or if that would be the "outrage" over Michelle going sleeveless in February.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009...

Re: The Media and Obama: "The Story They Wanted to Tell"

Degrance — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:57:07 -0000

Of course there have been more negative stories about McCain. His entire campaign has been an embarrassment. How many screw ups can you list, just off the top of your head, from the McCain camp? Now, how many for Obama?

Likewise, just because a candidate shouts something doesn't make it news. The Repubs shout "Ayers!" That doesn't make it news. After you have debunked the Ayers connection a dozens times where else do you go with the story? Every news cast already starts with, "McCain mentioned Ayers on the stump again today."

In short the events surrounding McCain have been, objectively, negative. Those around Obama have been, objectively, positive. Therefore, the events reported about McCain have been more negative and those reported about Obama positive.

If anything I think some negative reporting around Obama has been unfairly negative because the idiots running news think that being objective means that every time you report something negative you have go to the ends of the earth to find something similarly negative to report about the other candidate.

See the many stories about Sarah Palin bringing down the Republican ticket and look for the obligatory, "but then Senator Biden misspoke himself last week."

Re: Will McCain Play the Gender Card?

Degrance — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:08:01 -0000

What are the chances of McCain picking a VP who is currently under investigation for the ungrounded firing of officials in her state? One because he was the ex of her sister and the other because he honorably refused to fire the first.

I don't see even a campaign as tone deaf as this dipping their toe into the political quagmire that Alaska has become in the last 6 months.

Re: I support the rights of states to choose, unless that doesn’t work out

Degrance — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:13:53 -0000

I agree with GreenDreams. I see no contradiction in the two statements you refer to. In fact they seem entirely consistent.

Re: Obama: A 360 on NAFTA?

Degrance — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:54:31 -0000

The article was a smear job written by deliberately taking quotes out of context to tell the story the author wants to tell rather than reporting what was actually said. Obama's position on NAFTA has not changed and he said in the interview that he will be changing NAFTA. He just stresses that he wants to do it through negotiation if possible.

Read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/ifortu...

Re: Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

Degrance — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:23:16 -0000

I completely understand that there are women who chose to back Hillary because of the few, minor, differences that she had with Obama. I thought I had made it clear that I was not talking about them. I was talking about the absolute loonies, like Debra Bartoshevich, delegate to the Democratic Convention from Wisconsin. This is the woman who is throwing a hissy fit because a man (who she substantively agrees with) beat a woman (who she substantively agrees with) in a fair contest. Because the woman lost she is now going to change parties and support the person she completely disagrees with just to show that bad, bad man how affronted she is that he he won.
She and her ilk are not rational adults, are certainly not feminists, and deserve no consideration of any kind. They are showing the kind of social skills that most of us abandoned in the third grade when we finally managed to lose at dodge ball without whining.
For this section of Hillary's constituency the crime of the man being found better than the woman by the electorate is more important than electing a president that agrees with you, more important than picking the best leader for the country, more important than supporting the policies that they themselves find most precious. They see getting revenge for Hillary's loss as trumping every other consideration.

That is just plain unhinged.

Re: Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

Degrance — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:03:38 -0000

Sorry, roro80, but no.

None of these issues - workplace equality, the right to vote or own property, domestic violence, bodily autonomy, child care, LGBT issues, the health care crisis, civil rights, poverty, welfare, genital mutilation, gender roles in relationships, rape, date culture, abstinence, HIV/AIDS, the military, and the environment - make Clinton the better candidate. In fact Obama had a better record on many of them. These are not the things that separated the candidates for Clinton's most avid supporters.

A large part of Clinton's base didn't vote for any candidate on any issues of concern to them. Her campaign was not primarily about issues important to female Americans. It was about which candidate had the "right" plumbing.

A great deal of her rhetoric, especially towards the end, boiled down to, "They have to let me win because I'm female."

I recognize the importance of the the first serious female presidential candidate. I personally am glad we had one. But even in such an historic campaign you come off as a sore loser if it comes down to the end, you lose, and all you can says is, "NOT FAIR, NOR FAIR, NOT FAIR." No matter what sex you are.

I give props to Hillary for pulling out of this swan dive into the pavement she started to perform the night it became clear that she had lost. I don't know how much of the credit for this I should give to her and how much to the dozens of peers who called her up and told her she must stop it. But her followers are still trumpeting their nonsense that because Obama happened to be the one that beat "the chosen one" they will vote to overturn Roe v Wade before they would ever vote for him.

What kind of mindset could even contemplate that except a very petty and spiteful one.

Re: Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

Degrance — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:14:49 -0000

I find it very amusing that the most sexist campaign in history is now crying that the reporting of the campaign was sexist. The Hillary backers were, and in many cases are, single issue voters and that issue is gender. To heck with policy, to heck with electability, to heck with the rules, to heck with even giving anyone else a fair hearing. All that matters to them is what the candidates have in their pants. Is it any wonder that the media covered gender as an issue? Hillary made it THE issue of the primary. There were Hillary supporters who were calling other women traitors because they made an informed decision and chose another candidate. This is quite possibly the most shallow, meaningless political movement ever.

My mother was an executive in the 70s. I am fully in accord with women having every opportunity that men have. But that does not mean that a woman should have whatever she wants handed to her. The whole, "It's not FAIR!" attitude that has been trumpeted by her supporters since she lost is a travesty to the women's movement. Look, she played and lost, just like Howard Dean, just like Dick Gephart, just like Gary Hart. Nothing was "stolen", no one "cheated", no one "took away" anything that was hers.

So many of her followers deluded themselves that she was SUPPOSED to win that they were completely devastated when the same thing happened to her as happened to all the white male candidates this time around. She got beat, fair and square.

Re: Best Candidate Drawing Ever!

Degrance — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:07:25 -0000

If you hadn't told me that was supposed to be Obama I never would have guessed. Maybe somebody who made it through their senior year art class with a passing grade could white out the head and draw in a picture that looks kinda like the intended subject.
Parody gets a big fat FAIL if you can't even figure out who you are supposed to be laughing at without subtitles.