Survey Says....

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death...
and the valley of the left wing goobers

I was out and about reading some of the left wing blogs and past by the the First Door on The Left, who I think could be an intelligent individual if not so misguided.
He had jumped on the New York Times poll concerning cutting pay and benefits to reduce state budget deficits, and a second poll that asked about taking away collective bargaining rights from public employee unions.
He stated that Republicans do not listen to the people, and also stated that the voters had signs of remorse now over electing Walker.
Naturally I had to comment on his great skills of following the herd, and further explained that the real " poll " had been taken when the people from Wisconsin decided to elect Walker as Governor and to make a change, which is what is happening now.
The Times poll had taken opinions from everyone, and made sure it got opinions from certain demographics, meaning that the majority of those polled were from union homes, and not registered voters.
Hmmmmm, Can you say skewed ?
Bill O'Riley used a poll Thursday night in his talking points that had the reverse outcome, and used only registered voters.
What does this all mean ? Well, it could tell us, one more time that the main stream media is incredibly slanted, but we know that, it could tell us that they would rather lie to us to help get an agenda across, but we know that too.
The problem is, less than 50% of the Nation has not caught on to what is going on yet, and that forty something percent is making life hell for the rest of us and will cause a lot of damage for years to come.
This forty something percent, when it all hits the fan, will be the ones hiding in the closet with no food, and torn dirty clothes, looking up at us asking " what happened ? "

When You Talk Crazy

Instead of admitting he is a liar, Al Gore wants to pretend he is a nut.

I'm sorry, did I say pretend ?

Anyway, speaking of nut's, is that not the very same word used to by the left wing media describe radio and cable television personalities that report negatively against Obama and his administration ?

In particular, Glenn Beck takes a lot of heat from left wing media outlets because he has the courage to expose the facts, and can back up what he brings to us. Glenn even installed a red hot line phone so that if he were to report something wrong, the Government could clear it up on the spot.

Today he started his show with a copy of the New York Times.

Have a look

Could it be that the New York Times has put the Kool-Aid down ?

Giving Me A Headache

What is it Bob ?
I am not an O'zombie, so what I say about Obama's plans must be wrong
In the clip, you heard it out of his own mouth.
Maybe that clip was not credible because it was from the Fox News Channel
OK then what about a publication that is more Obama friendly ?
Would you agree with something from the New York Times ?
Back in April, Obama was interviewed by David Leonhardt that touched on a few interesting topics, and most of all he asked about health care
Take a look

NYT: You have suggested that health care is now the No. 1 legislative priority. It seems to me this is only a small generalization — to say that the way the medical system works now is, people go to the doctor; the doctor tells them what treatments they need; they get those treatments, regardless of cost or, frankly, regardless of whether they’re effective. I wonder if you could talk to people about how going to the doctor will be different in the future; how they will experience medical care differently on the other side of health care reform.
THE PRESIDENT:
First of all, I do think consumers have gotten more active in their own treatments in a way that’s very useful. And I think that should continue to be encouraged, to the extent that we can provide consumers with more information about their own well-being — that, I think, can be helpful.
I have always said, though, that we should not overstate the degree to which consumers rather than doctors are going to be driving treatment, because, I just speak from my own experience, I’m a pretty-well-educated layperson when it comes to medical care; I know how to ask good questions of my doctor. But ultimately, he’s the guy with the medical degree. So, if he tells me, You know what, you’ve got such-and-such and you need to take such-and-such, I don’t go around arguing with him or go online to see if I can find a better opinion than his.
And so, in that sense, there’s always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider. And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. And certainly that’s true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, where the taxpayers are footing the bill and we have an obligation to get those costs under control.


He thinks the Government can be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. This statement tells me that the government will have the power to choose which treatment you will be allowed to have.

Now would this apply to everyone, Probably not. I am inclined to think that some people would get " special treatment "
Obama stated " Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care "
Who will make the determination of when end of life care begins ?
If a doctor tells you that a family member has 2 months, or 6 months left to live, will the " appointed panel " decide that it is too late for any further care ?
Obama said this about his own situation

THE PRESIDENT:
Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
NYT:
And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.
THE PRESIDENT:
So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
NYT:
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

There you go.
He does not say that the government would not be involved in what treatment would be available to people, he said that a group would discuss the chronically ill and those at the end of their lives.
A group of doctors, scientists, and ethicist appointed by who ?
If it is a government plan, then the government would be the ones that will assemble the people that determine who gets what care
and this would be the beginning, how long would it take before they debate on what treatments would be available for people over age 40, and people over age 30
Obama wants to cut costs by limiting coverage to the sick and dieing, then who will he deny treatment to so that he can save some dollars ?
Autistic children ?
People who have lost a limb ?
The blind ?

McCains turn

I do not want to be accused of bias like the commercial media, So today, I would like to shed a little light on what I have learned about John McCain. I would first like to comment on his essay that was rejected by the New York Times. I searched, and found his report. and I have some parts I would like to comment on. In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.' I am not afraid to say that I am thankfull that a candidate would assure me of that. I can see where pulling out of the situation can be a good idea, I just do not want to turn and run. Further into his paper he wrote " Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington ". Senator Obama was an equally vocal opponent. He said " I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there, In fact, I think it will do the reverse ". In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” And now, 19 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. As for as the debate goes concerning the war, My opinion is to finish what we started. I do not believe that it will take years, but I also do not believe it can be done in months. We are making progress over there and I think we should see it through. I also think if more support were available, it would speed the process.