It's a great discussion. Thanx for pointing it out to me. There are a couple more threads I have joined in on too..

Which means (as usual) I am not getting any work done! Hehehehehehe

Michale....

Wow. Feel free to join in, you say? Ha! I'm going to feel free to keep my distance on that one - those waters are a little too dangerous for me and I'd be way over my head in no time flat!

I almost feel sorry for Bill Bradley...there is an obvious expert on all things ST over there who is really giving him a run for his money. Though, they both appear to be lovin' it!

Hey, wait a second...ARealTrekker wouldn't be your third - or would that be your fourth - incarnation on the HuffPost, would it?. Well then, I most definitely will not be wading into those waters. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/star-treks-new-coming-of_b_200861.html

Feel free to join in... :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/weekend-prediction-star-trek-65m/#comment-241648

.... wasn't credited to me for some reason....

Michale....

I have been very vocal about the new Trek movie here:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/weekend-prediction-star-trek-65m/

Just search 'michale' and you'll see my choice comments..

As to the post, no I haven't seen it.. I might mosy on over as I am looking for a good outlet for the intense frustration I feel over this great, awesome abomination.... :D

As for the bannings, yea.. It's amazing how "tolerant" the Left wing really is. :D They, like the Right, are tolerant as long as everyone agrees with them. They are "Reagan" tolerant...

Present company excepted, of course.... :D

Michale....

You've been banned three times from commenting at the Huffington Post!?? Now THAT'S funny!...on any number of levels. Almost as funny as Arianna's testimony before the Senate subcommittee looking into the future of journalism, or lack thereof.

I don't know whether you are on or off again but, just to let you know...there is a new post by Bill Bradley up over there about the new Star Trek movie...have you seen it...the post, I mean?

My only bias is against hypocrisy and the illusion that is constantly trying to be re-enforced here. The illusion being that, overall, Democrats are any better than Republicans..

Maybe you just overcompensate since you're surrounded by left-leaning "socialists",

Probably... :D

but personally, finding fault with Democrats is no harder than finding fault with Republicans.

Exactly my point...

The difference is that Democrats, while generally every bit as greedy, selfish, corrupt and self-serving are not willfully ignorant ideologues determined to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

Yer kidding, right???

When it comes to imposing their will and beliefs on others, today's Dems are every bit as hysterical and obsessive as Republicans are....

In other words Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not entertain apocalyptic fantasies, and at least don't try to destroy us all to prove their points.

Again, I ask... Are you serious??

4 words...

Human Caused Global Warming...

'nuff said...

Now to address your "arguments":

Woot!! :D

Since when did "when you are in a financial hole, you ignore conventional wisdom to STOP DIGGING" become conventional wisdom?

It's always been conventional wisdom... As well as common sense...

Democrat's viewpoints are far more tolerant and diverse, the party far less regimented and rigid.

Really?? Take a gander at Taylor Marsh (where I have been banned twice) or Daily Kos or Huffington Post (where I have been banned three times) and then come back and rail about the "vaunted" tolerance of Democrats...

The rest of your rant on the "transfer of wealth" is so incoherent I confess I'm at a total loss as to how to respond.

I'll simplify it for you. GOOGLE "Murtha" and "Investigations"... Then apply those findings to the majority of Democrats and you'll get an idea of what I mean...

As for closing Gitmo, no-one has ever suggested releasing terrorists into the U.S. Terrorists would be transferred to other U.S. maximum security prisons, only those who were not terrorists would be released. And the only ones complaining about the plan are Republicans.

According to the hysterical Left, every "innocent" person that is in Gitmo is now a terrorist because of their "illegal" and "immoral" incarceration. So, using the Democrat's own twisted logic, there are no longer any "innocents" in Gitmo. They are all now "terrorists" for whatever reason...

As for the only ones complaining about the plan, you are not up on current events. The majority of Democrats are complaining about the possibility of Gitmo inmates being released in their districts...

Michale.....

Why do you always change the subject when Republican policies are criticized? When we're critical of Republicans you want to talk about Democrats. When we're critical of Democrats you're happy to proclaim they're all bad, but you don't rush to condemn Republicans in defense of Democrats. Like Faux News you pretend to be fair and balanced when you're just plain biased.

Maybe you just overcompensate since you're surrounded by left-leaning "socialists", I don't know -- but personally, finding fault with Democrats is no harder than finding fault with Republicans. The difference is that Democrats, while generally every bit as greedy, selfish, corrupt and self-serving are not willfully ignorant ideologues determined to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

In other words Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not entertain apocalyptic fantasies, and at least don't try to destroy us all to prove their points. Democrats are just as corrupt, can be just as venal and are just as short-sighted, but on their worst days are nowhere near as dangerous as Republicans. And that has been repeatedly proven the last 75 years. It could change but it hasn't yet.

Now to address your "arguments":

Since when did "when you are in a financial hole, you ignore conventional wisdom to STOP DIGGING" become conventional wisdom? I always thought "you have to spend money to make money" or doesn't dueling cliches work for you? If not I'll address your specific issues if you ever come up with any.

And we still have two major parties the only one of which that's ever attempted to "rule" being the Republicans. Democrat's viewpoints are far more tolerant and diverse, the party far less regimented and rigid. It can barely influence, there's no danger at all that it will "rule." The rest of your rant on the "transfer of wealth" is so incoherent I confess I'm at a total loss as to how to respond.

As for closing Gitmo, no-one has ever suggested releasing terrorists into the U.S. Terrorists would be transferred to other U.S. maximum security prisons, only those who were not terrorists would be released. And the only ones complaining about the plan are Republicans.

I'd also like to point out that if the big scary terrorists are that dangerous then keeping them at Gitmo shares the same "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" logic as the war in Iraq. And if your counter-terrorism strategy is to position terrorists so they have to kill others before they can get to you then your arguments lose, shall we say, a certain moral authority? In fact I think the rest of us can fairly view a willingness to sacrifice anyone and everyone else to save your on neck as making one easily as dangerous as, if not one of, "the terrorists."

And Bizarro Land Democrats mean there is no problem that can't be fixed by throwing more money and bigger government at it. Bizarro Land Democrats means that when you are in a financial hole, you ignore conventional wisdom to STOP DIGGING and spend TRILLIONS more dollars to buy specialized digging equipment that allows the Bizarro Land Democrats to dig faster and deeper...

Bizarro Land Democrats means that there is absolutely NO PROBLEM with a 1-Party Rule, as long as that Party is the Bizarro Democrats. Bizarro Land Democrats means that bi-partisanship is MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY taken to extremes. Bizarro Land Democrats is trickled wealth so that ALL wealth from rich and poor alike is given to the Murthas and the Boxers and all the other crooks in Congress

Bizarro Land Democrats means that you have a position that Gitmo has simply created terrorists and yet, you want to RELEASE those newly created terrorists into the US. Bizarro Land Democrats means that you sign a politically popular order to close a maximum security prison that holds REAL murders and the like, without a DICK of a plan on what to do with those killers...

So, I axe ya.....

Which Land is MORE Bizarro?? The Republican Land or the Democratic Land??

Michale.....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america_archive/generic_congressional_ballot/republicans_top_democrats_on_generic_congressional_ballot

Michale......

Chris, that's something that I've never understood, how anyone could not see that "privatizing" government functions simply has to waste money and increase costs. There is nothing a private company can do that the U.S government cannot and every private company will impose additional overhead in the form of profit taking.

I've long ago accepted that to Bizarro Land Republicans "compassionate conservative" means war-mongering far-right spendthrift neocon torturers, "bipartisan" means "my way or the highway," "democracy" means "a permanent Republican majority," "pro-life" means women must die if only an abortion can save them, and "trickle-down economics means transferring wealth from the middle-class to the wealthiest of Americans.

But "reducing costs by privatizing?" -- No way to even spin that one into seeming sincere and rational, but the media and public swallowed it whole. -- And

"I'm not sure the Republicans get this, but there's nothing to fear about health care reform. Most Americans are afraid that they're going to get a bad illness and wind up broke and bankrupt. President Obama says we CAN live without fear, that we CAN give every American a choice. That Americans can CHOOSE the same health care that Republican Congressmen have. What's so wrong about that?"

Yeah, the talking points each ran a little long this week. I'd start writing something nice and concise, then get really annoyed, and before I knew it I had twice as much as I had aimed for.

As for your "Few Good Men" riff, the thought occurs that if we were talking about dental plans as well, we could work into it somewhere: "You can't handle the tooth!"

Sorry. I apologize. It's late at night...

Seriously, though, your last paragraph was excellent. I think this time around we may actually see a law passed this year. I'm cautiously optimistic, but also know it's going to be a hell of a fight!

-CW

"In 1992, republican congressmen and insurance company lobbyists went after First Lady Hillary Clinton's idea of public health care, choked it, tied it up in Congress and shoved high premiums down our throats. Rising costs forced americans into bankruptcy, caused their care to decline. affordable healthcare drowned in HMO profits and was dead in 2004. These are the undisputed facts of the case.

What i've told you is exactly what you will hear from republican congressmen and insurance company lobbyists. we will also show that they reduced the quality of your care for their own profit, and entered the debate over a public health option with motive and intent to kill.

The republicans are going to try and work a little magic here. they’ll try a little misdirection. Astonishing stories of take-overs. Dazzle you with official-sounding terms like “socialized medicine.” They may even try to cut into the president. They have no evidence, but it’ll be entertaining.

But in the end, all this magic will not obscure the fact – that Americans want the option of choosing public healthcare, and republican congressmen and insurance company lobbyists are trying to kill it."

...Stan