Worst.
Vice Presidential Candidate.
Ever.
–Indeed/ ed

Bzzzt!

No, I’m sorry. the answer was Joe Lieberman.

-Noooo, Soary Dennis.

bing

-Jay?

- Who is Joe Biden?

- Incorrect.

-bing

- Indeed?

- Who is Palin?

- Sarah Louise Heath Palin is correct! The board is yours, Indeed.

- I’ll have Starbursts for 200, Alex

- This comically inept blog troll …

bing

- Indeed!

- Dennis?

- In the form of a question please…

- Who is Dennis?

- Dennis it is! Pick again!

But I fear she might be too busy reading every newspaper and magazine that exists in order to stay informed. She’s a reader, you betcha.

Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.

Remember how Lucille Ball made millions by screwing things up in a funny way? We laughed at her amusing incompetence, but we didn’t hate her, and we don’t hate Sarah Palin even as we laugh at her seeming inability to make and keep a lunch date.

There’s gotta be a sitcom script in her “Lucy and the football” approach to public speaking invitations. Is THIS the time she’s really going to show up?

Nah. Lucy always jerks the football away, and we always laugh even though we already knew the punch line.

Worst.
Vice Presidential Candidate.
Ever.
–Indeed/ ed

I think we can both agree that Harry Reid is a idiot. Deal?

Not even the New York Times is buying into the line that “Death Panels” were a “baldfaced lie”.

Just keep whistling past the graveyard…

*cough*

Seriously, guys, stop feeding the troll.

But it’s so fun to watch them dance.

Yeah. It’s been quite a time saver.

I’ve actually found myself looking forward to a Farris link, just to see how oblivious he can be.

Well, since we can’t poke him with a stick, this will have to do.

TFJ for Wilbur.

I second.

Exactly right.

Farris’s links are good for one thing only: To refute what he says.

Oh, goody. Another Farris link. You know what that means: It not only doesn’t say what he claims it does, it pretty much says exactly the opposite. First, the Times is compared to the satirical newspaper The Onion (never a good start when your point is trying to be “listen to what the Times is saying now, it proves my point”). And it goes on to conclude:

proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing

They think it’s rationing. Not, as Farris says, that there is rationing. But that people have been lead to think that rationing is the consequence of such reasonable and logical things as using the most effective treatment and letting people choose what medical care they want to receive. A conclusion (providing the most effective care = rationing) that is baseless on its face.

(I could go on to point out that the actual Times article (which certainly Farris never read because that would require making the effort to check out the actual source material (a whole one click away) rather than just taking as gospel what someone else tells you about it) says:

… the House version of the legislation would help older Americans with their drug costs. It would eliminate co-payments for screenings and preventive services, and it could improve the coordination of care they receive from different doctors.

but that would just belabor the point that Farris has does actually make with his links: They say exactly the opposite of what he claims.

Come on, Farris. Use the actual text of the proposed bill to show us where “death panels” or anything even remotely like them are actually created. You can’t do it, can you?

Actually, where does the article mention death panels?

Thought so.

Here’s the lede graf from Farris’ linked story:

WASHINGTON — White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational.

Who says the fears are not entirely irrational? The people who are afraid!

I don’t need to go around dropping rocks constantly to prove to myself that gravity still works.