Don Berwick Gets Recess Appointment To Head Medicare/Medicaid
Tweet
In April, President Obama nominated Dr. Donald Berwick to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points.
But with the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors’ care under the Affordable Care Act, there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing. That’s why tomorrow the President will use a recess appointment to put Dr. Berwick at the agency’s helm and provide strong leadership for the Medicare program without delay.
117 Responses to “Don Berwick Gets Recess Appointment To Head Medicare/Medicaid”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“Can you believe this?”-Fox while booking John Bolton
Let the mad wailing rumpus begin!
“Chicago style takeover of the country I tell ya! Who the HELL does he think he is? Only we’re allowed to make recess appointments!” -cons
If you have a 60 vote, veto proof majority, why do you have to sneak appointments by the Republicans?
It couldn’t possibly be because you don’t want public hearings, now could it?
Nah.
Transparency? Transparency? We don’ nee’ no e-stinkin’ transparency!!
Weak, Frank, weak. Meanwhile, we all pretty much accept that you reflexively take the side of a moral crippled politically destructive hate-party, but somehow you don’t want to take responsibility for the avalanche of hatred coming out of the political movement you owe your allegiance to. Why not embrace it? Accept that you guys decided that your only hope against Barack Obama was to throw a tantrum and grind the nation to a halt to satisfy the rage that was borne in you when the Republican ideology was repudiated in November?
It’s amazing the sort of rationalization that right-wingers will go through the justify the crazy behavior they’ve engaged in over the past 18 months. It’s truly a sight to behold of a much of people driven to the brink of absolute madness ever since their hero, George W. Bush left office and was replaced by a superior officeholder. They’ve never quite been able to accept that the country did everything the right wingers asked and the country suffered and rejected everything they stood for as a result. The last 18 months have just been lashing out by Frank over this fact.
All I know is that a bunch of Republican senators with a track record of failure at dealing with the country’s problems aren’t to be taken seriously with the knee-jerk mindless obstruction, and neither are their mindless toadies like Frank.
Frank, if you had any clue about what was good for the country, why did you waste your life and the country’s well-being on 8 years of Bush-supporting? I think it’s clear you have no ground to stand on with this one. This is a never-ending tantrum from your destructive generation of right wing loons.
All this appointment (and subsequent press release) proves is that the White House is afraid of straw men.
“If you have a 60 vote, veto proof majority, why do you have to sneak appointments by the Republicans?
It couldn’t possibly be because you don’t want public hearings, now could it?
Nah.”
They don’t have a veto proof majority. That’s why Republicans are able to… you know… block voting to hold hearings on the nominees. See, if Republicans didn’t filibuster, they could have the hearings you want. This was the stupidest thing you’ve ever typed.
Jesus Christ, Frank, I really do want to know how you aren’t embarrassed when you write stuff like that.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/senate-republicans-block-hearings/
Why do Republicans not want to have committee hearings after 2 pm? Are they afraid of rush hour traffic? Nah.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126023254
“Senate Democrats have rejected a Republican effort to delay a hearing for appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu”
Why are Republicans against hearings? If only we listened to Frank.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/gop-boycotts-senate-clima_n_344592.html
Wow, Republicans love public hearings so much they can’t go to all of them anymore. I guess that’s why they refused to go to this one. I mean it also meant that the hearings couldn’t happen but that must have been an unfortunate side effect. Frank just told us that Republicans are all about having public hearings. They must have all been very sleepy and needed a day off!
SFarris noted:
“All this appointment (and subsequent press release) proves is that the White House is afraid of straw men.”
It could also be interpreted that the White House is interested in getting the work of the country done rather than revisiting a debate about a law that has already passed.
Senate Republicans have made it very clear that they intended to hold up this appointment and use the time to argue for the repeal the ACA. Perhaps they don’t think its a priority to have very well-regarded professionals appointed in a timely manner. There’s no hurry, really. I’m sure the waste and fraud at CMS will wait. There are political points to be scored within the narrowing base of people who don’t think favorably about the law, and that’s MUCH more important.
Well, August, then I am sure you can tell me why the Obamassiah had to have another recess appointment if, as he said, “… many Republicans have called on the Administration to move to quickly to name a permanent head… [and he] has earned … bipartisan praise”?
If anyone is looking to score political points it is Pres Obama: “I hate to do this, but the Republicans are up to their usuual skullduggery, so they have forced me to do this.”
How clever!
And, Tyro, are you seriously trying to hang 8 years of the Bush administration around my neck? What do you think I was – a policy adviser? A cabinet member?
You think the Republican ideology was repudiated in November? Wait until Nov 2010 and Nov 2012…
I guarantee you won’t be talking about the “repudiation of ideology” then. Why? Because left wing ideology is never repudiated! Elections mean nothing, petitions mean nothing, popular movements mean nothing, unless they support your own beliefs.
I am sure you can tell me why [Obama] had to have another recess appointment
Top page show gray box. Gray box have quote. Frank read quote say what Frank want know. Read not hard for Frank?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Recess_appointments_made_by_President_George_W._Bush
If you have a 60 vote, veto proof majority,
Stop. Game over.
Nice links August, but none mention Berwick. One does, however, say “Over the years, both sides have blocked afternoon committee sessions to show their displeasure with one development or another.”
Nice try.
If I was the President, I would give the Senate 90 days to confirm my nominations. After that, I would go with a recess appoint.
Yes, Republican equivalency at work. See, the Democrats did X on 2 or 3 occasions during the eight years of the Bush presidency, and that makes it totally right, proper and just for Republicans to do X continuously, on each and every single solitary issue or nominee which Obama dares bring up.
The Republicans aren’t interested in working with the President at all. Ergo, please go fuck yourselves.
If I was the President, I would give the Senate 90 days to confirm my nominations. After that, I would go with a recess appoint.
It hasn’t been 90 days since Berwick’s been nominated. And in that time, it’s DEMOCRATS who refuse to schedule a hearing. But yeah, it’s totally the Republican’s fault!!!
Frank, you are self-cobsciously affiliating yourself with a destructive hate group that you have continued to support and has bwen a blanket hold on almost all Obama nominees because you cannot get over the fact that your mindkess support of Bush and hos bungling, ubqualifief nominees was an unmitigated disaster. And you’re joinibg habd in hand with repunlican obstruction because you hope that ypu can drive the government to a halt by wastibg everyone’s time. We tried it your way, and we even graciously allowed republicans to play their hold games, but at a certain point, the avalanche of destructive nihilism that the country rejected needed to be ignored.
You do not really have any credibility here and are just defendibg mindless destructive instincts we have seen on constant display. Republicans are just jealous and angry that they couldn’t stall health care reform, and their lashing out here is just the effect of a childish tantrum that the republican mindset encourages. Anyone with any moral sensibility would cpndemn republicans, but your poor moral judgment compels you to continue to alugn with them.
You think the Republican ideology was repudiated in November? Wait until Nov 2010 and Nov 2012.
Guys like Frank sure gloat a lot over things that are about to happen.
Now Republicans are immoral ?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Gimme a break !!!!
John Leo said several years ago, “It used to be that liberals claimed intellectual authority, and conservatives claimed moral authority. Now, the liberals claim both.”
I would add, they deserve neither.
“Now Republicans are immoral ?”
No, you’ve always been.
Frank, shut up. Honestly, I don’t care if you are on the left or right, you are simply one of the dumbest people ever.
Yes, Republican equivalency at work. See, the Democrats did X on 2 or 3 occasions during the eight years of the Bush presidency, and that makes it totally right, proper and just for Republicans to do X continuously, on each and every single solitary issue or nominee which Obama dares bring up.
The Republicans aren’t interested in working with the President at all. Ergo, please go fuck yourselves.
From August 2006:
So you see, the “Party of No” is only bad and wrong and evil when it’s against Democrats.
BTW, the Future is Here, the Future is Now!
Oliver, and you are one of the most arrogant people ever. But that’s synonymous with liberal, isn’t it?
Bad link ::
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575306861120760580.html
Dave is right. Remember how the Democrats voted against the Iraq War. Vicious.
Frank, it’s not arrogant to acknowledge that you are an ignorant dolt. It’s just factual.
Someone in the WSJ editorial doesn’t like health care reform? OMG SOMEONE BUST OUT THE DRUDGE SIREN!
See, it’s stupid things like that that give Frank his well deserved reputation. You don’t think. Even for a con, you don’t freaking think.
Remember how the Democrats voted against the Iraq War.
No, but I remember how Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War. They seem to have trouble recalling this fact.
Once again, Dave misses the point.
Oliver, and you are one of the most arrogant people ever.
Frank, you’re really not in much of a position to call anyone else “arrogant”.
“There is NO WAY I’m going out there again to defend this damned Health Care “reform” to Republicans or anyone else. I’m all outta arguments. The CBO has demolished my “cost-saving” and “deficit-reducing” claims, and once the American people realize that the majority of their existing health care plans are going to end because of the legislation, they’ll want my head. Let’s just stick this guy in though a recess appointment so I can get back to the golf course” – Barack Obama
Awesome, Dave supports the CBO. You’re on board with the American Power Act which will save us $19 billion then?
Jake Tapper:
Once again, Dave misses the point. – Zython.
Right? And how exactly? You could see that one coming from Spain.
Frank DiSalle: If you have a 60 vote, veto proof majority, why do you have to sneak appointments by the Republicans?
Alas, has been demonstrated time and time again, the Dems do not have a 60 vote majority on anything. So the basis for your point is a situation that doesn’t exist.
The CBO has demolished my “cost-saving” and “deficit-reducing” claims,
False. Go away.
once the American people realize that the majority of their existing health care plans are going to end because of the legislation
False again.
You’re on board with the American Power Act which will save us $19 billion then?
Actually, no.
Remember how the initial CBO scoring (based on specific and limited data and assumptions provided by Democrats) had ObamaCare lowering costs and reducing the deficit. However, once it passed, all the numbers rigging done by the Democrats collapsed and a true CBO scoring showed that it will actually do the opposite.
I suspect the same would be true for HR 2454. We wouldn’t find out the “actual” costs until after it had passed (because according to Pelosi, you have to pass these things to find out what’s actually in them).
Besides, raising energy taxes across the board and somehow expecting it to save us gobs of money through the magic of “green” energy seems like wishful thinking.
But August, if YOU support the CBO on HR2454 then you must also support Rep. Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future Act”, right? Because the CBO shows that it WILL reduce our deficit spending and get entitlement programs like Social Security back to solvency.
However, once it passed, all the numbers rigging done by the Democrats collapsed and a true CBO scoring showed that it will actually do the opposite.
False at 3:29. Still false at 3:53.
False again.
Nope.
And behold this shining example of the law of unintended consequences:
“But August, if YOU support the CBO on HR2454 then you must also support Rep. Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future Act”, right? ”
You mean do I support slashing Medicare? No.
“Under the proposal, national health expenditures would almost certainly be lower than they would under the alternative fiscal scenario. Federal spending for health care would be substantially lower, relative to the amount in that scenario, for working-age people and the Medicare population. Private spending on health care would probably not fully offset that reduction in federal spending because, under the proposal, with its fixed tax credit and voucher, individuals would face the full price of more of their health care purchases than would be the case under current law.
It is difficult to predict how such a sweeping change in federal spending on health care would affect the behavior of insurers, health providers, and individual consumers. In
particular, how spending would be reduced for physicians, hospitals, advanced technological treatments, drugs, or other health care is uncertain. However, it is likely
that fewer services would be provided and treatments would be less technologically advanced compared with the circumstances that would exist under the alternative
fiscal scenario.”
I didn’t need the CBO to tell me that cutting a federal program will reduce the amount of money spent on a federal program. But I think we all know why you just like using creative language to say “let’s cut Medicare.”
People like Dave in SoCal have honesty problems. That’s just what it is. They feel their duty is to lie for the cause. It is a loyalty test of republicans who are told to lie and yell and harass their friends and relatives with their fanatical talking points.
Frank demands that his views be respected because he imagines that the beliefs of a failed ideology made up of a bunch of fools who mindlessly followed Grorge W Bush off a cliff are entitled to respect rather than being regarded as the products of an ignorant hate group. There is no need for the filibustering blathering of crazed lunatics like Sen Inhofe and Coburn to hold the executive branch hostage in a tantrum because their failed belief system failed to cobble together a senate majority. Frank’s mindless defense of this destructive mess after his track record of mindless Bush support is to be disregarded. Your decline into republican craziness simply because you were possesed by an irrational violent hatred of competent statesmen like Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in favor of that Republican disaster George W Bush marks you as just snother right wing dead ender who can’t handle having a democrat control tge executive branch.
It was not too long aho that deranged republican loons were pushibg crazymen like Brown and Bolton, and repunlicans are driving the executive branch to a halt because they can’t mentally take it when a Democrat is in control and shames their ideology by actually filling the government with competent people. This republican outrage is nothing but a tantrum from a bunch of crybabies. Its an attempt to destroy the health care system in america by other means, just to gratify the hatred that consumes them. And Frank, being a moral void of a man, defends this and then demands respect for his loyalty to his gutter belief system that actively harmed the united states.
How Paul Ryan’s plan works: magic!
Next?
Heads I win, tails you lose!
“False. Go away.”
Ha! The CBO and demcrats numbers were cooked and you know it. These fools are going to hand out craddle to grave healthcare on the back of college grads working at dunkin donuts and starbucks with a permanent unemployment rate of 20%? Are you freaking serious?
The CBO has demolished my “cost-saving” and “deficit-reducing” claims,
False. Go away.
Fail again, Quaker.
Look at the bright side. Dennis is in hiding with the DJIA up 274.
And let’s look at the CBO report:
Note the italicized parts that state that the only way for ObamaCare to reduce costs or the deficit over the long run is to keep all the changes currently in the legislation… including $438 billion in Medicare cuts:
So how are Democrats doing at holding the line on those “unrealistic” cust that could “reduce access to care”? The ones that ObamaCare depends on in order to achieve long-term cost and deficit reduction?
Well, here’s Obama nobly trying to get the GOP and Democrats to eliminate some of those very same cuts that he readily admits will reduce coverage for patients.
So, in summary, Democrats include cuts to Medicare in the legislation to get the numbers down to where they want them… and then as soon as it’s passed they start pushing to eliminate the same cuts while still claiming that their awesome bill will reduce costs and the deficit.
Where are the wingnuts when Bush Administration projections for Iraq went from ‘virtually free’ to $1 trillion and counting (or in terms wingnuts can understand, up eleventy billion percent)? Oh, that’s right. They’re here mewling about reported controversial and unproven cost overruns of several percent.
You mean do I support slashing Medicare? No.
But you supported ObamaCare. And as I noted above, it acheives up to $438 billion in long term cuts by cutting Medicare.
Square that circle, pal.
People like Dave in SoCal have honesty problems.
When you can’t refute the argument, attack the person. Standard liberal tactic. Got it.
hey feel their duty is to lie for the cause. It is a loyalty test of republicans who are told to lie and yell and harass their friends and relatives with their fanatical talking points.
Point out my lies. Go ahead. But don’t forget to back it up with facts.
Or would you prefer to just keep indignantly banging a spoon on the side of your high chair?
Point out my lies. Go ahead. But don’t forget to back it up with facts.
Problem is, you always change the subject when we do. What’s the topic here anyways?
Where are the wingnuts when Bush Administration projections for Iraq went from ‘virtually free’ to $1 trillion and counting (or in terms wingnuts can understand, up eleventy billion percent)?
You see, timmy, the difference is that with combat, once you send your troops in you are committed and have to ride it out, even if things don’t go the way you planned (or hoped). There’s a reason why the saying “No plan survives contact with the enemy” is a true statement. If things go bad or you change your mind, you can’t just call a time out and ask for a do over. So with Iraq, yes, a lot of stupid, bad and wishful assumptions were made as to what it would cost and how it would go, but unfortunately we’re there now and have to finish the job.
On the other hand, with the health care “reform” (or any other) legislation, Congress could stop it TODAY if they wanted to (which they don’t). With legislation, you can call for a time out and get a do over.
So you see, ObamaCare is a quagmire that we CAN send our troops home from.
I know these are new and probably scary concepts for you to wrap your head around, but please try.
What’s the topic here anyways?
From Oliver’s post above:
“President Obama nominated Dr. Donald Berwick to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)… the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors’ care under the Affordable Care Act [i.e. ObamaCare].
Bush + eleventy billion percent wrong = “No plan survives contact with the enemy”.
Obama + projected to be several percent wrong = “ObamaCare is a quagmire”.
Lets see how your projections fall out. No amount of mewling will hasten the fact that it’ll take time. Medicare, despite being viciously opposed by conservative leaders such as Reagan, H.W.B., Goldwater, and Dole… isn’t such a bad thing now is it?
In the meantime, would you like me to go over the archives to bring up some major wingnut predictive fail?
The topic involves Oliver approving of a recess appointment to avoid Republican obstructionism.
But the title did mention Medicare/Medicaid. Would you like me to bring forth a list of Republicans who opposed these things when they were introduced?
No, but I remember how Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War. They seem to have trouble recalling this fact.
Now that seven years have passed, do you think any right winger will _ever_ be honest enough to admit that voting to authorize the president to use military force is not the same as “voting for the Iraq War”?
Me neither.
Medicare, despite being viciously opposed by conservative leaders such as Reagan, H.W.B., Goldwater, and Dole… isn’t such a bad thing now is it?
Yes it is. In addition to having higher administrative costs and per-beneficiary costs that are growing faster than private insurance, it also has a higher rate of denied benefits.
We should be trying to move Medicare patients over to private health insurance (while working to bring costs down). Instead, the Democrat approach is “Hey, let’s expand Medicare by another 30 million patients”. Never mind the fact that, many (if not most) of those patients will never get to see a doctor because more and more doctors are refusing to take new Medicare patients.
How will Obama get doctors to start taking Medicare patients?
Oh, I’m sure he’ll find a way. Probably by declaring that refusal to accept Medicare patients is “illegal price fixing” and threatening to prosecute doctors who fail to comply. There’s precedent now, you see.
voting to authorize the president to use military force is not the same as “voting for the Iraq War”?
After 7 years I still can’t understand how you can type that sentence without the resulting cognitive dissonance causing your head to explode.
Apparently, the Democratic thought process is:
“Yes, I voted to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. But I never thought that military force might mean, you know, troops and tanks and planes and ships and such. Going in and accomplishing the “regime change” that Bill Clinton used to talk about. I thought it meant we’d send Saddam harshly worded letters on DoD stationary… maybe fire off some Tomahawks every now and then until he finally got tired of our constant taunting and gave up and left Iraq willingly.”
finally, Bill Clinton is mentioned. I really miss that guy being blamed for everything.
Wow, links from the Heritage Foundation and the Mises Institute. No bias there.
Fail again, Quaker.
Nice link, Davy. Just so you know, it doesn’t say word one about the federal budget deficit.
The government is going to spend more money on health care? Duh! That’s the whole point of the bill. That’s not the same thing as increasing the deficit.
I fail? No, YOU fail.
From Davy’s own link and quote:
Go away.
But you supported ObamaCare.
I did?
So, in summary, Democrats include cuts to Medicare in the legislation to get the numbers down to where they want them… and then as soon as it’s passed they start pushing to eliminate the same cuts
Stop. Game over. NOT “the same cuts.”
Monkey!
But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.
This does not say, as you claimed, that the majority of Americans will see their current health plans end. It says that as the new regs roll out, a majority of people’s existing plans will become subject to regulations.
Do you just get everything ass-backwards?
CBO also estimated that the legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion
And did you miss the part where it said that the only way it can reduce costs OR the deficit is to keep all the changes currently in the legislation, including $438 billion in Medicare cuts, with almost half (42%) of that coming from cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals?
Stop. Game over. NOT “the same cuts.”
Do you deny that $184 billion (42% of $439 billion) of the deficit reduction claim is based on Medicare cuts to docs and hospital which which Obama is now trying to prevent? How is that not “the same cuts”?
It says that as the new regs roll out, a majority of people’s existing plans will become subject to regulations.
And then those existing plans will have to be changed to be compliant with the new regulations. Which will likely affect coverage and or cost. Employers may even drop those plans entirely because of the changes.
But it’s no longer your “existing plan”, now is it?
But it’s no longer your “existing plan”, now is it?
Well, OK. To the same extent that changing the speed limit means you don’t get to keep your “existing car.”
Do you deny that $184 billion (42% of $439 billion) of the deficit reduction claim is based on Medicare cuts to docs and hospital which which Obama is now trying to prevent?
I do.
Is there anything else about “NOT the same cuts” you don’t understand?
Davy at 5:03:
From the very link Davy provided in that same quote:
You heard it here first, ladies and gents. “Obamacare” started back in 2003!
NOT the same cuts, Davy!
They say Quibbie’s a bad mother…
(Shut your mouth.)
but I’m talking ‘bout Quibbie… uh, Quaker… Quaker in a Basement!
(Well we can dig it.)
And then those existing plans will have to be changed to be compliant with the new regulations.
Well, actually, the article doesn’t say that any of this is definitely going to happen because the final regulations haven’t been written yet. Had you bothered to finish reading the article you would have read this:
So the plans people have are exempted from any new federal regulations permanently under the law — that’s how people keep their current plans.
But if an insurance company changes that plan itself, the plan then may no longer fall under the exemption because it’s a different plan. So it would not be the government changing people’s plans here, it’s insurance companies changing people’s plans for their own reasons which then means the revised plans would no longer be exempt and fall under new federal regulations.
The issue buried in the article for some reason is that all of this is still up in the air:
So it’s entirely likely that the government will decide that changing a co-pay schedule does not constitute a “new plan” and so the policy remains exempt.
But if an insurance company is raising someone’s co-pay and deductibles, it’s the INSURANCE COMPANY, that’s changing the policy holder’s policy, NOT the government. What the government is currently saying is that the policy will be exempt from federal requirements forever as long is never changes. But if the insurance company decides to increase costs or reduce benefits for the consumer, the policy loses its exemption and the federal regulations kick in to protect the consumer and/or offer them affordable alternatives.
Do you see the difference, Dave? It’s the INSURANCE COMPANIES changing the policies. Not the government.
You mean davey got ALL the “facts” wrong? What a surprise!
Jesus Christ, Frank, I really do want to know how you aren’t embarrassed when you write stuff like that.
Embarrassment requires a sense of shame, August.
Quaker in a Basement:
Note the order in which those priorities are listed. Now I have nothing against physicians making a decent living. But protecting doctor’s incomes isn’t the first thing that should come to mind when considering how to provide health care.
August J. Pollak on Frank DiSalle: This was the stupidest thing you’ve ever typed.
I strongly disagree. Frank has typed many MUCH stupider things.
“Yes, I voted to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. But I never thought that military force might mean, you know, troops and tanks and planes and ships and such.
I think that should be…
“Yes, I voted to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. But I never thought that military force might mean, you know, complete utter incompetence and cluelessness
Typical republican argument: You can’t blame me for being a total bozo fuckup, it’s the democrats’ for thinking that I’m not a total bozo fuckup. So obviously the thing to do is to let me have power again so I can bozo fuckup everything some more. After which it will be the democrats’ fault for not stopping me from bozo fucking things up. Can’t blame me.
My last comment was yesterday!
You guys need a hobby.
Stamp collecting, anyone ?
I collect spores molds and fungus.
All of which demonstrate more intelligence than Frank DiSalle’s pitiful posts here……….
Zython, D A and Sean: It is you that can rarely find anything to comment about but me, and my comments. I would say that this testifies as to your lack of intelligence and insight, not mine.
Perhaps you should consider commenting on the subject of the thread. If you are perplexed as to why, you can always ask Dark Avenger, our self – proclaimed internet searching expert, to look up “ad hominem” “logical fallacies” for you. It should be right next to a picture of a chicken doing the mambo.
Frank, I must admit, you seem to have attracted a loyal and dedicated following here. I almost fell out of my chair yesterday when Sean addressed me here instead of you. Just think of it this way, you give their lives meaning at least. And by attacking you, they don’t have to pretend Obama and the rest of the Democratic party is doing a fine job governing our country.
Zython, D A and Sean: It is you that can rarely find anything to comment about but me, and my comments. I would say that this testifies as to your lack of intelligence and insight, not mine.
Like when you were basically stating that you should do what a cop says or he’ll turn his nightstick on you because he can, regardless of the law, in the thread about Gates and the cop what’s his name?
I almost forgot about that one, thanks for reminding me.
Perhaps you should consider commenting on the subject of the thread
Perhaps you should reflect on the optics of someone who has had comments deleted here in the past making suggestions about what other commentators write here.
Last time I checked, Oliver didn’t appoint you or asked for your input on what people do here on the blog.
You are acting like a Socialist by demonstrating your lack of respect for Olivers’ property, but then consistency isn’t one of your strong points, is it?
If you are perplexed as to why, you can always ask Dark Avenger, our self – proclaimed internet searching expert, to look up “ad hominem” “logical fallacies” for you. It should be right next to a picture of a chicken doing the mambo.
You’re the one who started bragging here about your mad Internets search skillz Frank, I pwnd you when I put them to a test and you’re still mad about it.
This is for you, BTW.
they don’t have to pretend Obama and the rest of the Democratic party is doing a fine job governing our country.
We don’t, BTW.
I do pity Dave in SoCal, SF, Frank and you, however, because you all have a harder time explaining why this country will turn into a Socialist hellhole if the Republicans either lose seats or retain the same margins in the upcoming elections/
Your recent habit of addressing a report of Republican misbehavior “Look over there, there’s a Demo who did the same thing!” is becoming tiresome, and reminds me of people with OCD.
Frank DiSalle: My last comment was yesterday!
You guys need a hobby.
Contrary to what your ego thinks, Frank, we don’t hang around here constantly waiting your next posting with baited breath. It may be a day before we stop by and notice your latest inanity.
Frank DiSalle: Zython, D A and Sean: It is you that can rarely find anything to comment about but me, and my comments.
So it’s our fault that your comments are in a class by themselves?
Dark Avenger, our self – proclaimed internet searching expert
I utterly fail to see why being able to find relevant info would be seen as something to be mentioned sarcastically. You’d think such an ability would be valued. (Of course, I’m supposing one values accurate information, and I do realize I’m ‘talking’ to Frank…)
Dennis: I almost fell out of my chair yesterday when Sean addressed me here instead of you.
Yeah, you usually are such a dumbfuck that you’re not worth responding to. But when you do have a moment of honesty, like pointing out so clearly and plainly that the right is utterly lacking in morals or standards, I feel compelled to pat you on the back and say “Good job, Dennis.”
Sean, that makes no logical sense. You call Frank a dumbfuck too, surprise of surprises, yet you hound him relentlessly, bizarrely even. You don’t just occasionally respond to him, either, you come here solely to seek him out. There’s seriously something really fucked up about that. Frank owns you. He’s in your head.
And by attacking you, they don’t have to pretend Obama and the rest of the Democratic party is doing a fine job governing our country.
You know, Dennis, I don’t think Obama is doing such a fine job running the country right now and I am regularly disappointed by him.
That doesn’t change the fact that you, Frank, Save et al are still the stupidest people posting on the internet.
fafaroo, when you go so far out your realm as to actually call someone stupid, I think it behooves everyone to take special notice. I know that’s not something that comes naturally to you and it couldn’t have been easy for you to say.
I’ll do some serious soul-searching now that you’ve called me that.
Dennis: yet you hound him [Frank] relentlessly,
Frank’s an active poster here. He makes a lot of comments in a lot of articles. We disagree on most everything. Responding to him is not “hounding”.
What is it with you folks (by which I mean the right wing commenters here) that having folks respond to your comments is viewed as “hounding” and “relentless”? have ANY of the left-leaning folks here ever whined “You’re picking on me!” like the quick-to-claim-victimhood wimps on the right have?
Responding to your comments, even if I call you or Frank “dunbfuck” in the process, is not hounding. At least I’m including something of more substance than complaining about the timestamp on your comments.
Dennis, Mother Avenger told me that crazy people think they’re sane and that many people around them are crazy.
Thanks for serving as a real-life example of her observation.
That doesn’t change the fact that you, Frank, Save et al are still the stupidest people posting on the internet.
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. Glenn Beck has a website.
Responding to your comments, even if I call you or Frank “dunbfuck” in the process, is not hounding. At least I’m including something of more substance than complaining about the timestamp on your comments.
Sean, dude, I don’t care who you post toward or what you say, but lately you have been hounding Frank as if you have nothing better to do and nothing worth saying other than arguing with him. You must feel like what he says is a challenge to you, otherwise arguing with someone you think is stupid, and doing nothing else but that, is pretty stupid in itself. Either you’re stupid, or you’re not being truthful in calling him stupid but you do it anyway. Has to be one of the two.
As for the time stamp comment, at 1:27 am I’m not thinking about him, or you, or anyone here, and if I could I would give you or anyone else here a gun with specific instructions to shoot me in the head if I ever am awake and posting on here and I decide to call out his name when he’s nowhere around at that time in the morning.
It’s just weird. Freakishly weird.
Name-calling: it’s literally ALL they have.
As for the time stamp comment, at 1:27 am I’m not thinking about him, or you, or anyone here, and if I could I would give you or anyone else here a gun with specific instructions to shoot me in the head if I ever am awake and posting on here and I decide to call out his name when he’s nowhere around at that time in the morning.
That presumes that whoever posts at 1:27 AM EST, does in fact live in that time zone as well.
QED
The time stamp on fafaroo’s freakish comment printed on here was 4:27 am, DA.
QED².
I’ll do some serious soul-searching now that you’ve called me that.
Glad to hear it, Dennis. Anyone who knows and admits that they are not as smart as Frank DiSalle would be well advised to reflect on their life choices.
Name-calling: it’s literally ALL they have.
In response to the mountains of ignorance and stupidity you guys post here on a regular basis? It’s ALL that’s required.
Dennis: but lately you have been hounding Frank as if you have nothing better to do and nothing worth saying other than arguing with him.
OK, Dennis. I’ll explain it one more time. Maybe if I use smaller words?
Responding(Whoops, started right off with three syllables. Don’t want to lose Dennis with my first word.) Posting a reply to Frank is not hounding him.Sean, dude, I don’t care who you post toward or what you say,
Clearly you do. I mean, you’ve posted comments directly to me about half a dozen times just so far today. Stop hounding me, Dennis!
(Thought I’d try things your way. Still don’t see the appeal.)
And now, please welcome to our stage, the CLOSING tag. Whoo-hoo!
—
Dennis: but lately you have been hounding Frank as if you have nothing better to do and nothing worth saying other than arguing with him.
OK, Dennis. I’ll explain it one more time. Maybe if I use smaller words?
Responding(Whoops, started right off with three syllables. Don’t want to lose Dennis with my first word.) Posting a reply to Frank is not hounding him.Sean, dude, I don’t care who you post toward or what you say,
Clearly you do. I mean, you’ve posted comments directly to me about half a dozen times just so far today. Stop hounding me, Dennis!
(Thought I’d try things your way. Still don’t see the appeal.)
SaveFarris: Name-calling: it’s literally ALL they have.
First Dennis clearly notes that they’re hypocritical and utterly lacking in standards, and now SaveFarris notes how they’ve got nothing but name calling.
Could this acknowledging the truth about the right be the start of a trend with them?
Sean: A moment of clarity is required. If Mr Pollack makes a comment about me, and you comment about it 24 hours later, that is not replying to me. That is especially true if I have not commented in 24 hours.
The same would apply to Zython and Dark Avenger.
Oh, and Dark Avenger: Please don’t make the mistake of trying to convince anyone here that you beat me in that challenge. You did not. If you repeat it again, I will reprint the entire challenge here, and show that even you couldn’t perform your own challenge, let alone mine.
And, no, I am not going to click on the link to your Frank DiSalle fan page .
Frank, allow me to apologize. I am terribly sorry you are so goddamn butthurt by our pointing out your massive stupidity.
I’ll do some serious soul-searching now that you’ve called me that.
Wouldn’t that imply that you actually have a soul?
Please don’t make the mistake of trying to convince anyone here that you beat me in that challenge. You did not.
If you repeat it again, I will reprint the entire challenge here, and show that even you couldn’t perform your own challenge, let alone mine.
I’ll save you the trouble, Frank, just e-mail me the e-mail addy of your contact who wrote a book on Google searching and I’ll sent it to her myself.
Ask referee the challenge and I’ll accept the results, whether they are in my favor or not.
I’ve made this offer in the past, and your refusal to consider it speaks volumes about your inferiority complex, Frank.
So go ahead, accept my challenge to let a third-party determine the outcome, or go slink off with your tail between your legs for the last time over this issue.
The choice is yours.
BTW, I loved the photo on your myspace page, you look like a slightly dissipated Romulan intelligence operative.
If you were so sure of yourself
Frank DiSalle: I will reprint the entire challenge here, and show that even you couldn’t perform your own challenge,
Oh, goody. Can I join in? ‘Cause I’ve could post that entire thread where Frank couldn’t back down on his own challenge fast enough, including all the private emails he sent admitting that he was a jerk.
Shall we really go that route? Shall we?
Didn’t think so.