Well, yesterday, we had the Woman of La Mancha literally tilting at windmills, cause they might have some bad effect on cows; we had some gun slinger griping cause the rich pay Income Tax (duh, why do they call it Income Tax) and the poor dont pay any (cause maybe they have no Income to speak of?)
And we had somebody else who had a typo problem, and couldnt get the numbers typed right, but was still used against that poster, even after the typo had been acknowledged.
Hmmmm all in all, not a bad day on the WE Blog, as days go here.
This is a link to a site where Iraqis with handy-cams make reports on what is happening in Baghdad.Some is nice and others is not so nice but it is reporting by real Iraqis and their daily lives.
I wish I could hve just one day, where ZI didnt hear the words, Baghdad, Britney, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, K-Fed, Limbaugh, Hannity, or anything with Campaign in it!!! Grrrrrrr!!!!
Can you go Pheasant Hunting in July? Can you watch the Super Bowl in the middle of June? Can you see the All Star Baseball game on Thanksgiving Evening?
Of COURSE not!! Wrong season, right?
WELL, let’s set a Campaign Season! That’s it.. Cannot announce for President any time before 12 months before the Election Date! And NO fund raising earlier than 12 months ahead, either!
Maybe then we would have some decent debates, and keep these candidates to the real issues, instead of all the garbage like we hear on the TV, and read on this Blog!
How are we going to do that? Why, the voice of the People, that’s how!! Let the voice of the People be heard! Let the news media cover that voice for a change!
All this campaigning is going to ruin our form of political governance.
The perpetual Campaign Season most certainly contributes to division in America.
After George WMD Bush lost the election but won the Supreme Court vote in 2000, Democrats were willing (spineless as we tend to be) to accept a presidency that recognized the division in America. Instead, Shrub ruled as if he’d been given a landslide.
From foreign policy to FEMA we’ve seen what the George WMD Bush approach to governing gets us.
Is the last six years *really* what “conservatives” had in mind?
Winter is coming and there were several editorials about homeless awareness yesterday. Please give us a WE Blog thread on the subject. I would like to see how public opinion weighs on the issue! Thank You.
Now that Musherriff has imposed “martial law” in Pakistan and had his opposition jailed- all in the name of “fighting terrorism” of course, I wonder if Bush might be thinking along these lines. Especially since Musherriff used Abe Lincoln as a precendent. Maybe Bush is thinking about extending his own stay in office!
I heard over night that some people, known as White Trash, want the term “Redneck” to be given the same banned status as the “N” word. They say Redneck is racist!
Hey, if Redneck gets that status, it would improve the chances for Presidential Candidates to visit Kansas, and Alabama, and Mississippi and Missouri, and Tennessee and Kentucky! Wow!
Bush’s myths on SCHIP.On Oct. 17, President Bush explained that he vetoed Congress’s SCHIP expansion because the White House wasn’t “dialed in in the beginning.” But as The New York Times reports, the White House was heavily involved, but unwilling to compromise:Senator Hatch tried to bring White House officials into the negotiations, believing their involvement would produce a better bill. But, lawmakers said, the administration did not want to discuss the child health program except as part of a broader discussion that included the president’s tax proposals. […]But after checking their calendars, lawmakers said they and their aides had had more than 35 meetings and telephone conversations on the issue with [administration officials] Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Goon from January through September.
President Bush has changed his reasons for opposing the S-CHIP program so many times now his flip flops are doing flip flops.
So. Pervez Musharref suspends Pakistan’s Constitution, invokes emergency rule, detains Supreme Court members and arrests the opposition because he’s going to be held to a two-term limit as President of Pakistan.
When Gore says that he helped develop the internet by leading the funding in Washington for it, it is true.
But right-wing operatives spin that into “Al Gore said he INVENTED the internet” and the corporate media repeat it endlessly, they make him into a liar.
Meanwhile, Ghouliani issues a blatant LIE that he knows is a lie — that Britian’s health care would have killed him by now — and the “liberal” media give him a free pass.
Or as Giuliani himself says in the controversial ad: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”
Yes, it’s another inspiring and instructive story — or would be, perhaps, if only it were true.
The former New York mayor did survive prostate cancer, but otherwise his statistical claims were not difficult to debunk, as reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets quickly discovered. Giuliani had picked up his numbers from an article in City Journal, a publication of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and simply repeated them in public without bothering to check their validity. Unfortunately, they were essentially fraudulent figures, extrapolated inaccurately from old data (by a doctor who also advises the Giuliani campaign on healthcare).
Accurate and current data, easily available from public health agencies and medical authorities, shows that the survival rate from prostate cancer in England is better than 74 percent and in the United States is better than 98 percent. Even that difference, as experts explained, probably has nothing to do with the British National Health Service and much to do with the aggressive screening programs employed in this country. (And for the moment, let’s merely mention another highly pertinent issue, namely that the great majority of prostate cancers occur in men over 65, which indicates that many if not most are treated successfully under Medicare — our version of national health insurance for the elderly — or by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which comes as close to truly socialist healthcare as any system in the world.)
Funding something doesn’t mean you help invent something.
If that were the case, then Andrew Carnegie should take credit for inventing the Library because he donated hundreds of millions of dollars to build them.
The Commonwealth Fund on Tuesday in a statement said that the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain cited in a radio advertisement recently launched by Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is inaccurate, the New York Times reports. In the ad, which began to air on Tuesday in New Hampshire, Giuliani says, “My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and, thank God, I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44% under socialized medicine.” According to the British Office for National Statistics, the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain is 74.4%.
So, Wingnuts. Ghouliani has gone on record saying that he’s going to keep repeating the above lies regarding prostate cancer. How do you like having a serial liar, philanderer, and cross-dresser (with NO foreign policy experience) as your front-runner?
Carnegie should and does get a lot of credit for developing the modern library system in America.
The words that Gore used was “helped develop” not “invent.”
Invent was pure right-wing LIE.
NEW RULE
Every time the right wing re-posts another debunked lie–like FDR wanted Social Security to be voluntary and a private annuity–we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
November 2, 2007Op-Ed ColumnistProstates and Prejudices
By PAUL KRUGMAN“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”
It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.
Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.
Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.
You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.
So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.
As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.
At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”
Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.
But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?
For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.
Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.
But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.
Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.
To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.
And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.
The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.
Republican Votes against Gay Rights, then is caught in gay encounter
“I am not gay,” says lawmaker.
Sound familiar?
A state representative dressed as a woman and engaged in oral sex at a Spokane Valley adult bookstore before rendezvousing at a downtown Spokane hotel for another sexual encounter with a man now under investigation for extortion, police reports released Tuesday allege.
The extortion suspect, identified in public records as 26-year-old Cody Michael Castagna, of Medical Lake, told detectives he was offered $1,000 to have unprotected sex with state Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from La Center, near Vancouver, Wash.
Castagna, a part-time waiter and porn model, has been featured in explicit photos posted on some members-only gay Web sites. He declined interview requests from The Spokesman-Review on Tuesday. But later, at his attorney’s office, Castagna told reporters that he never threatened the legislator.
Curtis “has completely changed what actually happened and turned it around in his favor,” Castagna said. His attorney is David R. Partovi, of the Maxey Law Offices in Spokane.
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
The link you provided is written by a senior fellow of The Manhattan Institute.
Look it up.
“The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985-2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch….”
Isnt GMC a prosecutor? He probably would LOVE to put protesters in jail. And why is an officer of the court inciting others to civil disobedience? Does he get paid on commission?
Regardless of your spin, how are your posts from non-qualified journalists commenting on medicine issues more significant than comments from a qualified physician?
Are you going to take your next physical from a journalist?
Because, Kansas, you ignorant slut, the journalists get their news from qualified impartial medical researchers, not some partisan hack who happens to have an M.D.
But I suspect you already knew that or you really are an ignorant slut.
CF - yes, I know. There is a time for that, and we’re not there. Should this administration do that (an incredibly unlikely scenario, BTW) I’ll be there with you.
The point, of course, is that I’m simply pointing out what we both know: your projecting such a scenario has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with politics. If it was anything else, you’d be in the streets.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
If we’re judging evidence on the credentials of who says it, try to beat this: “chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute.”
Ya know, I avoid the flame wars. But you have to wonder if the term irony isn’t lost on one who complains about other “disruptive” posters and then opens his post as noted above.
Do as I say, not as I do, I guess. Or IOKIYAD.
Either that, or the usual from the left: Free speech for me, but not for thee.
And no, I’m not going to get involved in the flame wars. Call it a drive-by observation.
Hallelujah, the writers strike has begun. The amount of filth, vulgarity, stupidity, and sheer unadulterated lunacy will be reduced by half. If the strike goes on long enough even so called reality shows will have to rerun.
Maybe people will look around them and find there are other people in the room. They may talk to each other, play a game, read a book, go for a walk, attend a ball game, concert or play. Some may even find something missing in their lives and engage in self-introspection.
Yes this could be a very good thing. I hope they stay on strike forever.
Quoting someone out of context is ineffective and fruitless JM if it is not part of the original conversation process.
I could quote some world class epidemiologists on your statement you provided and prove that out of context statements are irrelevant when spun by non qualified persons.
You provided nothing JM, accept your sources got trumped by a qualified physician and your healing can begin.
Here’s what I can’t figure out. Hillary says she has experience in the White House. But when Bill was in his first term, Hillary got crucified when she tried intervening in executive branch politics. So Bill had her step down. I believe she then put in charge of the white house Christmas Ornament, or something like that. So she really doesn’t have any experience as a leader.
But then, is she saying she is bringing experience to the White House because Bill will be with her?
If that is the case, is she suggesting that Bill will in effect be the real leader and wear the pants in the white house?
If so, this bothers me. We have term limits on the executive branch.
JM, the only reason Bill didn’t get a full gun-ban and confiscation enacted is because of the majority Republican Congress that was elected in 1994, following the Gun Ban of 1993.
Hillary, if elected along with a Democratic majority will go on a full-court press to ban and confiscate guns. Bills have already been submitted by Democrats in Congress today.
Oh and by the by the tenor of the quotes on this thread are immature in the extreme. If you have to call people names or make stupid sexual observations you have already lost any creditability you might have had.
By the way JM magazines like Family Handyman have cures for problems like yours. Just an suggestion. I realize problems like that can make one cranky.
WASHINGTON — The way in which Senate Democrats wavered and then consented to the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general reflects the party’s broader struggle to make headway on its national-security agenda, despite President Bush’s unpopularity.
On questions such as Mr. Mukasey’s stance on waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping and the war in Iraq, Democrats have been stymied by Republicans in Congress and the White House. That has sparked frustration among supporters, especially those on the left, who anticipated that last year’s congressional takeover would force some policy changes.
These dashed expectations are one reason polls give Congress an approval rating lower than Mr. Bush’s.
Lost a Watch in Men’s Room? Call Larry Craig’s Office
Staffers on Capitol Hill are howling over an e-mail sent from Sen. Larry Craig’s office Friday about a watch found — guess where — in the men’s room!
The e-mail, which is being forwarded pretty much all over the place on Capitol Hill, is from Pat Olsen, the embattled Idaho Republican’s administrative director.
The e-mail announced that a watch was found in the men’s room on the fifth floor of the Hart Senate Office Building, where Craig’s office is located. On its face, the message suggests that a male staffer (possibly even Sen. Craig, the notorious men’s room foot tapper) found the watch.
Olsen confirmed to The Sleuth that she authored the message. Without divulging her e-mail address, here is the text:
From: [Pat Olsen]Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:03 PMTo: ADMGR@Subject: Watch found in the men’s room
Watch found in the men’s room on the 5th floor in the NW Corner of the Hart Building. It is not working, but if someone from your office lost it, please let me know.
Pat OlsenAdministrative DirectorSenator Larry E. Craig
We redacted Olsen’s phone number to save her a lot of grief
Yea, that advances your position wonderfully. You’re not that stupid, JM (I could be wrong on that); you’re willfully missing the point.
You want to advance your argument with Kansas over whatever you’re fighting about - make your point. Point out the flawlessness of your position. Why would I make it for you? Do you need me to rally to your cause?
Is your position that weak?
Or does Kansas so push your buttons you are reduced to obscenities and name-calling? Or does it just make you feel for manly to write “STFU?”
A waiting world wants to know. But I’m done with you, on this topic, anyway. You’ll have to be a man on your own. You can handle that, can’t you?
Has Hillary answered one question about her position on the 2nd Amendment? Has she pledged to enforce the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution?
Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: http://www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000
License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999
Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999
Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
“The latest official figures for five-year “survivability” rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.”
From the referenced link. 98% vs. 74% not even close. About the same - What are you putting in your coffee.
As one still fairly new to Kansas, I am sometimes drawn to read the opinions and blogs of the local brain trust, but the ad hominem attacks, insults and name calling become tiring and leave me feeling a little embarrassed for the writer, and for Wichita in general. Those attacks are ways to cover up intellectual laziness. It seems the Republican/Conservative contributers just give up defending their position as though they have no passion for it. The Democrat/Liberal contributers certainly seem more passionate — blindly so — but prefer spin, and can’t seem to muster content or original thought. Much of their posting sounds like canned sound bites, as though you drop a coin in a slot and get an pre-produced talking point you have already heard a hundred times before you ever inserted the coin. Mush Brain Syndrome will be … no wait… IS the death of our nation.
The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:49 AM
====================
25 in 100,000 — BOTH countries… Looks like a dead heat on a merry-go-round to me, eh, ^^???
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
I think the Hillary quotes from 7 and 8 yers ago, posted by “Just the Facts” at 11:11 a.m. show exactly what Hillary’s gun control concerns really are all about >>
Keeping guns out of the hands of children, and others who just shouldnt have them. NOT confiscating guns from ordinary citizens.
Methinks you protest too much Max. WAY too much! In fact, you protest too much to be believable, Max!
If, men, God forbid, your life’s journey includes encountering prostate cancer, in light of the “false” facts from Mayor G., and the “identical” healthcare systems of Great Britain (socialized) and the United States (free market), would you prefer to live, be diagnosed and treated in: (check one)
Actually, what we’re putting in our coffee is the subsequent passage that puts “survivability” statistics in their proper context:
“More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.
In the United States, there has been a big emphasis since the early 1990s on early screening through PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing. Five-year survivability rates have increased simply because men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at a very preliminary stage of a slow-developing disease. If you are diagnosed early on, your chances of surviving for another five years are close to 100 percent. Britain is several years behind the United States in the widespread use of PSA testing.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
The American health system focuses on PSA testing; thus, even those men who are asymptotic are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and thus are included under the ’survivability’ metric.
Approximately the same number of men die in the United States as die in the UK. This is the metric that matters.
And to turn it around once again, if the UK spends much less to obtain approximately the same result, that’s a failing of the AMERICAN system of health care–not the British.
The best part, though, is when Ghouliani’s assertions are assessed for truthfulness and a judgment rendered:
“The Pinocchio TestRudy Giuliani is simply wrong when he claims that his chances of surviving prostate cancer are almost twice as high in the United States as in England, under a “socialized” medical system. The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York.
We award Giuliani four Pinocchios.”
Four Pinocchios = A Whopper. Here’s the Pinocchio scale explained:
Remember, David — The “identical” systems assume that the American (Giuliani) is being treated on the Medicare plan. That makes up the “identical” systems reference.Remember?
In that case, it doesnt seem to matter. 25 out of 100,000 men will die from prostate cancer in either country! LOL
So, you see, no need for ANY spin — To borrow from one poster’s Nic >> Just the Facts!
Ahh, consider JM as our case in point. JM, you won’t mind if I refer to you as a typical Kansas Liberal, will you? You will, of course, note how well your response fit into my description, to which you responded.
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:30 AM
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
What did I not understand. Some mortality rate which doesn’t compute?
“Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.”
Can you say socialized medicine and longer waiting period. What doctor would opt for a ‘treatment’ plan with a 24% lower survivability rate if they had a choice?
Ghouliani is a lying piece of shit. As are all those who, by extension, defend his lies.
Posted by: CF2K | November 05, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Your ignorance just continues to show it’s shiny head. When you have nothing to contribute resort to name calling and BS.
You and JM are the best arguments I have ever seen against socialized medicine. Just keep it up. Maybe we can incorporate these into an advertisement against HillaryCare.
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
Posted by: ^
I believe the liberal position is: there are poor Americans, who cannot afford health insurance (or make 60,000 and refuse coverage), or illegal who will NOT get adequate care for their prostrates.
Therefore, you must give up your CHOICE of 98% and instead take the government mandated 74% survival rate.
Take a number get in line. Afterall, what works for 253,000,000 Americans has to go out with the bath water. You must sacrifice what works for the 47,000,000 minority aforementioned.
Hillary Wants Drivers’ Licenses for Illegals, Opposes Carry Licenses for American Citizens
BELLEVUE, Wa., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton supports giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, but she opposes right-to-carry statutes that provide concealed carry licenses for law-abiding American citizens and others who are here legally, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“Based on her comments during Tuesday night’s debate,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Sen. Clinton must think people in this country illegally are entitled to greater rights than citizens and others who are here legally.
Maybe it’s because she knows that illegal aliens would vote for her, while law-abiding American gun owners won’t.”
“Since Hillary Clinton moved out of the White House early, so she could run for the Senate from New York as an obvious stepping stone toward her own run for the Oval Office,” Gottlieb stated, “she has supported every gun control measure to come along.
She supports registration and licensing, she supports banning sport-utility rifles and magazine restrictions and she opposed legislation to prevent junk harassment lawsuits against the firearms industry.
“Hillary Clinton, like too many of her Democrat colleagues, has given mere lip service to gun owners with vague claims that she ’supports’ the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “It now appears that she is more interested in the welfare of people who don’t belong in this country, than in the civil rights of people who do belong here.”
Common sense you are much to logical for this thread. JM and CF get confused when they have to look at big numbers. And then they get beligerent and get the thread shut down.
Healthcare is becoming so expensive many will be priced out of the marketplace. With insurance my out of pocket expenses are 10 times what they were in 1997.Even with insurance I’m cutting costs in other places. So how is the free market helping me?
Yeah, I know. I used to try that with my dad. His face would turn all red and the next thing you know I’d hear the sound of his belt being quickly pulled off his slacks. Then I’d feel the sting.
Max the lady (Hillary) is scary and now that her opponents are asking her the hard questions she is pulling the ‘poor me’ card. She thinks she should be allowed to play with the big boys but can’t be asked to state positions. Gun control and illegals are just two of them. The tide might be turning. Right now the only solid base she has is the poor, underpriveliged female voter that believes she can make their lives better if only they can elect her. Even the femenists are leaving her.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows,
24%? To what does that number refer?
And you often “raise your eyebrows” when “blogging her?” That’s more info than we needed or wanted, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows.
More and more I return to my position that any American citizen should have the right to keep and bear arms… unless they really *really* *REALLY!* want them.
“Max,” you’re getting to be borderline obsessive on the gun issue, so much so you’ve chosen to ignore Rudy Giuliani’s well-documented advocacy of gun control.
One debate with a couple of hard questions for Hillary, doesn’t mean anything. Hillary’s gotten a pass from the Lib media.
Hillary won’t be pressed for specific answers to describe her gun control agenda, not in the press anyway.
It’s not surprising then, how ignorant many gun owners are about Hillary Clinton’s position on guns.
Many Libs just vote for their Democrat label no matter what. They actually believe Hillary’s lies, er Campaign Promises.
For the doubters, start looking for SPECIFIC positions Hillary has taken on gun control, and look at her Senate votes. Better yet, write her campaign and ask for specific answers as to how she supports the 2nd Amendment, then see what you get!
If you truly want to keep your guns, I highly recommend you join the NRA.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
Oh, I get it! You’re still pretending that the ’survivability’ rate is a meaninful statistic, by adding 24% to 74% to get 98%! You sly dog, you!
But still, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, it does make one wonder, doesn’t it, that despite spending far less money, the British health care system comes up the same as does the American with regards to prostate mortality: both can claim a 25% mortality rate.
If I didn’t know better, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, I’d say you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue, rather than being confused by it.
JM you silly person - Can you tell me the difference between someone who dies and doesn’t die from prostrate cancer. If you don’t die you are part of the survivability rate. If you die you are part of the mortality rate.
Now if the survivability rate is 24% different from the UK to the USA then how other that lib math do you explain the ’same’ mortality rate for both countries?
I read today something about the Inuit Indians in northern Alaska but Canada living in the artic.
Seems their ancient folklore has them arriving from Asia over a land ismuth between Russia and Alaska. It was made of ice and was called a land bridge.
After reading, I got to wondering, what happened to the ice in the Bering Strait?
Did the earth cycle through a period of global warming which caused it to melt?
What caused the temperature to rise back then? They didn’t have carbon credits back then.
The best thing about her campaign is her inept opposition in the primaries. Unless one or more of them start to aggressively go after her on her record she’s the shoo in candidate.
If she becomes the candidate, her anti-gun stance will sink her in the south. Her pro illegal alien stance will hurt her in the western border states.
Her negatives are already approaching 50% nationally, almost any of the top republican hopefuls can clean her clock in a debate and following election.
Well JM you finally nailed it. I knew if I stayed in there you would see the light. Why don’t they test PSA? Could it be this is a flaw in socialized medicine that is already running on empty? You just got the $64,000 answer. If you don’t diagnose it you don’t have to count it as a failure. DUH!
We have a better health care system now. But when Hillary care comes along - which I am starting to doubt it will - then our ’survival rate’ will be just as low.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
You may have missed the point upthread, but I’ll highlight it again, so you can move your lips while reading it:
Great Britain has the same mortality rate as the US–whether prostate cancer is tested for earlier or not.
We make early detection a priority; they don’t. But making early detection a priority gets us no better final result than the one they get without it. Their mortality and our mortality are the same. No difference.
So, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, you’re arguing that we should be paying for something that creates a false impression of success, rather than asking whether it has any effect on the bottom line–namely, mortality
Do you work for the PSA industry, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows? Starting to sound like it.
279 Comments
Well, yesterday, we had the Woman of La Mancha literally tilting at windmills, cause they might have some bad effect on cows; we had some gun slinger griping cause the rich pay Income Tax (duh, why do they call it Income Tax) and the poor dont pay any (cause maybe they have no Income to speak of?)
And we had somebody else who had a typo problem, and couldnt get the numbers typed right, but was still used against that poster, even after the typo had been acknowledged.
Hmmmm all in all, not a bad day on the WE Blog, as days go here.
Hopefully, today will be better!
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/
This is a link to a site where Iraqis with handy-cams make reports on what is happening in Baghdad.Some is nice and others is not so nice but it is reporting by real Iraqis and their daily lives.
I wish I could hve just one day, where ZI didnt hear the words, Baghdad, Britney, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, K-Fed, Limbaugh, Hannity, or anything with Campaign in it!!! Grrrrrrr!!!!
Can you go Pheasant Hunting in July? Can you watch the Super Bowl in the middle of June? Can you see the All Star Baseball game on Thanksgiving Evening?
Of COURSE not!! Wrong season, right?
WELL, let’s set a Campaign Season! That’s it.. Cannot announce for President any time before 12 months before the Election Date! And NO fund raising earlier than 12 months ahead, either!
Maybe then we would have some decent debates, and keep these candidates to the real issues, instead of all the garbage like we hear on the TV, and read on this Blog!
How are we going to do that? Why, the voice of the People, that’s how!! Let the voice of the People be heard! Let the news media cover that voice for a change!
All this campaigning is going to ruin our form of political governance.
Stand up and be counted America!
I hear ya, “JM” –
The perpetual Campaign Season most certainly contributes to division in America.
After George WMD Bush lost the election but won the Supreme Court vote in 2000, Democrats were willing (spineless as we tend to be) to accept a presidency that recognized the division in America. Instead, Shrub ruled as if he’d been given a landslide.
From foreign policy to FEMA we’ve seen what the George WMD Bush approach to governing gets us.
Is the last six years *really* what “conservatives” had in mind?
Winter is coming and there were several editorials about homeless awareness yesterday. Please give us a WE Blog thread on the subject. I would like to see how public opinion weighs on the issue! Thank You.
Now that Musherriff has imposed “martial law” in Pakistan and had his opposition jailed- all in the name of “fighting terrorism” of course, I wonder if Bush might be thinking along these lines. Especially since Musherriff used Abe Lincoln as a precendent. Maybe Bush is thinking about extending his own stay in office!
And why would that be surprising, Kev? Isnt that what all of Bush’s heavy handed build up with the Patriot Act is all about?
If we had a real Constitutional crisis, who do you suppose the military would back? I’m betting they would back Bush. But would the Reserve units?
Oh noes, Henny Penny is alive and well.
I’m not sure our military would know a Constitutional Crisis if they saw one!! LOL
Remember — the non productive are always the first ones to the concentration camps!!
Maybe now we know why Cheney has been hiding in that undisclosed location for most of the past 7 years!! LOL
I heard over night that some people, known as White Trash, want the term “Redneck” to be given the same banned status as the “N” word. They say Redneck is racist!
Hey, if Redneck gets that status, it would improve the chances for Presidential Candidates to visit Kansas, and Alabama, and Mississippi and Missouri, and Tennessee and Kentucky! Wow!
Oh yea, West Virginia, too!
Bush’s myths on SCHIP.On Oct. 17, President Bush explained that he vetoed Congress’s SCHIP expansion because the White House wasn’t “dialed in in the beginning.” But as The New York Times reports, the White House was heavily involved, but unwilling to compromise:Senator Hatch tried to bring White House officials into the negotiations, believing their involvement would produce a better bill. But, lawmakers said, the administration did not want to discuss the child health program except as part of a broader discussion that included the president’s tax proposals. […]But after checking their calendars, lawmakers said they and their aides had had more than 35 meetings and telephone conversations on the issue with [administration officials] Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Goon from January through September.
President Bush has changed his reasons for opposing the S-CHIP program so many times now his flip flops are doing flip flops.
I’m sure if the Dems. would agree to eliminate the capital gains tax, bush would sign off on the SCHIPS bill!
So. Pervez Musharref suspends Pakistan’s Constitution, invokes emergency rule, detains Supreme Court members and arrests the opposition because he’s going to be held to a two-term limit as President of Pakistan.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071105/D8SNHLO00.html
Paid for by YOUR tax dollars. To be specific, $10 billion since 2001, which is unlikely to be revoked.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14555846&vsv=SHGTslot1
Yeah. “Committment to Democracy” and all that, blah blah blah.
When George refuses to leave office at the end of 2008, I guess he’s hoping we’ll all blame Pervez for giving him the idea.
Playing the victim as your first post today shows isn’t the way to win. POOOOOR JM!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 08:27 AM
===================Huh?
Who victim? What victim?
Heh, yeah, I saw that too, CF2K.
Bush hates Saddam because he’s a tyrant who abrogates the rule of law, but he loves Musharref who does the same thing.
The difference?
Saddam got in the way of making huge money on the oil of Iraq.
Musharref is a key player in help multinational corporations secure oil pipeline and natural gas in Afghanistan.
Bush is all about the money for his rich pals. Nothing more, nothing less.
He’s the Godfather, without the style and panache.
Remember — the non productive are always the first ones to the concentration camps!!
Adios Kansas
You don’t steal two elections just because you want to serve the people. You do it to serve yourself and your cronies.
Here lies
U.S. DEMOCRACY
July 1776 - December 2000
Rest in Peace
All this campaigning is going to ruin our form of political governance. Stand up and be counted America!Posted by: JM
To the contrary, I believe the freedom of speech and campaigning are what make our country great.
It may appear to be an interruption to some of your lives, banausic, or monotonous but to me, it is the reason for it.
Another day of Liberal whine fest.
yawn…
Survival rate for prostate cancer in the USA is 80%.
Survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain is 43%.
But Britain’s health care system is awesome.
A TALE OF TWO CANDIDATES
When Gore says that he helped develop the internet by leading the funding in Washington for it, it is true.
But right-wing operatives spin that into “Al Gore said he INVENTED the internet” and the corporate media repeat it endlessly, they make him into a liar.
Meanwhile, Ghouliani issues a blatant LIE that he knows is a lie — that Britian’s health care would have killed him by now — and the “liberal” media give him a free pass.
Or as Giuliani himself says in the controversial ad: “I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”
Yes, it’s another inspiring and instructive story — or would be, perhaps, if only it were true.
The former New York mayor did survive prostate cancer, but otherwise his statistical claims were not difficult to debunk, as reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets quickly discovered. Giuliani had picked up his numbers from an article in City Journal, a publication of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and simply repeated them in public without bothering to check their validity. Unfortunately, they were essentially fraudulent figures, extrapolated inaccurately from old data (by a doctor who also advises the Giuliani campaign on healthcare).
Accurate and current data, easily available from public health agencies and medical authorities, shows that the survival rate from prostate cancer in England is better than 74 percent and in the United States is better than 98 percent. Even that difference, as experts explained, probably has nothing to do with the British National Health Service and much to do with the aggressive screening programs employed in this country. (And for the moment, let’s merely mention another highly pertinent issue, namely that the great majority of prostate cancers occur in men over 65, which indicates that many if not most are treated successfully under Medicare — our version of national health insurance for the elderly — or by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which comes as close to truly socialist healthcare as any system in the world.)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/02/healthcare_lies/
Funding something doesn’t mean you help invent something.
If that were the case, then Andrew Carnegie should take credit for inventing the Library because he donated hundreds of millions of dollars to build them.
Funding something doesn’t mean you help invent something.
Posted by: Kansas
And I walked on the moon!!!!
aw shucks look what I found on the google
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/87329.php
The Commonwealth Fund on Tuesday in a statement said that the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain cited in a radio advertisement recently launched by Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is inaccurate, the New York Times reports. In the ad, which began to air on Tuesday in New Hampshire, Giuliani says, “My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and, thank God, I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44% under socialized medicine.” According to the British Office for National Statistics, the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in Britain is 74.4%.
Does this continually repeated LIE by Giuliani “speak to the candidate’s character” like Gore’s NON lie did?
Does this show that he has grandiose opinions that can’t be supported by facts, like Gore’s NON lie did?
Does this mean he can’t be trusted because he just make sh*t up, like Gore’s NON lie did?
No, of course not.
He’s a Republican.
IOKIYAR.
JM, your on fire this morning good work!
So, Wingnuts. Ghouliani has gone on record saying that he’s going to keep repeating the above lies regarding prostate cancer. How do you like having a serial liar, philanderer, and cross-dresser (with NO foreign policy experience) as your front-runner?
JM
Damn but you are on your toes this morning.
This WeBlog is an interesting research tool.
The truth on Guiliani and the prostate rumor by a physician who wrote the original article. You know, not some spin by unqualified journalists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html
Carnegie should and does get a lot of credit for developing the modern library system in America.
The words that Gore used was “helped develop” not “invent.”
Invent was pure right-wing LIE.
NEW RULE
Every time the right wing re-posts another debunked lie–like FDR wanted Social Security to be voluntary and a private annuity–we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:21 AM
So what would be different than is already done here now?
George W. Bush to RESIGN over cocaine scandal
“New reports have surfaced that President Bush was photographed snorting powder cocaine off of Vice-President Cheney’s bare buttocks.
“Presidentials aides have confirmed that both Bush and Cheney will resign by the end of the week.”
Read more here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/2/83713/9959
“Heckler” –
November 2, 2007Op-Ed ColumnistProstates and Prejudices
By PAUL KRUGMAN“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”
It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.
Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.
Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.
You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.
So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.
As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.
At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”
Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.
But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?
For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.
Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.
But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.
Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.
To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.
And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.
The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.
Why are you posting trash JM?
How about getting to the maturity level of an adult and you might find that people will respect your posts.
You didn’t bother to read the post at the URL I gave did you MonkeyHawk?
That article was written by the original author who Guiliani referenced.
The writer of the article is a physician - not some unqualified journalistic spin artist.
Kansas
Good link.
Gee, Kansas, why dont you show what you mean by trash posts?
Oh excuse me, Kansas, you just did! LOL
No thanks JM.
You know very well which post that is and the only reason you are doing it is to be disruptive, provoke fights and gain attention to yourself.
You may gain more attention than you intended by WE staff if you continue with this childishness you are currently doing.
I wish they would just ban you and get you out of everyone’s hair. Your disruptive comments are a waste of blog space.
JM
If you read the link Kansas gave you would find a good explaination of the data versus biased jounalistic spin in what you posted.
I dont know Kansas. Doctors are pretty good spin artists, especially when they are paid to spin! Think about how they spin when testifying in Court!
http://www.spokesman.com/tools/story_breakingnews_pf.asp?ID=12164
Republican Votes against Gay Rights, then is caught in gay encounter
“I am not gay,” says lawmaker.
Sound familiar?
A state representative dressed as a woman and engaged in oral sex at a Spokane Valley adult bookstore before rendezvousing at a downtown Spokane hotel for another sexual encounter with a man now under investigation for extortion, police reports released Tuesday allege.
The extortion suspect, identified in public records as 26-year-old Cody Michael Castagna, of Medical Lake, told detectives he was offered $1,000 to have unprotected sex with state Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from La Center, near Vancouver, Wash.
Castagna, a part-time waiter and porn model, has been featured in explicit photos posted on some members-only gay Web sites. He declined interview requests from The Spokesman-Review on Tuesday. But later, at his attorney’s office, Castagna told reporters that he never threatened the legislator.
Curtis “has completely changed what actually happened and turned it around in his favor,” Castagna said. His attorney is David R. Partovi, of the Maxey Law Offices in Spokane.
we get to post a lie in response over and over again.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:21 AM
So what would be different than is already done here now?
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 09:24 AM
======================
But this isnt a trash post? Hmmmm
“I wish they would just ban you and get you out of everyone’s hair. Your disruptive comments are a waste of blog space.
Posted by: Kansas | November 05, 2007 at 09:37 AM
I guess the irony of this is lost on him?
“When George refuses to leave office at the end of 2008, I guess he’s hoping we’ll all blame Pervez for giving him the idea.”
CF, at 8:27—–
LOL. Is that sky STILL falling?
C’mon, CF, that bet’s still open. I bet Chicken Little will even help you pay off . . .
BTW - tell me again why you aren’t in the streets now . . .
Mocking the WE Editors is not irony, it is disruptive.
A mature person would know the difference.
Evidently, you don’t have the maturity to recognize that behaving like an adult has responsibilities.
Re: The cancer statistics.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html
Heckler–
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
“Evidently, you don’t have the maturity to recognize that behaving like an adult has responsibilities.”
More irony lost.
I’m laughing so hard at kansas I spilled my coffee!
So JM, you are saying that you are more qualified than a physician to interpret epidemiological results on a disease?
That’s rather arrogant isn’t it?
You know what I would bet on, GMC?
That if GW doesn’t leave office in January 2009, you’ll be the first one defending his actions . . .
LOLOLOL. He doesnt know who’s posting so he doesnt know which of his standard attacks to use. And all the JMs are keeping him busy.
Because, “Kansas” –
The link you provided is written by a senior fellow of The Manhattan Institute.
Look it up.
“The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985-2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch….”
GMC70,
Put that in there for you. I knew you’d snap at it.
As for why “I’m not out in the streets,” time isn’t ripe. Judging from your attempts at being smug, denial’s still a bit thick.
Isnt GMC a prosecutor? He probably would LOVE to put protesters in jail. And why is an officer of the court inciting others to civil disobedience? Does he get paid on commission?
More irony lost.
I’m laughing so hard at kansas I spilled my coffee!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Somehow I doubt that very much JM. You are planning your next post to be disruptive.
Do you realize how pleasant the blog is without your presence?
It is very pleasant and people got along.
You have no idea who’s posting this.
Yes, Kansas, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Anyone who can read is more qualifying than this lying POS who gave Giuliani the LIES he wanted.
And you know what else?
His health care that was some much better than socialized medicine received public funding–in other words, it was partially socialized.
And you know what further else?
A lot of our good results treating prostate cancer comes from Medicare, which is totally socialized medicine.
So why don’t you quit defending the LIAR and just admit he’s a liar?
So MonkeyHawk,
Regardless of your spin, how are your posts from non-qualified journalists commenting on medicine issues more significant than comments from a qualified physician?
Are you going to take your next physical from a journalist?
Obama On Saturday Night Live - Hillarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndQM0X5rhfE
You have no idea who’s posting this.
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:53 AM
No, but I have an idea. There are very few people who log on to this blog that disrupt it.
You don’t like me because my opinions differ from yours.
I call your way of thinking closed minded and fascist.
Because, Kansas, you ignorant slut, the journalists get their news from qualified impartial medical researchers, not some partisan hack who happens to have an M.D.
But I suspect you already knew that or you really are an ignorant slut.
CF - yes, I know. There is a time for that, and we’re not there. Should this administration do that (an incredibly unlikely scenario, BTW) I’ll be there with you.
The point, of course, is that I’m simply pointing out what we both know: your projecting such a scenario has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with politics. If it was anything else, you’d be in the streets.
Referencing qualified sources, does not equate into making someone an expert in a field.
If that were true, anyone could claim to be an expert in any field just because they used “sources.”
I see that JM has resorted to name calling once again. It was predicted and expected.
As for why “I’m not out in the streets,” time isn’t ripe. Judging from your attempts at being smug, denial’s still a bit thick.
Posted by: CF2K | November 05, 2007 at 09:53 AM
They Sky Is Falling! But the time isn’t ripe.
The Sky Falls Slowly…..
Good one CF. The Time Isn’t Right!
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her Tax Increase plans?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her plan to Save Social Security?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her HillaryCare! plan?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to tell us what she will do in Iraq anad Iran?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her anti-Global Warming plan?
Is the Time Right for Hillary to detail her Gun Control plans?
No, too early. She might give away her true agenda and lose the election.
Can’t risk that.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
If we’re judging evidence on the credentials of who says it, try to beat this: “chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute.”
To further the analogy of my 10:01 post -
Suppose I spent many hours a week in a Law Library. I post reference case after reference case and post recitations along with precedents.
That still doesn’t make me an attorney, nor does it make me qualified to practice law or give out legal advice.
There is a big difference between being certified doing something according to standards and being informed about a subject and posting sources.
“Because, Kansas, you ignorant slut, . . . ”
Ya know, I avoid the flame wars. But you have to wonder if the term irony isn’t lost on one who complains about other “disruptive” posters and then opens his post as noted above.
Do as I say, not as I do, I guess. Or IOKIYAD.
Either that, or the usual from the left: Free speech for me, but not for thee.
And no, I’m not going to get involved in the flame wars. Call it a drive-by observation.
Even Kerry had a plan.
What’s Hillary’s plan?
Max–
If Bill didn’t take away your guns after 8 years in office, then I don’t think Hill will either.
There are more guns in this country than people.
Get a clue.
BTW, did you bag any pheasants over the weekend.
Iowa is a great pheasant state . . .
GMC, does it make you hard to feel smugly superior?
Hallelujah, the writers strike has begun. The amount of filth, vulgarity, stupidity, and sheer unadulterated lunacy will be reduced by half. If the strike goes on long enough even so called reality shows will have to rerun.
Maybe people will look around them and find there are other people in the room. They may talk to each other, play a game, read a book, go for a walk, attend a ball game, concert or play. Some may even find something missing in their lives and engage in self-introspection.
Yes this could be a very good thing. I hope they stay on strike forever.
JM:
The superior part is easy . . .
your apparant fascination with “hard” is your problem, not mine.
Quoting someone out of context is ineffective and fruitless JM if it is not part of the original conversation process.
I could quote some world class epidemiologists on your statement you provided and prove that out of context statements are irrelevant when spun by non qualified persons.
You provided nothing JM, accept your sources got trumped by a qualified physician and your healing can begin.
Do you read Kansas’s posts at all, GMC?
Because I was just wondering your take on “we have no right to judge Giuliani’s misstatement of fact because we don’t have M.D.’s”
How’s that work for you, as a professional logician?
Here’s what I can’t figure out. Hillary says she has experience in the White House. But when Bill was in his first term, Hillary got crucified when she tried intervening in executive branch politics. So Bill had her step down. I believe she then put in charge of the white house Christmas Ornament, or something like that. So she really doesn’t have any experience as a leader.
But then, is she saying she is bringing experience to the White House because Bill will be with her?
If that is the case, is she suggesting that Bill will in effect be the real leader and wear the pants in the white house?
If so, this bothers me. We have term limits on the executive branch.
Did you even bother to read the URL I posted JM?
There is no spin, but a well explained statement on how the physician reached his conclusion.
You are dragging a dead cat uphill JM, get over it.
More on Bush’s resignation over cocaine charges:
“I did use cocaine,” says the disgraced president, “but I didn’t snort it off of Cheney’s buttocks.”
http://www.dailykos.com/
JM:
This has nothing to do with whether Kansas’ source is correct or not. You wanna challenge his position, go for it.
But tell me again how your opening (and closing, as well) advances that argument?
Go ahead. Try.
One lie for another.
JM, the only reason Bill didn’t get a full gun-ban and confiscation enacted is because of the majority Republican Congress that was elected in 1994, following the Gun Ban of 1993.
Hillary, if elected along with a Democratic majority will go on a full-court press to ban and confiscate guns. Bills have already been submitted by Democrats in Congress today.
Answer the question, GMC.
You can’t do it, because you know Kansas is totally full of sh*t.
Even Kansas knows he’s full of sh*t.
He just posts that canard to make the opposition have to prove an idiotic argument wrong.
Defend it, GMC, or STFU.
Oh and by the by the tenor of the quotes on this thread are immature in the extreme. If you have to call people names or make stupid sexual observations you have already lost any creditability you might have had.
By the way JM magazines like Family Handyman have cures for problems like yours. Just an suggestion. I realize problems like that can make one cranky.
Have a blessed day.
“One lie for another.”
And is this the JM (I’m assuming adult, but it looks like I may be wrong) version of “but momma, he did it first . . . “
Max
If you really believe that, you are one dumb bastard and there’s really no point in talking to you further.
IOWA = Idiots Out Wandering Around
It’s helpful to have an ignorant sidekick on the blog.
Thanks JM.
JM has earned the status of being ignored GMC by posting stuff like the 10:13 and 10:16 post.
He has flipped his cog and going for arm flailing attention getting only.
Time to ignore him and he becomes an insignificant on this blog.
Check it out folks, GMC will not refute Kansas under any circumstances even when he knows Kansas to be wrong.
Way to sell out, sell out.
I would not even bother responding to the poster who is posting names, flames, and games.
It is trying very hard: To get your goat specifically.
Please don’t let it. All of us reading know a caged animal when we see it.
Don’t feed it. You are bigger than that.
It must be painful to be a Democrat today. Democrats are the impotent majority in Congress, they can’t get anything done.
Any Budget bills passed yet?
Dems vote to fund the Iraq war AGAIN?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119422407666382012-eNBbE4Gg1NfcEWflwxlM_rBFL6k_20071204.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Frustration Builds for Democrats
Dashed Expectations!
WASHINGTON — The way in which Senate Democrats wavered and then consented to the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general reflects the party’s broader struggle to make headway on its national-security agenda, despite President Bush’s unpopularity.
On questions such as Mr. Mukasey’s stance on waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping and the war in Iraq, Democrats have been stymied by Republicans in Congress and the White House. That has sparked frustration among supporters, especially those on the left, who anticipated that last year’s congressional takeover would force some policy changes.
These dashed expectations are one reason polls give Congress an approval rating lower than Mr. Bush’s.
Why I’m Glad I’m Not a Republican
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/11/anyone_in_the_senate_missing_a.html
Lost a Watch in Men’s Room? Call Larry Craig’s Office
Staffers on Capitol Hill are howling over an e-mail sent from Sen. Larry Craig’s office Friday about a watch found — guess where — in the men’s room!
The e-mail, which is being forwarded pretty much all over the place on Capitol Hill, is from Pat Olsen, the embattled Idaho Republican’s administrative director.
The e-mail announced that a watch was found in the men’s room on the fifth floor of the Hart Senate Office Building, where Craig’s office is located. On its face, the message suggests that a male staffer (possibly even Sen. Craig, the notorious men’s room foot tapper) found the watch.
Olsen confirmed to The Sleuth that she authored the message. Without divulging her e-mail address, here is the text:
From: [Pat Olsen]Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:03 PMTo: ADMGR@Subject: Watch found in the men’s room
Watch found in the men’s room on the 5th floor in the NW Corner of the Hart Building. It is not working, but if someone from your office lost it, please let me know.
Pat OlsenAdministrative DirectorSenator Larry E. Craig
We redacted Olsen’s phone number to save her a lot of grief
“Defend it, GMC, or STFU.”
Yea, that advances your position wonderfully. You’re not that stupid, JM (I could be wrong on that); you’re willfully missing the point.
You want to advance your argument with Kansas over whatever you’re fighting about - make your point. Point out the flawlessness of your position. Why would I make it for you? Do you need me to rally to your cause?
Is your position that weak?
Or does Kansas so push your buttons you are reduced to obscenities and name-calling? Or does it just make you feel for manly to write “STFU?”
A waiting world wants to know. But I’m done with you, on this topic, anyway. You’ll have to be a man on your own. You can handle that, can’t you?
Get back to work, loser.
Sheesh.
The man can’t even answer a question.
Actually, no one wants to know. In fact, don’t go away mad.
Just go away.
Kansas: they are trying to get you to explode so they can get you banned like they have been.
It really gets their goat that you passed muster, but they did not.
(chortles) and scurries off to admire his new ride.
A 1972 Chevy Vega . . .
The Libs have fallen into a retreat mode.
After losing out to rational conservative arguments, you see posters like JM for example, being as nasty as possible in order to shut-down the blog.
The Libs can’t let the conservative blogs continue.
And since they can’t win in the world of ideas with a rational argument, the Libs choose to sink the ship and take everyone down with it.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the WE Eagle did just that - close the blog.
A 1972 Chevy Vega . . .
. . . with a blown 454 on a ladder frame hooked to a upgraded Turbo 400 and a Ford 9″ posi.
Sweet.
Yeah, you know rational argument like Hillary will confiscate 350 million guns.
Nevermind that just about as many Dems have guns as Repukes.
She wants them all. Gonna melt them down and turn them into CD’s that only play one song: kumbaya.
You’re a parody of yourself, Max.
Just wear your rose colored glasses JM. You won’t miss your guns that way.
RE: JM’s post from earlier.
Yes, JM, Max actually does believe what he is posting. Of that I am convinced. Very scary!
Has Hillary answered one question about her position on the 2nd Amendment? Has she pledged to enforce the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution?
Has she joined the NRA yet?
All these questions are asked of Republicans.
Is no one asking Hillary or is she not answering?
Hillary Clinton on Gun Control
Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: http://www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000
License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999
Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999
Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
Speaking of facts, here are some very good statistics on guns in America - and sources for each line of information:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Wow, with a record like Hillary’s, anyone who wants to keep their guns should look for another candidate.
Heckler–
Another way of comparing treatment of prostate cancer in the U.S. and Britain is to look at the mortality rates from the disease. Here the two countries are much closer. The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:49 AM
“The latest official figures for five-year “survivability” rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.”
From the referenced link. 98% vs. 74% not even close. About the same - What are you putting in your coffee.
As one still fairly new to Kansas, I am sometimes drawn to read the opinions and blogs of the local brain trust, but the ad hominem attacks, insults and name calling become tiring and leave me feeling a little embarrassed for the writer, and for Wichita in general. Those attacks are ways to cover up intellectual laziness. It seems the Republican/Conservative contributers just give up defending their position as though they have no passion for it. The Democrat/Liberal contributers certainly seem more passionate — blindly so — but prefer spin, and can’t seem to muster content or original thought. Much of their posting sounds like canned sound bites, as though you drop a coin in a slot and get an pre-produced talking point you have already heard a hundred times before you ever inserted the coin. Mush Brain Syndrome will be … no wait… IS the death of our nation.
The graph below shows deaths per 100,000 males in each country. About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 09:49 AM
====================
25 in 100,000 — BOTH countries… Looks like a dead heat on a merry-go-round to me, eh, ^^???
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
Welcome to Kansas David Atkins.
I don’t think any conservatives “give up” as much as they see arguing with a wall is not useful.
With that said, I’m off to make a some soup for lunch.
I think the Hillary quotes from 7 and 8 yers ago, posted by “Just the Facts” at 11:11 a.m. show exactly what Hillary’s gun control concerns really are all about >>
Keeping guns out of the hands of children, and others who just shouldnt have them. NOT confiscating guns from ordinary citizens.
Methinks you protest too much Max. WAY too much! In fact, you protest too much to be believable, Max!
READ the quotations Max. Please!
A parting survey:
If, men, God forbid, your life’s journey includes encountering prostate cancer, in light of the “false” facts from Mayor G., and the “identical” healthcare systems of Great Britain (socialized) and the United States (free market), would you prefer to live, be diagnosed and treated in: (check one)
__ Great Britain__ The United States
Perhaps this may slow the spin. =)
Dear ^ ^,
Actually, what we’re putting in our coffee is the subsequent passage that puts “survivability” statistics in their proper context:
“More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.
In the United States, there has been a big emphasis since the early 1990s on early screening through PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing. Five-year survivability rates have increased simply because men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at a very preliminary stage of a slow-developing disease. If you are diagnosed early on, your chances of surviving for another five years are close to 100 percent. Britain is several years behind the United States in the widespread use of PSA testing.
“When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless,” said Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. “You are identifying many people who would not otherwise be diagnosed.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
The American health system focuses on PSA testing; thus, even those men who are asymptotic are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and thus are included under the ’survivability’ metric.
Approximately the same number of men die in the United States as die in the UK. This is the metric that matters.
And to turn it around once again, if the UK spends much less to obtain approximately the same result, that’s a failing of the AMERICAN system of health care–not the British.
The best part, though, is when Ghouliani’s assertions are assessed for truthfulness and a judgment rendered:
“The Pinocchio TestRudy Giuliani is simply wrong when he claims that his chances of surviving prostate cancer are almost twice as high in the United States as in England, under a “socialized” medical system. The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York.
We award Giuliani four Pinocchios.”
Four Pinocchios = A Whopper. Here’s the Pinocchio scale explained:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/about_the_fact_checker.html#pinocchio
Ghouliani is a lying piece of shit. As are all those who, by extension, defend his lies.
Remember, David — The “identical” systems assume that the American (Giuliani) is being treated on the Medicare plan. That makes up the “identical” systems reference.Remember?
In that case, it doesnt seem to matter. 25 out of 100,000 men will die from prostate cancer in either country! LOL
So, you see, no need for ANY spin — To borrow from one poster’s Nic >> Just the Facts!
Ahh, consider JM as our case in point. JM, you won’t mind if I refer to you as a typical Kansas Liberal, will you? You will, of course, note how well your response fit into my description, to which you responded.
The discrepancy between 98% and 74% has already been explained, if you would only just read, and stop flaming!! And especially since the figures are posted just above your rant!!
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:30 AM
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
What did I not understand. Some mortality rate which doesn’t compute?
“Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the “survivability” statistics.”
Can you say socialized medicine and longer waiting period. What doctor would opt for a ‘treatment’ plan with a 24% lower survivability rate if they had a choice?
Think man, think.
While the soup is cooking…
I highly recommend to the WE Editors that attend to this Blog to kill the open thread.
The open thread needs to go away.
Thanks.
Club or Saltines? hmmm
decisions
Dear ^^ and David Atkins,
Here’s a “parting survey” to “slow the spin.” As the basis for your medical decision would you weigh more heavily:
__Survivability rate
__Mortality rate
Be sure to know which one you think is a real metric! =)
Ghouliani is a lying piece of shit. As are all those who, by extension, defend his lies.
Posted by: CF2K | November 05, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Your ignorance just continues to show it’s shiny head. When you have nothing to contribute resort to name calling and BS.
You and JM are the best arguments I have ever seen against socialized medicine. Just keep it up. Maybe we can incorporate these into an advertisement against HillaryCare.
Oops! Last line should read “be sure to *let us know* which one you think is the real metric!
Even Republicans like ME make errors sometimes! =)
JM give me a choice between a 98% survivability rate and a 74% rate and I’ll take the 98 everytime.
Posted by: ^
I believe the liberal position is: there are poor Americans, who cannot afford health insurance (or make 60,000 and refuse coverage), or illegal who will NOT get adequate care for their prostrates.
Therefore, you must give up your CHOICE of 98% and instead take the government mandated 74% survival rate.
Take a number get in line. Afterall, what works for 253,000,000 Americans has to go out with the bath water. You must sacrifice what works for the 47,000,000 minority aforementioned.
Hillary Wants Drivers’ Licenses for Illegals, Opposes Carry Licenses for American Citizens
BELLEVUE, Wa., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton supports giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, but she opposes right-to-carry statutes that provide concealed carry licenses for law-abiding American citizens and others who are here legally, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“Based on her comments during Tuesday night’s debate,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Sen. Clinton must think people in this country illegally are entitled to greater rights than citizens and others who are here legally.
Maybe it’s because she knows that illegal aliens would vote for her, while law-abiding American gun owners won’t.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,214669.shtml
__Survivability rate
__Mortality rate
Be sure to know which one you think is a real metric! =)
Posted by: JM | November 05, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Well JM is you are part of the 24% that didn’t survive you are definitely part of the mortality rate. Can you follow that?
And what is the metric=? Are you thinking that a method of measurement is used to calculate data.
“Since Hillary Clinton moved out of the White House early, so she could run for the Senate from New York as an obvious stepping stone toward her own run for the Oval Office,” Gottlieb stated, “she has supported every gun control measure to come along.
She supports registration and licensing, she supports banning sport-utility rifles and magazine restrictions and she opposed legislation to prevent junk harassment lawsuits against the firearms industry.
“Hillary Clinton, like too many of her Democrat colleagues, has given mere lip service to gun owners with vague claims that she ’supports’ the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “It now appears that she is more interested in the welfare of people who don’t belong in this country, than in the civil rights of people who do belong here.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,214669.shtml
Common sense you are much to logical for this thread. JM and CF get confused when they have to look at big numbers. And then they get beligerent and get the thread shut down.
NRA rating for Hillary Clinton:
F
Healthcare is becoming so expensive many will be priced out of the marketplace. With insurance my out of pocket expenses are 10 times what they were in 1997.Even with insurance I’m cutting costs in other places. So how is the free market helping me?
you are much to logical for this thread…
Yeah, I know. I used to try that with my dad. His face would turn all red and the next thing you know I’d hear the sound of his belt being quickly pulled off his slacks. Then I’d feel the sting.
Anger management was not even dreamed up yet.
Dear silly man who uses punctuation marks to denote his name,
“Well JM is you are part of the 24% that didn’t survive you are definitely part of the mortality rate. Can you follow that?”
Actually, no. You aren’t making much sense. Try calming down and being less defensive.
Max the lady (Hillary) is scary and now that her opponents are asking her the hard questions she is pulling the ‘poor me’ card. She thinks she should be allowed to play with the big boys but can’t be asked to state positions. Gun control and illegals are just two of them. The tide might be turning. Right now the only solid base she has is the poor, underpriveliged female voter that believes she can make their lives better if only they can elect her. Even the femenists are leaving her.
Annie, you must be listening way too much to the tape recording.
Let me help you to understand why I say that.
What does the term, “many will be priced out of the marketplace” really mean to you?
Could you try and spell that out in words a normal annie mouse would use?
JM just put if where the is is and you should be able to follow it. Then give me a rational answer.
My signature denotes the raised eyebrows I frequently have when blogging her.
^^
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows,
24%? To what does that number refer?
And you often “raise your eyebrows” when “blogging her?” That’s more info than we needed or wanted, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man With Raised Eyebrows.
=)
More and more I return to my position that any American citizen should have the right to keep and bear arms… unless they really *really* *REALLY!* want them.
“Max,” you’re getting to be borderline obsessive on the gun issue, so much so you’ve chosen to ignore Rudy Giuliani’s well-documented advocacy of gun control.
You are too optimistic ^^ .
One debate with a couple of hard questions for Hillary, doesn’t mean anything. Hillary’s gotten a pass from the Lib media.
Hillary won’t be pressed for specific answers to describe her gun control agenda, not in the press anyway.
It’s not surprising then, how ignorant many gun owners are about Hillary Clinton’s position on guns.
Many Libs just vote for their Democrat label no matter what. They actually believe Hillary’s lies, er Campaign Promises.
For the doubters, start looking for SPECIFIC positions Hillary has taken on gun control, and look at her Senate votes. Better yet, write her campaign and ask for specific answers as to how she supports the 2nd Amendment, then see what you get!
If you truly want to keep your guns, I highly recommend you join the NRA.
Check em out at:
http://www.nra.org/
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
Oh, I get it! You’re still pretending that the ’survivability’ rate is a meaninful statistic, by adding 24% to 74% to get 98%! You sly dog, you!
But still, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, it does make one wonder, doesn’t it, that despite spending far less money, the British health care system comes up the same as does the American with regards to prostate mortality: both can claim a 25% mortality rate.
If I didn’t know better, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, I’d say you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue, rather than being confused by it.
=)
JM you silly person - Can you tell me the difference between someone who dies and doesn’t die from prostrate cancer. If you don’t die you are part of the survivability rate. If you die you are part of the mortality rate.
Now if the survivability rate is 24% different from the UK to the USA then how other that lib math do you explain the ’same’ mortality rate for both countries?
I read today something about the Inuit Indians in northern Alaska but Canada living in the artic.
Seems their ancient folklore has them arriving from Asia over a land ismuth between Russia and Alaska. It was made of ice and was called a land bridge.
After reading, I got to wondering, what happened to the ice in the Bering Strait?
Did the earth cycle through a period of global warming which caused it to melt?
What caused the temperature to rise back then? They didn’t have carbon credits back then.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
And if you’re never tested in advance for prostate cancer, you’re never part of any ’survivability rate.’ British men aren’t thus tested.
One can’t compare stats from a system that uses PSA’s with one that doesn’t, and then expect the results to be comparable. They aren’t.
So, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, I see that I misjudged you: you really ARE that confused.
=)
Poor ol’ Hillary,
The best thing about her campaign is her inept opposition in the primaries. Unless one or more of them start to aggressively go after her on her record she’s the shoo in candidate.
If she becomes the candidate, her anti-gun stance will sink her in the south. Her pro illegal alien stance will hurt her in the western border states.
Her negatives are already approaching 50% nationally, almost any of the top republican hopefuls can clean her clock in a debate and following election.
Well JM you finally nailed it. I knew if I stayed in there you would see the light. Why don’t they test PSA? Could it be this is a flaw in socialized medicine that is already running on empty? You just got the $64,000 answer. If you don’t diagnose it you don’t have to count it as a failure. DUH!
We have a better health care system now. But when Hillary care comes along - which I am starting to doubt it will - then our ’survival rate’ will be just as low.
Took a while but I knew you could do it.
Dear Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows,
You may have missed the point upthread, but I’ll highlight it again, so you can move your lips while reading it:
Great Britain has the same mortality rate as the US–whether prostate cancer is tested for earlier or not.
We make early detection a priority; they don’t. But making early detection a priority gets us no better final result than the one they get without it. Their mortality and our mortality are the same. No difference.
So, Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows, you’re arguing that we should be paying for something that creates a false impression of success, rather than asking whether it has any effect on the bottom line–namely, mortality
Do you work for the PSA industry, oh Silly, Inconsequential Man with Raised Eyebrows? Starting to sound like it.