Flashback: When Palin said Fannie/Freddie were too expensive to taxpayers in ’08, it was a “gaffe”

posted at 8:51 pm on August 6, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

First off, I welcome President Barack Obama’s call to shutter mortgage giants (and giant pains in the public arse) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many conservatives and libertarians have been beating that drum since 2008 and before, back when Obama was voting present on regulation of Fannie/Freddie and taking more in donations from them than all but one lawmaker.

Now, it seems, we can work together on this project, as Obama pushed a Senate plan to close Fannie and Freddie during an economic address in Arizona:

But as home prices rise, we can’t just re-inflate a housing bubble. That’s the second thing I’m here to talk about today: laying a rock-solid foundation to make sure the kind of crisis we just went through never happens again.

That begins with winding down the companies known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For too long, these companies were allowed to make big profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. It was “heads we win, tails you lose.” And it was wrong.

The good news is that there’s a bipartisan group of Senators working to end Fannie and Freddie as we know them. I support these kinds of efforts, and today I want to lay out four core principles for what I believe this reform should look like.

First, private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market. I know that must sound confusing to the folks who call me a raging socialist every day. But just like the health care law that set clear rules for insurance companies to protect consumers and make it more affordable for millions to buy coverage on the private market, I believe that while our housing system must have a limited government role, private lending should be the backbone of the housing market, including community-based lenders who view their borrowers not as a number, but as a neighbor.

Second, no more leaving taxpayers on the hook for irresponsibility or bad decisions. We encourage the pursuit of profit – but the era of expecting a bailout after your pursuit of profit puts the whole country at risk is over.

A Senate bill co-sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) “would end Fannie and Freddie as government-sponsored enterprises,” though a Rep. Jeb Hensarling companion bill in the House is more ambitious, cutting down government participation in the mortgage market to about 20 percent, according to an AEI evaluation.

I also welcome the inevitable change of heart from the press and fact-checkers who called this exact sentiment a “gaffe” when newly named vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said it in 2008. Here’s Palin in Colorado Springs in September of 2008:

“John McCain has been calling for years to reform things and cut bureaucracy, even at the lending agencies that our government supports. The fact is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

Fact-checkers, reporters, and critics preserved the ridiculous fiction that government-sponsored entities don’t cost taxpayers anything in order to lambaste the political newcomer.

McClatchy:

The companies, however, aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.

Sam Stein at Huffington Post, who dubbed it Palin’s “first gaffe.”

Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds bailing the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.

“You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country’s mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn’t speak well for her, I’d say.”

Added Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analyst for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: “It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven’t drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. ‘Gotten too big and too expensive’ are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The ‘too expensive to tax payers,’ I don’t know where that comes from.”

Jake Tapper:

“Too expensive to the taxpayers?”

They’re private entities.

Though they’re private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers.

But the only way Fannie and Freddie are “too expensive to the taxpayers” is if you’re talking about the bailout announced over the weekend.
Is that what she meant?

So, does “too expensive” mean that Palin opposes the bailout?

Or did she misstate how these entities function?

Yes, it was technically true that these government-sponsored entities were not run with taxpayer money, though they were started and chartered by Congress, but that was a polite fiction smashed by the $180 billion bailout the entities necessitated (and have since paid portions back). The reason they were allowed to get out of control was because they had understood backing from the United States government. They would never have otherwise been able to become as big and risky in their practices as they did, and everyone concedes that. Palin called them, quite accurately, “lending agencies that our government supports,” and suggested a plan of action less ambitious than the one Obama pitched today, five years later. One imagines she would have been called both dumb and extreme for saying exactly what Obama said today.

In writing about this concept, which everyone now agrees on in attempting to reform Fannie/Freddie, AEI explains:

Both bills would end Fannie and Freddie as government-sponsored enterprises. Both understand that the fundamental GSE model, which involves pretending to be simultaneously a private company and part of the government and results in privatized profits and socialized losses, is insidious and needs to be definitively terminated.

Hey, if only he’d known what Sarah Palin knew then.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Over

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Her startling prescience here – when nobody else was taking at all about the issue – is why a whopping 18% of voters in AK think she should run for US Senate.
/

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Yeah, IF she were to announce she’s running for that Senate
seat, that poll number wouldn’t change my friend…..

NOT AT ALL.

So there you have it HotAirians….

When it comes to this woman, polls NEVER CHANGE.

Hey Verb. did you seee those polls that say the two
“Hottest” politicans in America are Hillary and Christie!

That’s it, we have our nominees!!!!

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Clarifying that Obamacare does not prevent physicians from asking perfectly reasonable questions about the presence of items tied to 130,000 deaths and injuries annually — despite gun fascists …
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

 
Everybody ready?
 
1% of abortions are rape/incest related
= the most precious jewel that must be protected at all costs, and the other 99% of abortions must be tolerated for that most precious jewel of womens, nay, America’s rights.
 
—–
 
1% of all existing firearms “come in contact with people’s bodies”
= ban them all, tax them all, register them all, shame their owners, call them names (fascists), encourage doctors to inquire about ownership related to the above, and give no quarter to an amendment that’s actually written down in the Constitution.
 
—–
 
Neat, huh?

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

When it comes to this woman, polls NEVER CHANGE.

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

And how’s that Never-y Change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Her startling prescience here – when nobody else was taking at all about the issue – is why a whopping 18% of voters in AK think she should run for US Senate.
/

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Is that from the same PPP poll that found only 12% of Alaskans could see Russia from their house?

Stu Gotts on August 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

When it comes to this woman, polls NEVER CHANGE.

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

And how’s that Never-y Change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Yeah, running McCain and Romney did not “work out well”

So what’s that have to do with Palin??

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM

There are no “death panels” and never were going to be. This is purest demagoguery.

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

Leftist “economist” Pauline Krugman, February 5, 2013

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Her startling prescience here – when nobody else was taking at all about the issue – is why a whopping 18% of voters in AK think she should run for US Senate.
/

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Is that from the same PPP poll that found only 12% of Alaskans could see Russia from their house?

Stu Gotts on August 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I believe it’s the same polling outfit that had Hillary
beating Perry in Texas….good times, good times.

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Conservatives in Florida want to forbid doctors and patients from discussing guns in the homes.

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM

lol, letting the New York Times do your “thinking” for you is no way to go thru life, Sparky. After all, they’re so “smart” they just sold their newspaper in Boston at a 93% loss.

Besides, the doctor who wrote the article you link to is a Leftist right out of Central Casting. She’s a regular columnist for HuffPo and The Atlantic.

For objectivity, can you please post us a view on this new Florida rule written by someone who didn’t vote for your Cult Leader?

(Starts another sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

gun byproducts

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Gotta love how you Leftists make up new phrases.

A+

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM

gun byproducts

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Gotta love how you Leftists make up new phrases.

A+

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM

that’s not a made-up word. When someone breaks into your home and you shoot and kill him, he becomes a “gun byproduct”. And, you are allowed to do with gun byproducts what you want. They aren’t regulated.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Clarifying that Obamacare does not prevent physicians from asking perfectly reasonable questions about the presence of items tied to 130,000 deaths and injuries annually — despite gun fascists who want to restrict physicians’ 1st Amendment rights to ask those questions — is hardly acting to impose gun control.

Sarah’s crystal ball is apparently a little cloudy — as is many people’s opinion of her.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

.
It’s not the government’s place to keep us safe from ourselves.

It’s not your place to define “reasonable”.

Having the medical profession compile records of who does or does not possess firearms does constitute “acting to impose gun control”, when the government has unimpeded access to those records.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

And how’s that Never-y Change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

How’s that Can’t-y Read-y Sarcasm-y stuff workin’ out for you?

It’s always funny how progs love to point to polls, until the polls don’t say the right thing. Then it’s time to ignore the polls and do the right thing in spite of American stupidity, rather than because of their collective wisdom. See also: Obamacare being CONSISTENTLY underwater in polls.

The Schaef on August 7, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Palin gives a hat tip to HotAir..:)

@SarahPalinUSA: Hey media, now do you get it? http://t.co/YjW5uq7vx5

idesign on August 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Thanks for posting this, idesign.

With one deft tweet, Sarah forces lame stream media to come here and choke on their own bile. LOL!

Well done, MKH!

Sarah + whoever she chooses, 2016!

Opinionator on August 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM

gun byproducts
 
urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

 
Exactly zero relevant search results on google. Not even your own. Ha. Congratulations. That’s not easy to do.
 
Hey, remember yesterday when you were laughing at someone and criticizing their credibility for using “inalienable”?
 

The word is inalienable.

 
A real rookie mistake. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
 
Not that you had a ton of credibility to begin with.
 
urban elitist on August 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM

 
Boomerangs are neat. Oh, sorry. You were saying something about firearms?

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Heh!

Ain’t it sweet? ( ^.^ )

avagreen on August 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Nothing more than a private citizen with a public soapbox…

I’m sorry, Blue. I don’t think even she can fix what is broken in America. Her heart’s in the right place, but her refusal to run for office in 2012 (and, I believe going forward as well) is very telling to me. Anyone can talk a good game about the way things should be.

gryphon202 on August 6, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Considering all that Palin has done to help elect conservatives to the House and Senate, I don’t think we have any right to complain whether she runs for the presidency or not.

People focus too much on the single position at the top. What we need are more conservatives throughout Congress. If the Senate wasn’t controlled by the same party as Obama, he’d be crippled. He can only get away with all these overreaching executive orders because the House can’t do anything about it if the Senate won’t.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It seems there aren’t enough readers here to sustain such threads anymore. Rubio threads struggle to get out of the double-digit comment level, so this one’s relatively “popular”. As for predicting the future, Palin’s apparently better at it than you. I’m still trying to get used to saying “President Romney”, as you advised.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Salem has done a pretty good job of making Hot Air far less relevant. The women come the closest to being conservatives. AP is the last of the Rockefeller Republicans, Captain Ed is the ultimate “Establishment Republican” and Jazz Shaw (aka the Moderate Voice) is a joke looking for a punch line.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

.
It’s not the government’s place to keep us safe from ourselves.

It’s not your place to define “reasonable”.

Having the medical profession compile records of who does or does not possess firearms does constitute “acting to impose gun control”, when the government has unimpeded access to those records.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

But it is your doctor’s place. And it’s surely not the NRA’s place to tell your doctor what he can talk to you about.

Exactly zero relevant search results on google. Not even your own. Ha. Congratulations. That’s not easy to do.

Hey, remember yesterday when you were laughing at someone and criticizing their credibility for using “inalienable”?

By “gun byproducts,” I meant bullets. Sorry, too subtle for some. jeez, you guys are so literal sometimes.

that’s not a made-up word. When someone breaks into your home and you shoot and kill him, he becomes a “gun byproduct”. And, you are allowed to do with gun byproducts what you want. They aren’t regulated.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

By that definition, though, if somebody breaks into your house and shoots you, you become a gun byproduct. In this case, I’m guessing you don’t want the gun byproducts to be disposable.

Hey, remember yesterday when you were laughing at someone and criticizing their credibility for using “inalienable”?

I actually thought all you “original intent” experts here at Hot Air would have the in/un thing down, which is why I was amused to see someone go out of their way to correct me (which is how it started).

Leftist “economist” Pauline Krugman, February 5, 2013

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Surprised you take Krugman seriously enough to quote him. I don’t.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

It seems there aren’t enough readers here to sustain such threads anymore.
 
ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 7:50 AM

 
This place desperately needs another open registration weekend. We’d still end up with (R) echo chambers or our (D)’s elaborately-written “I don’t care, Obama is awesome” default positions, but at least the names would be different.

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM

gun byproducts
 
urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

 
 
Exactly zero relevant search results on google. Not even your own. Ha. Congratulations. That’s not easy to do…
 
Boomerangs are neat. Oh, sorry. You were saying something about firearms?
 
rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

 
I actually thought all you “original intent” experts…
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

 
I can certainly see why you’d attempt to distract from your “gun byproducts” hypocrisy. Good for you for not abandoning the thread, though.
 
So you were saying something credible about firearms, right?

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

We should not call him a socialist. He is a fascist as pointed out by Thomas Sowell.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/socialist-or-fascist.html

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

He goes on to explain that fascists want risk in the private sector but control of the means of production in the public sector.

burt on August 7, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Thomas Sowell is a very smart man.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

There are no “death panels” and never were going to be. This is purest demagoguer

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Seriously? Four years later and you still don’t understand IPAB and rationed health care services? Don’t understand hyperbole? Oh wait, lemme guess, you’ve never actually read Palin’s original Facebook post? What do you think she was talking about?

Stu Gotts on August 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Govt. insurance was always for the benefit of the lender,usually banks.
That just plain BS.It’s simply not necessary.
If a lender loans money on a property in excess of 80% of its foreclosure vale than he’s stupid.
Stupid lenders should lose and go our of business.
The value of property should be the only security needed by any lender.

rodguy911 on August 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM

And if the government hadn’t meddled in the housing market, no lender would have made a loan that was too risky to get paid back. But when you can turn around and sell that risky loan to FNMA, then you as a lender have no money at risk. So you can turn around and use that same money to make another loan. That other loan might be risky, too, but as long as you can sell it to FNMA, then you as a lender have no money at risk, so you can turn around and use that same money to make another loan. Repeat thousands of times a month, and you’ve made a lot of money and assumed no risk.

And that, boys and girls, is how the housing market crashed.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Clarifying that Obamacare does not prevent physicians from asking perfectly reasonable questions about the presence of items tied to 130,000 deaths and injuries annually — despite gun fascists who want to restrict physicians’ 1st Amendment rights to ask those questions — is hardly acting to impose gun control.

Sarah’s crystal ball is apparently a little cloudy — as is many people’s opinion of her.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

IMV this whole thread is really about Gov Sarah Palin speaking about expected developments, in some cases YEARS ahead of any other leader …… accurately.

This woman has evaluated the character and agenda of The Phoney, plus his decision-making and then correctly projected, sometimes years in advance, what the outcome impacting on the citizenry will be.

The issue for me here is JUDGEMENT ….. and Sarah Palin has demonstrated on multiple occasions that she has good sound judgement, which is surely one of the most important qualities that a POTUS should have.

So, to argue the point of whether doctors talking about guns to their patients is good or bad is really a distraction – the issue here is that Sarah Palin predicted more than three years in advance that The Phoney would do it, associated with a Healthcare Bill that, at the time, was only just starting to be understood (Aug 09), and years before he had even started to push for gun-control.

btw …. if only 18% of people in AK want Sarah Palin to run for US Senate there, I am encouraged by their judgment. She is a born CEO/Manager. Her skills and talents would be utterly wasted in the US Senate. I too would have been counted with the 82% if asked this question.

exodus2011 on August 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

I can certainly see why you’d attempt to distract from your “gun byproducts” hypocrisy. Good for you for not abandoning the thread, though.

So you were saying something credible about firearms, right?

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations. And that, more important, the gun lobby attempting to interpose themselves between a doctor and his or her patients is an outrage. And that people who don’t want their doctors to talk about guns can surely ask them not to or change doctors.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

So, to argue the point of whether doctors talking about guns to their patients is good or bad is really a distraction – the issue here is that Sarah Palin predicted more than three years in advance that The Phoney would do it, associated with a Healthcare Bill that, at the time, was only just starting to be understood (Aug 09), and years before he had even started to push for gun-control.

exodus2011 on August 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

The issue here is that Palin proved paranoid once again because Obama has never actually included anything about gun control in Obamacare.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Yeah, running McCain and Romney did not “work out well”

So what’s that have to do with Palin??

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM

No, “it did not”.

I say she should run.
But as her good pal Steve Schmidt recently offered:

“She has a great ability to keep speculation around her swirling, but I think that it’s pretty clear watching her over the last couple of years, there’s not much interest in either substantive policy issues or actual governance..”

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

It’s always funny how progs love to point to polls, until the polls don’t say the right thing.

The Schaef on August 7, 2013 at 1:45 PM

True for progs, cons, libs, dems, repubs, pundits, bloggers, commenters, etc.
But there was that big 2012 poll.
That’d be a good one for The GOP and the cons to pay some attention to. But seems they’ll likely pivot back to abortion and gay marriage.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM

By “gun byproducts,” I meant bullets. Sorry, too subtle for some. jeez, you guys are so literal sometimes.

I actually thought all you “original intent” experts here at Hot Air would have the in/un thing down, which is why I was amused to see someone go out of their way to correct me (which is how it started).

Lol!

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Oh, and Gulchers who are speaking here but not there? Where the heck are you??? You are sorely missed.

Opinionator on August 7, 2013 at 2:55 AM

Hey OP!! This Gulcher has been very busy. Some up here and making lists/calling/faxing. In other words protesting after researching, gathering facts. Then rinse & repeat, LOL

Then I relay that info to Family & Friends as much as possible.

Family things, yard work and all the rest that I’m sure you do too.

It may be a good time to take a vacation since the Congress is.

I see Fallon every once in a while up here & Scrumpy. Hope you all are in good health and enjoying the summer. I love the cool nights, windows open and c/a off!!

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

you must have dropped from between bluegills cheeks.

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Obamacare.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

So, you are one of the few to have read it?

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

 
The bolded is faith-based and means nothing. Give us numbers. A dot gov website is fine.
 
While you’re there, cite the numbers for bucket related deaths, also. Are bucket specific conversations a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient inquiries? If not, why not?

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Together, we took on a broken health care system and a housing market in freefall. We invested in new American technologies to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. We changed a tax code that had become tilted in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families. We saved the auto industry, and now GM plans to hire 1,000 new workers right next door in Chandler to make sure we build some of the most high-tech cars in the world right here in America.

That is indeed an impressive record. Too bad none of it is true. They took a flawed health care system and applied exactly the wrong fixes to make it even more flawed than before. They forced a housing market into freefall through their meddling and politicization of risky loans, then had to shovel billions into a bailout to keep it from completely collapsing.

As for the tax code, the only thing Obama did was to cut the social security tax by a small amount for a few years. And he let that change expire in the last tax deal. The credit for making the tax code so progressive that about 47% pay no income tax at all goes to the same President Bush that Obama has been blaming for everything. And I don’t actually say that to Bush’s credit. He made the tax code too progressive, enabling more and more people to not even care what new taxes get passed, because they know they won’t have to pay them. But the fact remains, Obama deserves precisely NONE of that credit.

They didn’t save the auto industry. They bailed out Chrysler and GM. Ford received no bailout money, and is doing better than either GM or Chrysler to this day.

That’s a lot of lying in one short paragraph. Good thing the media isn’t bright enough to catch these lies. But then, most propaganda organizations don’t really question the propaganda they distribute.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 4:55 PM

The bolded is faith-based and means nothing. Give us numbers. A dot gov website is fine.

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Fun cdc calculator here. You have to play around with it a bit but 31k Firearms deaths, including 600 accidental and 19K suicides. Seems like there are a lot of depressed people out there whose doctors might want to ask about guns in the house.

We also get 14K unintentional firearm injuries and 60K violence-related firearm injuries each year, using this calculator.

Until you prove otherwise, I’m going to assume that 90% of the suicides, half the unintentional firearm injuries and 10% of the violence related gun byproduct related deaths and injuries were the result of guns found around the house. Which means 30 thousand household guns harming the health of the households occupants every year “a modest but not insignificant health risk.” Prove me wrong.

While you’re there, cite the numbers for bucket related deaths, also. Are bucket specific conversations a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient inquiries? If not, why not?

But here’s the reason that your being — and there’s no other way to put this — just stupid. Because your point is that any state legislature, no matter how stupid, under the influence of any lobby, no matter how malicious, can dictate to a doctor what he or she can discuss with their patients.

You, an alleged conservative, are supporting the restriction of speech in order to have a government control health care.

You really should say: “I don’t think it’s any of my doctor’s business but I don’t want a bunch of idiots in Tallahassee (or Springfield, or Juneau….) telling my doctor that they know better than he does what to ask me about on any subject whatsoever.

Of course, conservatives also dictate how doctors talk to women about birth control and abortion, so you clearly actually don’t believe in the doctor-patient relationship at all and are apparently willing for British-style socialized medicine.

so please stop whining about Obamacare.

Thanks.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

But it is your doctor’s place.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

No, actually, it’s not. For a person under the age of ascension, the parent or guardian is legally and financially responsible for that person’s life. Beyond the age of ascension, no one but that person bears the responsibility.

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Okay, so you have the question posed to you a second time (not counting any others who may have asked something similar).

I come into the doctor’s office with a respiratory infection. Explain how the presence of the firearm presents a health risk such that it becomes a relevant question with regard to this particular illness.

You’re also forgetting the whole federal management piece in play here. We’ve had countless revelations that they are hoovering up every scrap of data they can collect on people, yet you seem strangely confident that they’re not going to take an interest in an unemployed Afghanistan veteran with a conceal-carry permit that they otherwise could not track.

The issue here is that Palin proved paranoid once again because Obama has never actually included anything about gun control in Obamacare.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Yeah, you say “once again” because you choose to interpret one aspect of the law to give obscene benefit of the doubt to an administration that has given no good cause to deserve it, to the exclusion of all the other things about which she has been proven correct.

True for progs, cons, libs, dems, repubs, pundits, bloggers, commenters, etc.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I haven’t really found that to be the case. But I doubt the subtleties of those distinctions matter much to you.

But seems they’ll likely pivot back to abortion and gay marriage.

I think you have it backwards, sir. It was Obama who has claimed a “laserlike focus on jobs” while pushing bills for gay marriage, immigration, health care, the environment, gun control, tax hikes, all while spying on Americans, using the IRS to strongarm his political opponents, and leaving American ambassadors to die for no good reason. Not to mention getting involved in abortion cases stemming from state-level legislation.

But yes, let’s ignore all that and talk about the “red meat” Republican legislation (which to my knowledge has not included one bill on either of those issues during the Obama presidency).

The Schaef on August 7, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Link to the fatal injuries report.

Bye-bye. Off to dinner at a trendy fusion joint.

I’ll check back later; I know you will, too.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I’m going to assume that 90% of the suicides, half the unintentional firearm injuries and 10% of the violence related gun byproduct related deaths and injuries were the result of guns found around the house.

Why, yes, that sounds entirely reasonable. “Wow, I sure did have a long day at the office. Oh, look! There is a gun here! I am suddenly filled with a strange desire to kill myself, which did not exist before I just happened across this gun lying around the house, and which I’m sure will immediately vanish the moment I throw it in the dumpster! Wow, I don’t know what made me think it would be a good idea to own one of these things, that actually reaches out and makes a person want to kill themselves!”

Because your point is that any state legislature… can dictate to a doctor what he or she can discuss with their patients.

Yeah, it sure is a wild idea to suppose that doctors, now more than ever under the protective wing of the glorious federal government, can and should collect private data regardless of its relevance to the person’s health, because there’s no way that data could possibly end up in the wrong hands. I’m still waiting to hear how that’s a restriction of free speech rights.

Of course, conservatives also dictate how doctors talk to women about birth control and abortion.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

This is also a dishonest characterization. Conservatives seek to dictate how people go about taking the lives of other human beings. You seemed pretty concerned about human lives that might be impacted by “gun by-products” which apparently cause seemingly unrelated diseases, but not when the doctor himself does the killing at a patient’s behest, at a rate thirty times higher than all of the deliberate, incidental and self-inflicted gun deaths combined.

The Schaef on August 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM

the chef at the trendy fusion joint you ate at tonite, is known not to use toilet paper.

Hope you enjoyed your meal. You got a lot more protein than you bargained for:)

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Meat loaf again? You sound bitter.

I ’m still waiting to hear how that’s a restriction of free speech rights

Schaef on August 7, 2013 at 5:33

You’re waiting to see how restricting someone’s speech is a restriction of speech?

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM

back so quick? the “fusion joint” turned out to be a pizza hut delivery.

I on the other hand am enjoying a medium rare filet mignon and a glass of a tasty 2008 Silver Oak Cab.Will enjoy the rest of the bottle in the sauna in just a bit.

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I think the rub is a small distinction between forced speech and free speech. It of course is small to some, big to others.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

The issue here is that Palin proved paranoid once again because Obama has never actually included anything about gun control in Obamacare.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

No, the issue here is that Sarah Palin has had The Phoney’s number from the beginning (listen to her RNC speech from sep 3rd 2008 again)

She knows The Phoney’s stable of origin, his agenda, his opposition to the US Constitution and correctly predicted that he would tie in an attempt to further his gun control objectives with the massive and oppressive, regulation-laden Obamacare BULLSCHMIDT.

…and she did this 3+ years before he tried and failed to open the door to his gun grab.

exodus2011 on August 7, 2013 at 6:51 PM

The bolded is faith-based and means nothing. Give us numbers. A dot gov website is fine.
 
rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM

 
Fun cdc calculator here. You have to play around with it a bit but 31k Firearms deaths, including 600 accidental and 19K suicides. Seems like there are a lot of depressed people out there whose doctors might want to ask about guns in the house.
 
But here’s the reason that your being — and there’s no other way to put this — just stupid…
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

 
Thanks for the calculator link. That’s the same one I was going to use.
 
Did you not cite actual numbers for children
 

a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young

 
after you realized the link didn’t back up your faith?
 
Here. I’ll cite them for you:
 

Ages 0-16
Overall Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
 
Number of injuries- 5,114
Population- 69,603,421

 
That’s 0.007% of all children age 0-16.
 
Written another way, 7/1000ths of one percent of all children age 0-16 are injured by firearms.
 
7/1000ths of 1%
 
Seven
one
thousandths
 
of
one
percent

 
I can see why you don’t want to write it out.
 
Let’s stick with your citation for the next ones.
 

including 600 accidental and 19K suicides

14K unintentional firearm injuries and 60K violence-related firearm injuries each year

 
For ease of use, let’s add them all up. Let’s even help your argument and pretend they’re all deaths, and then let’s round up to 100K.
 
I do want to make sure everyone noticed where you hoped to pad your numbers, though. Especially since I’m going to help.
 

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)

 
It was young, depressed, and drunk.
 
Now it’s criminals, too. Nicely done. Valuable patient/doctor conversations there, wouldn’t you think?
 
Ready? Because I’m going to help your case. We’ll double your now-crime-too numbers (93.6K * 2) and then round up. So let’s assume 200K deaths just for the sake of your religious beliefs.
 
With a US population of 311,000,000 that gives us
 
200,000/311,000,000
 
0.06%
 
Written another way?
 
6/100ths of 1%
 
Six one hundredths of one percent of the US population was “killed” (except not) by firearms.
 
In reality, of course, nowhere near that incredibly massive number was even effected by the, how did you put it “public health concern”.
 
7/1000ths of one percent and 6/100ths of one percent. Which brings us back to
 

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants …
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

 
Thanks again for the calculator. Do you have any other data you’d prefer? We can triple it next time if you’d think it would help.
 
Or you could always call me names again. I’m sure that would help your argument.

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I’d still like to hear an explanation for this:

There are no “death panels” and never were going to be. This is purest demagoguery.

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Seriously? Four years later and you still don’t understand IPAB and rationed health care services? Don’t understand hyperbole? Oh wait, lemme guess, you’ve never actually read Palin’s original Facebook post? What do you think she was talking about?

Stu Gotts on August 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Again seriously, mr. elitist, what do you think she was talking about?

Stu Gotts on August 7, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Heck, why wait. What are friends for, after all?
 
(Plus the thread is probably abandoned now anyway.)
 
No tripling, though. I’m going to really help your position. Let’s multiply all those “dead” drunk and depressed child criminals by ten.
 
200,000 * 10 = 2,000,000
 
2,000,000/311000000 = 0.6%

 
6/10ths of 1%
 
And ~300 million guns in the US…

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:55 PM

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Awesome!!!!!!!

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 8:29 PM

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:39 PM

 
Awesome!!!!!!!
 
bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 8:29 PM

 
Math is neat, isn’t it?
 
—–
 
Anyone want an easier understanding?
 
Imagine someone drives a $50,000 Corvette to a trendy fusion restaurant.
 
7/1000ths of 1% (children) equals the $3.67 spent on one gallon of gas.
 
6/100ths of 1% (+ criminals) equals the $32 spent on dinner.
 
6/10ths of 1% (+ criminals X 10) equals the single pair of $321 French jeans worn there and back.

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I think the rub is a small distinction between forced speech and free speech. It of course is small to some, big to others.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

No one is forcing the physician to speak. It;s the government forcing him or her not to speak. That’s a problem.

exodus2011 on August 7, 2013 at 6:51 PM

No. You’re wrong. She didn’t it right. There is no Obamancare gun grab.

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:39 PM

So you’re saying 30,000 gun deaths and injuries is not significant? Your math adds a new dimension to your usual pedantry. How many people have to be dead before a doctor is allowed by the government to ask about possible causes of that death.

And again, why are adopting the fascist stance that the government, not the doctor, decides what’s appropriate for a conversation with the patient?

back so quick? the “fusion joint” turned out to be a pizza hut delivery.

I on the other hand am enjoying a medium rare filet mignon and a glass of a tasty 2008 Silver Oak Cab.Will enjoy the rest of the bottle in the sauna in just a bit.

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

I took one more peek at this place after I changed but before I left.

Silver Oak? I’ve always thought that was for people with more money than palate — the sort of folks who drink it lukewarm in a sauna. But I have had some great wines from Saddleback, which is just across Oakville Cross Road from SO, so maybe it’s OK.

The restaurant was more form than substance but the prime rib (I know, how is that fusion? Wasabi potatoes, of course) was pretty decent and I didn’t have to pay.

So, we can play this game all not. I just post my whereabouts because I know Roger frets.

Cheers.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

guess that makes Palin and I equals….

Bradky on August 7, 2013 at 8:45 AM

No, I think that makes you uninformed. Talk to Cornyn and the other elitist Republican Tea Party/Conservative haters.

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It also makes him ungrammatical. I guess ignorance goes all the way to the bone. And wasn’t Miller Huckabee’s boy anyway?

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 9:44 PM

fast forward to the present and not even 200 comments to honor Palin’s carny like ability to predict the future….

Bradky on August 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM

This is the 256th comment, by the way. Bradky’s batting .000, as usual. LOL

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Of course, conservatives also dictate how doctors talk to women about birth control and abortion, so you clearly actually don’t believe in the doctor-patient relationship at all and are apparently willing for British-style socialized medicine.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

.
N O B O D Y … wants to “dictate how doctors talk to women about birth control and abortion”.
I’d like to see abortion abolished, except for a valid medical health threat to the life of the mother.
In any such situation where the mothers life is in jeopardy do to complications in carrying out the pregnancy, the decision to opt for abortion should be absolutely private, between Doctor and patient … period.

What the HANG kind of “bith control” counseling between Doctors and their patients are conservatives trying to stop to?
I believe you just made that up.
.

so please stop whining about Obamacare.

Thanks.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

.
*WARNING: THREAT ALERT*

“Whining” vs ‘legitimate griping’ is in the eye of the individual beholder.

The complaining/whining about Obama Care stops when it’s repealed, or the next American civil war begins … period.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM

rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM

LOL, I’ll leave the Math to you. I had someone try to explain electricity to me and I got just as dizzy:-) I defer to the experts when I don’t understand something!

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Roger frets.

Cheers.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

it hurt didn’t. he totally wiped the floor wth you dude.

it was mental circumcision.

you now lack a forebrain.

renalin on August 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It also makes him ungrammatical. I guess ignorance goes all the way to the bone. And wasn’t Miller Huckabee’s boy anyway?

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 9:44 PM

I have a pretty good memory, but don’t recall Huckabee involved. He could have been. From what I recall he was supported by a Tea Party, but don’t know which one. Didn’t he win the Primary against Murkowski?

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

.
You’re posting this five+ hours after I responded to your 9:07 AM comment this morning, and you still haven’t gotten back to me on that.
Sooo ….. reposting:
.

Clarifying that Obamacare does not prevent physicians from asking perfectly reasonable questions about the presence of items tied to 130,000 deaths and injuries annually — despite gun fascists who want to restrict physicians’ 1st Amendment rights to ask those questions — is hardly acting to impose gun control.

Sarah’s crystal ball is apparently a little cloudy — as is many people’s opinion of her.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

.
It’s not the government’s place to keep us safe from ourselves.

It’s not your place to define “reasonable”.

Having the medical profession compile records of who does or does not possess firearms does constitute “acting to impose gun control”, when the government has unimpeded access to those records.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Ahhh rogerb, its why we love you! ; ) Perfect! Lol!

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 11:45 PM

So, we can play this game all not. I just post my whereabouts because I know Roger frets.

Cheers.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

I’m gonna do my best to keep this simple for you. You were are owned. Lol! Dude get over yourself and by all means keep the thread going with rogerb, great fun for us at your expense. Lol!

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Lol! ; )

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 11:48 PM

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

According to the CDC, ’112 million times a year alcohol-impaired drivers put you at risk.’

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. To put that into perspective, there were 11,078 gun-related homicides that year.

First look at repealing the Twenty-First Amendment? /

Resist We Much on August 8, 2013 at 12:10 AM

All I’m saying about firearms is that their presence in the house presents a modest but not insignificant health risk to the inhabitants (particularly if they are young, depressed or like your booze)and are thus a legitimate line of inquiry for general doctor-patient conversations.

urban effetist on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Facts prove you’re lying. Deaths in the home are caused by many other things, and guns don’t even make the Top 5.

1. Falls

2. Poisoning

3. Fire and Burns

4. Airway obstruction

5. Water

6. F-

Del Dolemonte on August 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM

rogerb ate UE for dinner, spit him out, let him live, and the fool still didn’t get it.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 1:25 AM

And again, why are adopting the fascist stance that the government, not the doctor, decides what’s appropriate for a conversation with the patient?
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

 
I know it’s easier for you to argue against a position you’ve created in your head/faith/belief system regarding non-(D) ideas (maybe so you can use “facist” as much as possible), but go ahead and link up to where I presented that argument.
 
You created it so you’d have something convenient to debate. It was right about here, btw:
 

despite gun fascists who want to restrict physicians’ 1st Amendment rights to ask those questions
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

 
I believe it’s called a “straw man” when you try to attribute that sort of things to others and vigorously argue against it, but I may just know those things because of my pedantry. ctl+f “speech” or “facist” or “gun lobby” to find your instances. My only comment was if you felt the same about buckets.
 

Or you could always call me names again. I’m sure that would help your argument.
 
rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 7:39 PM

 
I just post my whereabouts because I know Roger frets.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

 
Nicely done.
 
Now, where were we? Shall we get back to the meaningful part of our discussion?

rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:19 AM

So you’re saying 30,000 gun deaths and injuries is not significant?

 
I’d say 30,000 is very significant. Great point.
 
You are exactly right.
 
Now we can finally address the core of the matter, and thanks for your help getting us here.
 
Remember your number.
 
—–
 

The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year
 
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

 
From the CDC link, there are 49,000 new HIV and 32,000 AIDS diagnoses each year. Almost the same number of folks die annually from HIV/AIDS (15K) as die from your non-criminal gun deaths (19K), and it injures many, many more than you cited for guns.
 
Ready?
 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

That one’s gonna leave a mark. LOL

Stu Gotts on August 8, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Poor, poor ue.

Bmore on August 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM

You’re waiting to see how restricting someone’s speech is a restriction of speech?

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM

It’s not restricting their speech. It’s restricting the scope and nature of information they can collect based on relevant circumstances. I dunno, maybe you never heard of privacy laws before.

But it’s interesting that you were given so much information in response to your nonsense, and this was the one thing you decided to respond to, especially after ignoring it twice before.

How many people have to be dead before a doctor is allowed by the government to ask about possible causes of that death.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Physicians don’t ask their patients about cause of death, because their patients are living. That’s what coroners are for, and their patients are dead, so it would be kind of pointless to ask questions about the cause of death.

Ever consider the possibility that you might be going off the rails a bit with your line of reasoning?

The Schaef on August 8, 2013 at 9:34 AM

When Obama says he wants to end Fannie and Freddie, I can’t believe that he means to do away with them. My thought is that they will no longer be companies, but instead we will have a government agency that flushes our money down the toilet to hold up risky (sub-prime) loans. He doesn’t have a problem with the procedure, he has a problem with the semi-private companies doing it. It is too hard for him to cover up any losses with Fannie and Freddie, but as a government agency he can just blame the evil Republicans and capitalists and say that the money pit needs more money.

jeffn21 on August 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I’m guessing he’ll just cut them loose and run everything through FHA and similar programs. Kind of like how they absorbed all the federal student loans and brought them under the Direct Loan umbrella.

The Schaef on August 8, 2013 at 10:30 AM

How many people have to be dead before a doctor is allowed by the government to ask about possible causes of that death.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Considering there are only 600 accidental gun deaths a year in the U.S., they should be more worried about finding out about driving, falling, drowning, etc.

But you keep up with the inanity. It is amusing. The best part about you is you believe yourself intelligent, yet you prove with everything you write that you are an imbecile – and a dishonest one at that.

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Wow, the stupid is strong with the libtard trolls here!

Midas on August 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Palin Calls Out Media on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: ‘Now Do You Get It?

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Thanks for the update :) I’d say you’re due for a very nice vacation; you work more tirelessly than anyone I know to hold Congress critters accountable. Kudos and thanks to you! Please visit us when you can.

Opinionator on August 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM

How many people have to be dead before a doctor is allowed by the government to ask about possible causes of that death.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

.
Physicians don’t ask their patients about cause of death, because their patients are living. That’s what coroners are for, and their patients are dead, so it would be kind of pointless to ask questions about the cause of death.

The Schaef on August 8, 2013 at 9:34 AM

.
Wow ….. how did I miss this one, lastnight ?
.
Adding to what ‘Shaef said . . . . . . . . . . .

Any doctor who treats a patient for a gunshot wound is going to recognize it for what it is, no matter how hard a patient tries to deny it.
ALL firearms related injuries require a police report, so if a gunshot patient somehow manages to get to a doctor/ER, on their own (or the aid of associates), without an ambulance (or police escort), the doctor will notify the police IMMEDIATELY.
Failure to do so, would put the doctor’s medical license in jeopardy.

Having all patients fill out a general form that includes a question as to whether or not they own or possess firearms is pure “data mining” for the purpose of “gun control” … period.

listens2glenn on August 8, 2013 at 12:55 PM

So often, when I’m right, one of y’all will give me “talking points” crap. Which I enjoy, because it means you have nothing.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

 

Or they could just abandon the thread.
 
rogerb on August 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
 
rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

 
Crickets. Meanwhile:
 

How about the Washington Crackers?
 
urban elitist on August 8, 2013 at 1:16 PM

 
I heard it put really well one time. How did it go? Oh, yeah.
 

Which I enjoy, because it means you have nothing.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Lolz! ; )

Bmore on August 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Which means 30 thousand household guns harming the health of the households occupants every year “a modest but not insignificant health risk.” Prove me wrong.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Thanks for the update :) I’d say you’re due for a very nice vacation; you work more tirelessly than anyone I know to hold Congress critters accountable. Kudos and thanks to you! Please visit us when you can.

Opinionator on August 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I was just getting ready to close this window and saw your post.

Well, I did take some time this afternoon to read page 57,58 & 59!!
Then I had other duties and didn’t have time to comment, LOL

I’m sure there are more that are just as active as I am. These wimps won’t like what my next message to them will be.

Hey, thanks for that link. I couldn’t find it. Hope to “see” you asap.

bluefox on August 8, 2013 at 8:46 PM

So you’re saying 30,000 gun deaths and injuries is not significant? Your math adds a new dimension to your usual pedantry.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
 
rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

 

The funny part is the hope that not answering isn’t also an obvious answer. Don’t you have kids, UE?
 
(Hint: The readers understand that you think 30,000 is not significant.)
 
The sad part is allowing a politically hated/favored variable to influence what should be clearly be a basic value held in the depths of ones moral center.
 

Prove me wrong.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

 
Anything else, urban elitist?

rogerb on August 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Hey, if only he’d [Obama'd] known what Sarah Palin knew then.

He won’t–ever.

Barnestormer on August 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Clarifying that Obamacare does not prevent physicians from asking perfectly reasonable questions about the presence of items tied to 130,000 deaths and injuries annually — despite gun fascists who want to restrict physicians’ 1st Amendment rights to ask those questions — is hardly acting to impose gun control.

Sarah’s crystal ball is apparently a little cloudy — as is many people’s opinion of her.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM

.
It’s not the government’s place to keep us safe from ourselves.
It’s not your place to define “reasonable”.

Having the medical profession compile records of who does or does not possess firearms does constitute “acting to impose gun control”, when the government has unimpeded access to those records.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

.
But it is your doctor’s place. And it’s surely not the NRA’s place to tell your doctor what he can talk to you about.

urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

.
That’s not what’s happening. The government, is trying to mandate that doctors ask the question of guns in the home, of all their patients.

The National Rifle Association Is NOT trying to stop doctors from being allowed to ask individual patients on a case by case basis, where a doctor suspects mental incapacitation and/or suicidal tendencies.

Repeating what I said above:

Having the medical profession compile records of who does or does not possess firearms does constitute “acting to impose gun control”, when the government has unimpeded access to those records.

listens2glenn on August 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

listens2glenn on August 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3