Pay Back Time (tw will like this...)
 

GOP corporate allies in Congress's cross hairs.

WASHINGTON – When Republicans expanded their majority in 2004, their first target was the trial lawyers, virtual ATM dispensers for Democratic candidates. A new law curbing class-action lawsuits was on the president's desk by mid-February.

Now, Democrats are targeting some of the GOP's strongest corporate allies - Big Dic Oil, big dic pharmaceutical companies, and, in all likelihood, big dic defense contractors.

In their first 100 legislative hours, Democrats aim to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, roll back subsidies for oil and gas companies, and reduce the cost of student loans. They're also quickly gearing up to investigate allegations of corruption in war contracting.

"Parties reward their constituency groups, and they go after the other party's constituency groups. Parties are never stronger than in the first few days, so they do it early," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Moreover, it's popular. "You can't find people supporting big drug and oil companies, except the people who work in them," Professor Sabato says. For example, some 85 percent of Americans say the government should negotiate prescription-drug prices for the Medicare program, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

When the GOP-controlled Congress passed the Medicare prescription-drug bill in 2003, it included a one-line provision that banned the government from negotiating directly with drug companies to lower prices for seniors, as it now does for veterans. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R) of Louisiana, who drafted that provision, left Congress to become the top lobbyist for the drug industry as president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) - a controversial move that Democrats say they will make less likely with new lobby-reform legislation.

More...

This is why I hate politicians...

The term 'big dic' has been woefully misused. Among defense contractors, big oil, etc are / were some rather significant accomplishments. Painting each industry with a broad brush implies a misunderstanding of the term or a misunderstanding of some members in that industry.

I have no appreciation of a blanket 'go after them' attitude for political reasons. My contempt of politicians comes from these politically inspired decisions. It also reeks of 'big dic' type thinking. There is good reason to be distressed by big pharma's corporate welfare provided by the George Jr medicaid prescription plan. Welfare that makes illegal the purchase of same drugs from the same factory but 40% cheaper in Mexico or Canada. That is simply anti-free trade - enrich the few at the expense of America. Yes, big pharma bought and paid for it - legally. Just look at the GOP coffers. But the devil here was not big pharma. The devil was a corrupt and dumb George Jr - and people so much like him such as Abramhoff.

Meanwhile, those who so hate America are easily identified. Their solution to problems is 'big dic' thinking which is why they love the mental midget president and quietly love the massacre of American troops in "Mission Accomplished". 'Big dics' somehow know from their feelings - facts, reality, and America be damned. Even worse, those 'big dic' types wrap themselves in the flag as if that proves intelligence.

'Big oil' sometimes gets a bad rap simply because, again, too much 'big dic' thinking even foolishly thinks oil prices are too high and that 'big oil' has somehow conspired to keep them high.

Meanwhile, best place to find the 'devil' in all this are Democrats and (worse) Republicans) who conspire to enrich themselves at your expense. Among the devils are some who actually do work for us. They are called the centrists. One who has repeated done so is PA's Senator Specter. He has recently and repeatedly used intelligent thought to confront the scumbag president. You must have respect for someone in Congress who can do just that when others such as PA's Senator Santorum intended to 'screw' us all using their 'big dic' rationalizations.

Excellent point, for the drug company exects it was a logical business decision to maximize profits for their stockholders. That's what they are hired to do.
It's the politician scumbags that we hire, that are screwing us. :mad:

Screwing, schmewing...as long as I get richer.

It has certainly been woefully misspelt.

This does not follow. The devil here would be the initiator of such action, no? Do not partisanly insist that one party pay for the sins, if any, of TWO. This is an example of your inveterate unfairness to Republicans, and we know it even if you can't, tw. So accept the real if you want to be smart like me.

I know you don't, hee hee; it's what keeps you so stupid and bloviational. Hemipygian, too; let's not forget your single-buttocked condition...

To speak and act against the Republic's interest, and in the interest of any foreign non-democracy. in all matters foreign and domestic. This is characteristic of you, tw, and most of us, with the possible exception of Ibram, who is not yet old enough to be guileful nor have much experience of guile, treachery, and cupidity, see through you. Ann Coulter is right about your sort -- treason, essentially, is your habit, always clothed in high-sounding, fair words, but always with feet of slime. I am pure, you are not, and can't be until you quit Communism. Read Whittaker Chambers, man.

Hahahhahahahahaha, not old enough to have experience of guile, treachery, or cupidity?


You never DID go to high school, did you?

I am amazed that anyone is resorting to Coulter these days. She repeatedly plagiarized, misinformed about her birth date, misinformed about her voters registration, harassing 9/11 widows. She's a paria even in Republican circles, except Limbaugh, of course. Are you sure you want to refer to her?

You haven't actually read any of her books, have you?

I just got her latest one for Christmas - I think my dad is trying to tell me something, anyway so far I'm enjoying it.

Having gone to high school is why I can say that. That, and having lived nearly thrice your years, almost got in a war, and so on. Experience has this habit of piling up after a while. Not saying your experiences haven't been sufficient unto the day; I've just had a great many more days than you.

You'll get there, too -- just stay out from under the wheels of a bus.

If UG told us that he graduated, then he would have to kill us.

Repeated plagiarization? Really? Name at least two actual incidences, demonstrable by accurate quotation from primary, not secondary or tertiary sources. Coulter's foes can seldom cope with Coulter, AFAIK.

Having actually read a few of her books, I'm not persuaded that even those who go, "Oh she's not a good historian" have a leg to stand on. They do not, you see, get around to explaining just how she's so poor at it. Meanwhile, Coulter continues to footnote her paragraphs to primary sources, making a specialty of damning her targets with their own words.

Birthdate? Voter registration???? Are these here or there on any matter of consequence? Or are they mere excuses, intended to prop a very silly set of fools from the collapse they should rightfully undergo that the way may be clear of the obstacles they present? Fah -- away with the lot of these.

I graduated, bubble nuts.

Watch your backs, folks.

I have read several articles from her which leads me to decide not to spend any of my money on her books.

Editor & Publisher wrote a story about Coulter's copy culture, using a program iThenticate and found several textbook plagiarisms in her latest screech "Godless" and that she's passing off, as her own writing, the works of people at the L.A. Times, the Heritage Foundation and even Planned Parenthood, without giving any of them even a footnote's worth of credit.

Apparently Coulter rips off other people's writing in a chapter entitled "The Holiest Sacrament, Abortion" where there's a 25-word passage straight out of literature from Planned Parenthood. It had been taken actually word for word, concerns the president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, but there is no reference given. In another chapter, entitled "The Creation Myth," Coulter copied another passage, 24 words, that is neither hers nor credited, in a passage about the galactic ruler Xenu. Coulter steals that from the San Francisco Chronicle.

The longest stolen passage on page five of Coulter's book, 33 words long, from a 1999 article in the Portland Press. And in Coulter's UP columns for the past 12 months, the iThenticate program found her ripping from an L.A. Times article and the Heritage Foundation.

In a colum from Aug.05 she "borrowed" six different parts of an LA Times article.

You, as a gradute, should know this is a typical flunk a 1a English student would do and that's what iThenticate is developped for.

I would imagine a hack with anorexia nervosa, fiddling with her birthday and voter registration is hardly a person a graduate would refer to?

BTW I found Coulter's “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much” psychopathic screeching comments especially repulsive.

Coulter exists now only as a media animal. She is a professional shit-stirrer. She can be counted on to say controversial things in each one of her appearances, so shows bring her on intentionally, to create controversy and build ratings. Viewers are drawn to the drama of the fight, for various reasons. Pundits go on these shows for free, so the price of bringing her on is that she plugs whatever book she is plugging at the time.

The books are designed to make her a living as long as she is getting the media appearances. She comes on, provokes a fight, and plugs her most recent book. They are also an awesome foil in that when people complain about her viewpoint she can always rely on "Well you didn't read my book," which would be a reasonable approach if her books weren't part of the game and not attempting to actually move the discourse and everyone on the show knows it.

She knows that she is brought on specifically to stir shit, and will say increasingly provocative things, until she's called on them; at which time she can bring loud outrage and the circle goes on.

See that, she's to living tribute to the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Money for nothing of value.:lol:

Rest my case, Your Honor.

"If the people really knew what went on in Washington , they would burn the place to the ground" Clive Cussler in his book Dragon

Some case, though: 25 plus 24 plus 33 comes to a grand total of 81 words that should have been in quotes -- and some indeterminacies handwaved at. That, sir, is what you've got.

I think I'll still take Coulter over her detractors, though... she did make the cover of Time magazine on her own merits. Her books have me interested in reading her column. As with any columnist, set your BS filters to the proper polarization, and see if you find any value in the column that week.

No, Coulter is just a media whore, being as extreme and sensationalist as she can, at the expense of others (everyone who istn't HER, really), just to make a quick buck.

There are people who will seek absolutely any excuse, no matter how flimsy -- to prevent their own personal growth and any increase in understanding.

None of these people are me.

Nobody is perfect and I think a lot of what she says makes sense. Is there some BS or bias there - absolutely, but its a lot less than the media majority.

So did I, just this past month.

:eek: Wow... just... wow.

Now go ahead, somebody, and tell me if she's making any errors of fact in this column at all.

Your arguments are going to have to be better than hers, be advised, and they'll have to be provable.

Ann Coulter's latest column. It supports what I said about Democrats behaving stupidly or treasonably.

Almost 100% of that turd of a column is unsupportable invective, to the point where it's hard to find provable facts in it to bicker with. She connects the unconnectable, simplifies the unsimplifiable. She paints with the broadest possible brush. I could deliver a smackdown, but it's hard, because every time I try to quote even half a paragraph I find it loaded with this kind of invective, and it's a real drag to try to paw through it to find whatever reality she is pressing for.

I took two courses in Logic in college, (Philosophy 201, Mathematics 204); including a whole section on logical fallacies; and this column should be taught as a part of that course. It is MAJORITY logical fallacies.

Nevertheless, here are a few bones for you to ponder.

- In 1967, Nixon ran on an unstated "secret" plan to end the war quickly, but failed to do so and then failed to really move the conflict towards victory.
- Nixon's removal of ground troops could plausibly be called "cut and run", and surely would be if he was a Democrat and Coulter was evaluating the decision.
- It wasn't the lack of monetary support that doomed the South.
- The North Vietnamese did not attack the South because the Democrats won. The Democrats they were familiar with kicked their royal ass.
- The Democrats did not "invent" Watergate.
- The facts surrounding Watergate appalled a vast majority of Americans, so greatly that in the next election they would put in whatever D was available, especially if he was considered impeccably honest, and a Governor who had never been to Washington with the hope that maybe things would be better with an "outsider".
- In order for a Democracy to win a war, the war has to have public support.
- In general, a "my side is always right while the other is always wrong" approach leads to intellectual dishonesty and a highly irrational view of events.
- Vietnam and Iraq have similarities and differences. The smarter righty pundits point out the differences.

My favorite James Lileks quote applies whenever somebody gets too invective-laden.

And so has WW2. Too many links were laid to Saddam and Hitler, München 1938, postwar Japan and Germany. All neocon Iraq scenarios were self-fulfilling prophecies.