The Watering Hole

Just a quick question for you.

Do you know who the surgeon general is right now?

Of course you don't. That wasn't a fair question because well, we don't have one at the moment. And, we haven't had one in almost a year.

We are now facing Ebola, without a surgeon general.

How are we going to know if Ebola causes cancer without a surgeon general?  ;D ;D

The Surgeon General has warned that watching Fox News can be harmful to your health.  ;D

I always smoked the cigarettes that had the Surgeon General warning that could be harmful to pregnant women.  I wasn't much worried about that.

I guess the obvious choice is the guy that has been doing the job for over a year.  He seems to have all of the needed creds.  The last one I actually remember is Koop.  There has been about a dozen since him.  It seems that they only hit the news when it's time to save the world.  I would guess that the (Acting) Surgeon General is on the scene.

I actually saw this on MSMBC. Ole Rachel was bitching about it last night. I figure I'm safe from Charger since she's bitching too.  ;D

Hey, maybe the lack of a SG is why we have this problem. Yeah, it's Obama's fault.  :o

We don't have a surgeon general because the Republicans are weak-willed puppets who cannot vote against the NRA, not because a qualified candidate hasn't been nominated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/23/ted-cruz/cruz-obamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/

BTW, the Ebola panic is ludicrous. Get educated on it.  We've had 2 deaths from Ebola in the US in 2014.  You know how many deaths we've had from, say, bee stings in that time (I found 2 in the first 2 results on Google)?  How about peanut allergies (6)?  How about the common cold (EV-D68 has killed at least 5)? Flu (over 300 in California alone)? Pneumonia (?)? How about, oh, guns (10,167)?  None of those "health crises" is causing a panic...

charger — Oct 27, 2014We don't have a surgeon general because the Republicans are weak-willed puppets who cannot vote against the NRA, not because a qualified candidate hasn't been nominated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/23/ted-cruz/cruz-obamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/

I can see both sides of the argument. But the real question here is, why the hell would you "attempt" to have this guy? There are many, many people surely qualified to handle this position. It goes back to the fight between Obama and republicans. They are both at fault. Their acting like children. And they both are failing at the jobs we elected them to do. Thats the facts of this matter regardless of who you blame. And that should be the topic of news agencies, not all this bickering bullshit. Thats my opinion on the matter.

charger — Oct 27, 2014BTW, the Ebola panic is ludicrous. Get educated on it.  We've had 2 deaths from Ebola in the US in 2014.  You know how many deaths we've had from, say, bee stings in that time (I found 2 in the first 2 results on Google)?  How about peanut allergies (6)?  How about the common cold (EV-D68 has killed at least 5)? Flu (over 300 in California alone)? Pneumonia (?)? How about, oh, guns (10,167)?  None of those "health crises" is causing a panic...

If you listen to news much, you'll find everything can kill you, I agree with you.

However, lets take the guns thing you mentioned. Thats a pretty blanket statement of comparison. I think we'd need to know the stats, the specifics. I really wouldn't blame guns on 2 gangs shootin it out and 20 gang members die. Or hunting accidents. Stuff like that. I pretty much think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll probably do it. Not sure the lack of guns would stop them. It might reduce murder rates for example, which is hard to argue against, I'll admit. Still think the gun thing is a poor comparison and it shows bias out the ass.

Hookbender — Oct 28, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#3 date=1414433786]We don't have a surgeon general because the Republicans are weak-willed puppets who cannot vote against the NRA, not because a qualified candidate hasn't been nominated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/23/ted-cruz/cruz-obamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/

I can see both sides of the argument. But the real question here is, why the hell would you "attempt" to have this guy? There are many, many people surely qualified to handle this position. It goes back to the fight between Obama and republicans. They are both at fault. Their acting like children. And they both are failing at the jobs we elected them to do. Thats the facts of this matter regardless of who you blame. And that should be the topic of news agencies, not all this bickering bullshit. Thats my opinion on the matter.

Because he's qualified?

Hookbender — Oct 28, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#4 date=1414434178]BTW, the Ebola panic is ludicrous. Get educated on it.  We've had 2 deaths from Ebola in the US in 2014.  You know how many deaths we've had from, say, bee stings in that time (I found 2 in the first 2 results on Google)?  How about peanut allergies (6)?  How about the common cold (EV-D68 has killed at least 5)? Flu (over 300 in California alone)? Pneumonia (?)? How about, oh, guns (10,167)?  None of those "health crises" is causing a panic...

If you listen to news much, you'll find everything can kill you, I agree with you.

However, lets take the guns thing you mentioned. Thats a pretty blanket statement of comparison. I think we'd need to know the stats, the specifics. I really wouldn't blame guns on 2 gangs shootin it out and 20 gang members die. Or hunting accidents. Stuff like that. I pretty much think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll probably do it. Not sure the lack of guns would stop them. It might reduce murder rates for example, which is hard to argue against, I'll admit. Still think the gun thing is a poor comparison and it shows bias out the ass.

What, it's not legitimate to bring up something that kills 10,000 people a year, but it is legitimate to bring up a disease that is so incredibly rare that it might kill 4 people this year?  That shows the real bias to me.  You've given in to fear mongering over something that is not legitmately impactful over something that is legitimately impactful.  Just because no one wants to do anything about guns, or, for example, alcohol, doesn't mean they don't have public health impacts.  It just means no one wants to touch them.  Ebola is more exciting, but in the grand scheme of things, it will kill less people in the US than the common cold, or peanuts.  

Hookbender — Oct 28, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#3 date=1414433786]We don't have a surgeon general because the Republicans are weak-willed puppets who cannot vote against the NRA, not because a qualified candidate hasn't been nominated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/23/ted-cruz/cruz-obamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/

I can see both sides of the argument. But the real question here is, why the hell would you "attempt" to have this guy? There are many, many people surely qualified to handle this position. It goes back to the fight between Obama and republicans. They are both at fault. Their acting like children. And they both are failing at the jobs we elected them to do. Thats the facts of this matter regardless of who you blame. And that should be the topic of news agencies, not all this bickering bullshit. Thats my opinion on the matter.

What are the two sides?  The president getting to put up a nominee vs the NRA's paranoid hand of control over the GOP?

charger — Oct 29, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1413373376/0#5 date=1414534984][quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#3 date=1414433786]We don't have a surgeon general because the Republicans are weak-willed puppets who cannot vote against the NRA, not because a qualified candidate hasn't been nominated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/23/ted-cruz/cruz-obamas-surgeon-general-pick-not-health-profes/

I can see both sides of the argument. But the real question here is, why the hell would you "attempt" to have this guy? There are many, many people surely qualified to handle this position. It goes back to the fight between Obama and republicans. They are both at fault. Their acting like children. And they both are failing at the jobs we elected them to do. Thats the facts of this matter regardless of who you blame. And that should be the topic of news agencies, not all this bickering bullshit. Thats my opinion on the matter.

Because he's qualified?

Thats Obama fucking with republicans. He knows they won't approve and he can bitch about them more than he already does because they refused to approve him. Read the link you posted. Come on man.  ;D You really think republicans would go for him? Hell no. Obama knew that. Then he just runs to his room and crys and says, you won't approve my guy, we just won't have one at all.  ;D Thats the way I see it. ;D A bunch of kids wasting time on bullshit unstead of doing their goddamn jobs. I think the congress should be fired, the senate, and the President. Damn right I do.

Many others surely could do the job without all the baggage this guy has. Jeez.

charger — Oct 29, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1413373376/0#6 date=1414535857][quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#4 date=1414434178]BTW, the Ebola panic is ludicrous. Get educated on it.  We've had 2 deaths from Ebola in the US in 2014.  You know how many deaths we've had from, say, bee stings in that time (I found 2 in the first 2 results on Google)?  How about peanut allergies (6)?  How about the common cold (EV-D68 has killed at least 5)? Flu (over 300 in California alone)? Pneumonia (?)? How about, oh, guns (10,167)?  None of those "health crises" is causing a panic...

If you listen to news much, you'll find everything can kill you, I agree with you.

However, lets take the guns thing you mentioned. Thats a pretty blanket statement of comparison. I think we'd need to know the stats, the specifics. I really wouldn't blame guns on 2 gangs shootin it out and 20 gang members die. Or hunting accidents. Stuff like that. I pretty much think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll probably do it. Not sure the lack of guns would stop them. It might reduce murder rates for example, which is hard to argue against, I'll admit. Still think the gun thing is a poor comparison and it shows bias out the ass.

What, it's not legitimate to bring up something that kills 10,000 people a year, but it is legitimate to bring up a disease that is so incredibly rare that it might kill 4 people this year?  That shows the real bias to me.  You've given in to fear mongering over something that is not legitmately impactful over something that is legitimately impactful.  Just because no one wants to do anything about guns, or, for example, alcohol, doesn't mean they don't have public health impacts.  It just means no one wants to touch them.  Ebola is more exciting, but in the grand scheme of things, it will kill less people in the US than the common cold, or peanuts.  

I think it's an unfair comparison. And your post is purely based in speculation. You have no way to predict the impact ebola will have anywhere period. And if it's so insignificant, why is Obama on every news channel talking about it and how serious it is?.... instead of the surgeon general who will actually understand what he's saying?  ;D  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!  That all sounds very realistic, but only if you're paranoid and just buying the paid messages, o wait

When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

charger — Oct 30, 2014When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 

Hookbender — Oct 30, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#13 date=1414681290]When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 


Gotta do what the NRA wants, y'know, just gotta

Hookbender — Oct 30, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#13 date=1414681290]When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 

You think it's okay then that the NRA can make this call for America? What if the special interest in question was Planned Parenthood?

Hookbender — Oct 30, 2014[quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#13 date=1414681290]When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 

Did you read his credentials?
His organization supports the following:

The letter lays out several policy suggestions, including a ban on assault weapon sales, instituting universal background checks and removing laws that prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own a gun -- similar to other Doctors for America proposals.

These policy proposals are relatively mainstream and expected from someone who is a political ally to the president. They are also similar to policies supported by other medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the NRA has painted the Doctors for America policy proposals as radical.

charger — Oct 30, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1413373376/0#15 date=1414707395][quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#13 date=1414681290]When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 

You think it's okay then that the NRA can make this call for America? What if the special interest in question was Planned Parenthood?


Absolutely not. No question about it. And all the pussies in office right now, today, should be fired, including the President, for letting the NRA influence anything political in nature.

charger — Oct 30, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1413373376/0#15 date=1414707395][quote author=charger link=1413373376/0#13 date=1414681290]When Bush was president, he appointed people who were conservative. The Senate, by and large, approved them.  See: the current Supreme Court.  Note that the Republicans never needed a supermajority to get approvals through the Senate, and they never had one. When Obama nominates people, they are more liberal, obviously.  But in order to approve any of them, he now needs 60 Senators, to avoid a filibuster.  And very few get approved.  Your argument seems to be that a president doesn't get to choose his nominees now that he's a Democrat.  And by the way, the NRA is not elected to any office.  The NRA is a special interest.  The kind that you would probably rail on if our lawmakers were bending to their whims, and they were liberal.

Goddamn, when will you ever get over Bush? Is he the President? No. Who cares about Bush?

Everyone knew that was going to be the case. When we were arguing about Obama, before he was elected, even I mentioned that if he were elected he wouldn't be able to do shit. Me. An old redneck from Alabama. Don't act suprised about that. Thats one reason I didn't vote for him the second time. He couldn't do shit. Not his fault entirely, but his hands were and are tied. America chose to make history by electing the first Black President, that they knew couldn't get shit done, over a really smart, but fucking stupid at the same time, Palin,  and punished McCain for picking her..... and a guy that probably thinks when he dies he will be a God of his own planet and wears magic underwear......  Romney. Dude, I could beat them. They are pitiful choices. (McCain and Romney)

The NRA. Obama could find someone that was liberal, and could be approved, and not marching against the NRA. Face it, this guy has baggage. A conservative wouldn't elect him to to pick up dog shit out peoples yard. Barehanded. 

Did you read his credentials?
His organization supports the following:

The letter lays out several policy suggestions, including a ban on assault weapon sales, instituting universal background checks and removing laws that prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own a gun -- similar to other Doctors for America proposals.

These policy proposals are relatively mainstream and expected from someone who is a political ally to the president. They are also similar to policies supported by other medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the NRA has painted the Doctors for America policy proposals as radical.

Yes. I read it.