It’s Kagan…


Given the fascination with her sexual orientation the media wants I really couldn’t help but go here…



  1. Alfie, you be bad..!


  2. Elric66 says:

    BREAKING: We Have Elena Kagan’s College Thesis

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Thursday, May 13th at 7:50PM EDT

    This proves Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist. The woman declares that socialists must stick together instead of fracture in order to advance a socialist agenda, which Kagan advocates.

    You can see for yourself right here (PDF).

    Keep in mind that Kagan wrote her thesis at the height of the cold war praising a group that collaborated with our enemies


  3. Elric66 says:

    Obama 2005: A “blank slate” Court nominee must be extra forthcoming in hearings; Update: WH blocks NYT from interviewing brother

    Via Breitbart, 24-karat audio gold mined from the depths of podcast hell by Naked Emperor News. Reminders of Obama’s Senate record on judicial nominations are always lots of fun, just because it’s an area where he did some of his most shameless, appalling pandering to the left. Remember when he acknowledged that Roberts and Alito were super-qualified but insisted he had to vote no because they didn’t have enough “empathy” ‘n stuff? Remember how he actually voted to filibuster Alito, a move that would have our low-rent in-the-tank national media reaching for smelling salts if the GOP pulled it against Kagan? All of that was Obama’s way of sucking up to his base ahead of his presidential campaign; what a joy to be able to use it — and this — against him now for a nominee whom even his biggest toady in the blogosphere describes as embodying “a new level of utter blankness.” Think the bit about being extra forthcoming still holds?

  4. graychin says:

    “I really couldn’t help but go here…”

    Monkey see, monkey do?

  5. Alfie says:

    Monkey see,monkey do Actually my aims were more high browed and deeper.We’ll eventually get around to looking at her real credentials and do away with the sexual orientation thing.I have disliked SNL for most of its history but that particular skit had an aura of what I think is happening now.

  6. Elric66 says:

    Im just concerned she is a socialist.

  7. graychin says:

    Somebody get Elric a bigger tinfoil hat. His is too tight.

  8. Elric66 says:

    Would it matter to you Greychin if she is a socialist? Try not to dodge.

  9. Elric66 says:

    Somehow I knew Graychin would dodge that simple question.

  10. Alfie says:

    I’m going to tuck this here even though some related comments have been nested in another thread.
    I personally find early 20th/late 19th century USA history fascinating.That being said I think the romanticizing of the socialist movement which was directly and indirectly tied to an international movement (read essentially Euro-communism) and how it splintered and each piece moved on is an area that has red meat for all concerned.
    For example it was just days before Kagan was nominated that we were looking at May Day celebrations and memorials to the Haymarket Riot.
    Concerns over law and ideology are valid points to explore especially in a SCOTUS nominee.

  11. Elric66 says:

    “Concerns over law and ideology are valid points to explore especially in a SCOTUS nominee.”

    Especially since she was never on the bench and you have no track record on how she would judge.

  12. As more and more is revealed I am of the thought that she, like the obamination, is nothing less than a stealth player.

  13. graychin says:


    I expect her to be a reliable vote with the liberal bloc. So does everyone else on Planet Earth.


  14. Elric66 says:


    That she has a very little paper trail and accomplishments is a red flag in itself. Kinda like the POS that nominated her.

  15. graychin says:

    Very little paper trail? True. Too bad for her critics , isn’t it? Not very many sentences written that they can pull out of context in a futile effort to discredit her, as they did with Sotomayor.

    But very few accomplishments? Ridiculous!

    1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
    1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
    1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
    1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
    1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
    1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
    1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
    2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
    2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
    2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States

    Sounds like a pretty impressive resume to any fair-minded person. And definitely not so shabby when compared with the resume of “conservative” icon William Rehnquist:

    1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
    1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
    1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel

    As for Elric calling the POTUS a “POS” – let’s just let that one hang out there as a tribute to Elric’s intelligence and rhetorical skills.

  16. Elric66 says:

    “1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School”

    LOL A visiting professor? Confirm her now.

  17. Alfie says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if nominees could stand on their own merits and not the media and hump provided points?

  18. Elric66 says:

    Be also nice if people that write a pro socialist thesis werent nominated.

  19. Tex Taylor says:

    If credentials had anything to do with serving on the Supreme Court, you’d be hearing SCOTUS Robert Bork.

    That was the first of many of acts showing the incompetence a fledgling, libbie Senator with a gift of gaffe – Jolting Joe Biden.

    In other news, it has been almost nine months now since Senator Edward Kennedy, another liar and hypocrite during the Bork confirmation process, quit drinking. I think congratulations are in order!

  20. graychin says:

    If credentials had nothing to do with serving on the Court, you’d be hearing of SCOTUS Justice Harriet Myers. The process isn’t as simple as Tex is.

    As a result of the rejection of Bork we got the centerist Anthony Kennedy instead. 🙂


    “Speak no ill of the dead.” – Ancient proverb

    “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” – Ronald Reagan

    “How low can you go?” – Tex Taylor

  21. Elric66 says:

    Dead Kennedy must really be drying out in Hell. 🙂

  22. Alfie says:

    @Tex I don’t like Teddy but that closer was a tad harsh.
    @gc Bork would’ve been a great justice and it is sick that a lie took him down.
    Your Reagan quote is wwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of context. You know the history behind the “11th Commandment” or do you just think you’re tarring RR?

  23. Tex Taylor says:

    Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — before flip-flopping the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” – Barack Hussein Obama

    “That Faux News rots the mind…Growwwwlll” – Bartlesville Yellow Dog

    “After eleven months of “pouting,” it’s looking a lot like I am not missed here in any meaningful way. These days I’m hanging out at thegreatspot dot wordpress dot com. Please drop by – and spread the word because I have no traffic. – Blog Owner Graychin Wahbag still waiting…

    “Truth cuts deep” – Tex “Smiling” Taylor

  24. graychin says:

    What “lie” took Bork down? Kennedy’s nonsense? Not so. It was Bork’s own extremist views (his “paper trail”) that kept him off the Court. Thank God.

    Since then, Republicans have used the Kennedy playbook in opposing Democratic Supreme Court nominees. Republicans rarely have original ideas.

    I wasn’t tarring Ronald Reagan, but if you want me to I will. He lost every primary while keeping his own “commandment” – until he broke it and went negative against Gerald Ford. The “commandment” was all about not trashing other Republicans and weakening them for the general election – as Reagan wound up doing for Ford against Carter. You know the rest.

    I only intended the Reagan quote as part of a continuum from “speak no ill of the dead” to Tex Taylor. Get that chip off your shoulder.

  25. Tex Taylor says:

    Those extremist views like a fetus is a child, and America is slipping towards Gomorrah – both of which are now commonly held beliefs. Libs are still worshiping like Graychin at the altar of Baal (and Jack Black).

    We only wish Libs had no ideas. Their ideas of Marxism, paganism, and how to build self-esteem in children have damn near bankrupt the country, having kids shooting kids in schools, leaving the unborn on bathroom floors to die, and 7% of Tulsa public school children able to pass the easiest of college classes upon high school graduation without remedial work.

    Everything liberalism/progressivism/paganism – all the same – have touched the last 60 years has been an abject failure.

  26. graychin says:

    Tex, what are some of the major accomplishments of “conservatism” in the past 60 years?

    You can go back as far as 100 years if it makes the task easier.

  27. Alfie says:

    Gray I’d get in on that but you’d so disagree with the entrants I don’t know if it’s worth the effort. Suffice to say there has been short term and long term goods and bads to all the ideologies America has been under.

  28. El Tigre says:

    G-Chin, since you admitted no candidate is perfect, I again ask, “what do you see as Kagan’s shortcomings?” You never answered.

  29. Alfie says:

    Not entirely to gang up on you gc but I’d like to see an example from a Kagan proponent too. With a bonus to the quid pro quo thing I’ll offer that I have serious reservations on her if she plays the no answer game. her previous statements shows some contempt to the process. I’d like to see her rise above that.

  30. Tex Taylor says:

    Big Fish,

    Tex, what are some of the major accomplishments of “conservatism” in the past 60 years?

    (1) Defeated the USSR
    (2) Berlin Wall fell
    (3) Longest continuous economic boom in U.S. History (82-2007) started with Reagan
    (4) Removed Saddam while fighting a two prong war against traitorous Graychin types on homefront and still won “unwinnable war” while fighting the hate America crowd (like Graychin).
    (5) Won Desert Storm in 40 days freeing Kuwait from Saddam.
    (6) Welfare Reform forcing the then serial rapist for President to the table after he revoked it three times. Huge success – until the Marxist Obama took position; now 40MM on food stamps.
    (7) Contract with America lead to largest boom in Wall Street History and reduction of deficit.
    (8) Private and home schooling continually blow public schooling off map in comparison test scoring written by pagans (like Graychin).

    How many more you want Big Fish? 🙂

  31. Alfie says:

    Anyone have something on this? I know I’m violating my YouTube embed policy but it is something I’m curious about.

  32. Elric66 says:

    Not a big Newt fan but he gets it right once in awhile.

  33. graychin says:

    You’re delusional.

    1) and 2) – the Soviet Union collapsed from its own internal contradictions, because Communism doesn’t work. You do believe that communism doesn’t work, don’t you? The people who were the most consistently anti-communist were the ones afraid that communism DOES work. No American strategy brought down the USSR, but Gorbachev helped with his restructuring and openness.

    3) You’re taking credit for the Clinton boom?

    4) Iraq an “accomplishment”? That’s really weak. Yes, Saddam was taken out, but at disastrous cost in lives and money. Plus, we broke it so we bought it. And continue to own it.

    5) Desert Storm? Well done! Whether it was a result of “conservatism” is highly doubtful. How so?

    6) Taking credit for Clinton’s welfare reform? Totally dishonest.

    7) The “contract with America”? Most of it was never enacted. One of its few tangible accomplishments was the Republican congressional takeover in 1994 elections.

    8) Please!

    If these are your top conservative “accomplishments” then I can stand comfortably on my statement. And you are indeed delusional.

  34. graychin says:

    Who is Newt Gingrich, and why does he keep showing up on the teevee on Sunday mornings?

    Actually, I remember Newt all too well. The disgraced former House Speaker, forced to resign by his own party, is only doing what he does best – lying his ass off while making personal attacks.

    Alfie, the following link is at your request:

  35. Tex Taylor says:


    Congratulations – you were wrong on every contradiction, as I knew you would respond this way.

    (1) Clearly Reagan was the first U.S. President to stand up to the Soviet Union, and in fact was criticized severely by cowards like you for calling the USSR an evil empire. Reagan, Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and John Paul capitalized on the shortcomings of the USSR and forced the USSR to compete in the economic market place – it collapsed. To deny this doesn’t change history – no less than Mikhail Gorbachev admitted as much. Strike one for you.

    (2) The Clinton Boom :lol:. Yes, such a boom that with a Democratic Congress, the serial rapist suffered historic losses in 1994 and for the first time in 40 years, we had a Republic Congress through the remainder of Clinton’s term, most notably Newt’s Contract with America. Even the feckless speaker of the house lost his position. Strike two…

    (3) Both Iraq and Desert Storm were carried out without your useless ilk’s approval; your group of sniveling cowards never has the stomach for a fight and will roll over like dogs to even radical Islam. Desert Storm was a coalition led by Republicans – namely George Bush, Colin Powell (later to be proven inept), and the wonderful General H. Norman Schwarzkopf – perhaps the most beautifully carried war short of Israel’s six day war in history. The Iraq War has yet to be written – however, it may indeed prove very valuable in our war against Iran. Our military, with you and your gutless pigs fighting them every step of the way, won the “unwinnable” war by not only overthrowing Saddam, but winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Traitors like you should have been hung and it is still my wish to put a noose around your neck for calling our military mercenaries when they are the only thing saves your fat ass. Bush was the antithesis of LBJ and Nixon. Bush stood tall while you whined and whimpered, then won the war with the surge that even today, shithead for President denies worked.

    (4) Taking credit for Clinton’s welfare reform? Totally dishonest. Yes, you are dishonest, but I already knew that. Do you Big Fish think you know more than Dick Morris? Clinton twice rejected welfare reform (the Contract with America) before being dragged to the table to sign by Morris – who told him he would lose the election without it. Strike three Mofo.

    Now, give me something Liberalism has succeeded at besides losing wars, sliding us toward Gomorrah, and ruining the public school systems genius. I won’t hold my breath.

  36. Tex Taylor says:

    Another lying Dim about his “war record.” Did any of these leftist clowns ever grab a gun, or do they all pretend to be Rambo?

    I kept hearing the words chickenhawk during the Iraqi War? Well, here’s a Dim who definitely qualifies as both chickenhawk and liar.

  37. graychin says:

    I seem to recall JFK “standing up to the Soviet Union.” Something called the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why doesn’t that count? Because JFK was a Democrat?. Selective memory?

    Reagan’s only “standing up” came early in his presidency but it was all sound bites, nothing more. He and Gorby were good buddies by the time Reagan had become addled with Alzheimer’s in 1987-88. “I can do business with this man.” Reagan even agreed in principle with Gorby to get rid of all nukes! Then Gorby eased up on the top-down control and his empire fell apart. The only way to credit Reagan with any part of the Soviet breakup is that he STOPPED being so belligerent.

    I know that “conservatives” want to believe that Ronald Reagan hung the moon and brought down the USSR, but it’s all part of the phony Reagan myth. The USSR brought itself down, with Gorbachev’s well-intended but disastrous leadership. I can see why Gorbachev would rather credit Reagan than blame himself.

    You ARE one of those people who believes that Leninist communism really works, aren’t you? It DOESN”T work, which is whythe USSR finally collapsed. (Cuban and N. Korean communism will collapse too if we stop propping it up.)

    Clinton squeezed a modest tax increase through the Democratic-controlled congress before Newt’s “contract” ended the good times and sidetracked the whole national agenda for the sake of a ridiculous impeachment process. Clinton’s tax increase was in large part responsible for the balanced budget achieved by year 2000, and did NOT wreck the economy as Republican congresscritters predicted. Newt did NOTHING to benefit the economy with his foolish shutdown of the government (that blew up in his face) and impeachment uncertainty.

    I supported Desert Storm. So did many Democrats. I did NOT support the foolish misadventure in Iraq, but some Democrats did and came to regret it. Kerry? Hillary?

    Iraq was misconceived and mismanaged even from before the start. The “brilliance” of the “surge” was more like bringing the resources to bear that would have been necessary from the start if the misadventure had been properly planned. The thing that pisses me off the most about Iraq is that there was no national commitment, no shared sacrifice. If we had been fighting for something worthwhile, the job would not have fallen to military personnel serving four and five tours there while our military was being ground into powder. I was never asked to do one damn thing to help the war effort except to put a “support the troops” yellow ribbon on my car – not even to pay the bills, which Bush just added to the deficit. But back then deficits didn’t matter. If you believe that Iraq was an “achievement” of conservative values, then you have very sick values indeed.

    You forgot to mention Medicare Part D as a great victory for “conservatism.”

  38. graychin says:

    Liar? Yes.

    See how a fake resume catches up with you? Especially in politics?

    Chickenhawk? No.

    A chickenhawk is someone who cheers for war but never bothered to serve, like Cheney and Rush. At least the dimwit from CT showed up for his reserve meetings when his deferments ran out – unlike SOME people I could name. And I’m not aware of Blumenthal being a “hawk” either, “chicken” or otherwise.

    I hope there’s another Dem running for Dodd’s seat. If not, I prefer a lying Democrat to a lying Republican.

    (I was never spat on or subjected to any unkind treatment whatsoever when I got home. Quite the contrary, even from my anti-war friends and acquaintances. I think that the “spat on” myth is another right-wing invention for some political agenda.)

  39. Tex Taylor says:

    Graychin, at best you peeled potatoes in between latrine duty. You as a soldier? 😆

    You’d excuse a serial pedophile if they had a ‘D’ by their name. Besides your toe sucker over their an your untrafficked blog and a few losers at the T-World board, I’ve never read such an unprincipled hack as you.

    Baghdad Bob of Eucha…

  40. Tex Taylor says:

    Clinton as a benefactor of serendipity. Nothing more. He was there when it happened and had the sense to stay out of the way.

    Kennedy was 50 freaking years ago, and while he was facing down the Reds, he was also missing his target one time after another. You not remember the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, or old Jack getting us into something called Vietnam? Even with all his trysts, he was still better than the average Dim, and certainly better than Clinton, Carter and the incomparably worthless Obama.

    I don’t give a shit whether you hated Reagan or not. It’s to be expected. You’re a political hack and nothing more. What you can’t change is the love and admiration most Americans feel for Reagan and history that we all lived through. If we lived in your idea of utopia, we’d look like Romania by now. What you think matters doesn’t mean jack, Jack.

    P.S. – Here’s the real myth and easily provable. Clinton never balanced a budget and never ran a surplus. He did reduce the burgeoning deficit – but there was no surplus. A little research would alleviate your lie, but you parrot everything you hear that confirms your preconceived bias. After you went AWOL in Nam, your own troops flogged your ass for general ineptness. That’s real history.

    Here dummy – set this link to memory and show me the surplus.

  41. Tex Taylor says:

    You forgot to mention Medicare Part D as a great victory for “conservatism.”

    Not only no, but hell no. That’s Democratic methodology 101 right there – the recipe for assured failure, and the reason Bush deserves due criticism.

    We ought to discard it today.

  42. El Tigre says:

    Graychin. . . Graychin?? Bueller. . . Bueller???

  43. graychin says:

    I was being sarcastic about Medicare Part D. You of all people should recognize sarcasm when you see it.

    It wasn’t a bad idea to give Medicare beneficiaries access to a better deal on prescription drugs. It WAS a bad idea to make the government pay whatever the drug companies asked for, and to put the bill on the national credit card. Then the VERY SAME people bitch about Obamacare, which is paid for! And Obamacare fixed the worst features of this Republican-created mess.

    And Billy Tauzin retired from Congress and took a golden parachute from Big Pharma.

    This is why I despise the Republican Party. They are exactly the same as your opinion of Democrats when they are in power, and they oppose even good Democratic proposals when not in charge. But it’s what “conservatives” do – as soon as they get the chance.

  44. El Tigre says:

    Graychin? Bueller? Care to answer my question?

  45. Tex Taylor says:

    I was being sarcastic about Medicare Part D.

    You’re kidding? From you? Why always take everything you say as gospel truth Graychin, being you’re so wise and all (pppplllll).

    Here’s why I hate Obamacare and why I disdain your propaganda. You just lied through your teeth about BongoCare – it fixed nothing and will guaranteed make a bad decision worse. This might finally be America’s undoing. Hopefully, it will be rescinded when we can get rid of this clown.

    Worse, you have to ask people to believe adding 31MM people to the health care rolls is going to be cheaper from a government than can’t find its butt cheeks with both hands. What kind of a moron believes this crap? I may not like you, but I don’t find you stupid. The only thing I can figure is you’ve been a benefactor of other Uncle Sammy and your hand in still in the cookie jar.

    Your wretched thinking is an insult to wisdom. Your continued support of a flimflam and charlatan an indicator of your confusion and delusion. I don’t think you even recognize failure. We now have only 7% of Oklahoma kids graduating from public schools that can even pass the easiest of college classes without remedial education – what’s that say about liberal indoctrination?

    Your politics is an abject failure in every regard except the misery index.

  46. Tex Taylor says:

    Congratulations on Obama Care. This just in…

    Texas Doctors fleeing Medicare at Alarming Rate:

  47. graychin says:

    Kagan’s shortcomings? Well, she’s a human being for one thing. So she definitely has shortcomings. But she seems to me to be an extremely solid candidate.

    Her supposed “lack of judicial experience” is negated by her previous experience as a Supreme Court clerk and by her previous experience as Solicitor General and trying cases there. Being a judge on the Supreme Court is unlike being a judge at any other level, so judicial experience isn’t even all that relevant. I don’t recall any right-wing worry about experience when some of your guys were up for confirmation, although there was considerable reason to worry in some cases.

    If you think she will be ineffective, you should be happy about that. Obama is going to get SOMEONE that he wants, and an ineffective justice should make your side stronger. Right?

    About the biggest negative I can say about Kagan has to do with her physical appearance, and I know how important that is to “conservatives” when judging women. She isn’t attractive at all, but her clothing and appearance are very professional.

    Sorry I couldn’t do better for you. But her critics in Congress who opposed her before they ever heard of her haven’t come up with very much negative either. Mostly that BS about her being anti-military.

  48. graychin says:

    I have no doubt that a small minority of doctors will try to get by without Medicare or Obamacare patients. That is their right. Our friends’ daughter is a very successful South Florida dermatologist who does 100% cosmetic work and takes no insurance of any kind. Cash only, all up front. Good for her.

    All but some “Cadillac” health insurance plans key off what Medicare reimburses anyway. The ones that don’t will, and soon enough. Most doctors already work for insurance companies rather than their patients because insurance (public or private) usually calls the tune. Texas doctors can run from Medicare because they’re pissed at Obama, but they can’t hide. They’ll come home when they get hungry. The future isn’t in paying cash up front for your health care.

  49. El Tigre says:

    G-chin, you made my point and betrayed your own. Obviously, you don’t know shit about her, nor does anyone else. Yet you seem to hardily endorse and defend her nomination.

    “Her supposed “lack of judicial experience” is negated by her previous experience as a Supreme Court clerk and by her previous experience as Solicitor General and trying cases there.”

    Hardly! But even so, the point is that without judicial experience there is no record to look at to measure her approach and temperament on the bench (incidentally, cases are not tried in the Supreme Court, legal arguments are presented).

    You scoff at those that would question her appointment, but your only reason for endorsing her is because Obama chose her. Give me a break.

    There’s plenty to question. And her sexual preference has rightly come to the fore because so little is known about her, her prejudices, bias, temperament, judicial philosophy, etc. You know; all the stuff that was so significant to Obama and the dems with Myers and Bork.

    You should really quit pretending that you stand on a higher plane than anyone that dare call into question her qualifications and disposition. You haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. At least you finally admitted as much.

  50. Tex Taylor says:

    Texas doctors can run from Medicare because they’re pissed at Obama, but they can’t hide. They’ll come home when they get hungry.

    Boastful words from a man that doesn’t know squat about the practice of medicine. Right now, medical schools can’t attract geriatrics, internal medicine or primary care physicians. That was one large reason I left. I can assure you these doctors already board certified will neither go hungry, nor will they cave. They have many options other than practicing at a loss.

    Who will lose is the quality of service provided to patients and it will be the American public that suffers the consequences.

  51. graychin says:

    Reimbursement rates have been set too low for geriatrics? A doctor friend of mine nets over $1 million per year practicing exclusively geriatrics. That’s NET.

    I agree that the fields you mentioned have their reimbursements set too low relative to surgeons and other specialists. But you’re trying to tell me that you would rather be unemployed than stoop to working as a family practice physician because you wouldn’t get paid enough?

    You’re full of shit.

  52. graychin says:

    Tiger, just because she has no paper trail for you to pick at doesn’t mean she won’t make a great justice.

    Look at Rehnquist and Thomas, both of whom had negligible or non-existent paper trails. I assume you are happy with how they turned out.

    “And her sexual preference has rightly come to the fore…”

    That isn’t even worth a response.

  53. Tex Taylor says:

    Talk about full of shit. Hey Jack Black, how much do you want to bet that geriatrics is one of the lowest paid of the medical professions? You’re lying out of your ass, you old queer. One of my best friends is a f*cking head neurosurgeon at St. Johns and he doesn’t make anywhere near what your buddy does. You’re going to tell me someone doing checkups on old people makes more than somebody who holds the CNS in his hands, day in and day out? I smell horseshit waffling through screen from the chief T-World propagandist and liar.

    Yeah, I tell you I would rather be unemployed than pay another 150K plus at least seven years lost wages to practice approximately 10 years in a profession that paid little more than I made in corporate America. Economically, it no longer made sense. You still haven’t figured out I choose to be unemployed, do you? I have no idea if I could find a job because I ain’t trying to find a job.

    I’ll bet a $100.00 my wife makes more than you living in Eucha Buttf*ck, OK ever did. You’re stealing your mom’s social security checks every month as you let Sam pay for the woman you discarded to live in filth. Hey prodigal son, you can kiss my ass.

  54. Tex Taylor says:

    Be a good citizen wholesome Graychin and give me your “friend’s name” so I can report him to the AMA. Average salary of geriatrics – $150K.

    You’re full of shit.

  55. graychin says:

    Tex, who said that everyone has to be average? Just because someone works 16 hours a day and is good at what he does, shouldn’t he be rewarded?

    What are you – some kind of Socialist or something? 😀

  56. graychin says:

    Tex, if I were you, I wouldn’t be bragging about how much your wife makes.

    You’re what we in rural Oklahoma call a “go-getter.” They’re the guys who hang out in the coffee shop or beer joint all day until their wives get off work. Then it’s time to “go get her.” 😀

    Seriously, my friend the geriatric doc can make an amazing number of patient encounters per day in nursing homes. They line up to see him and he spends all of a couple of minutes on each one, and repeats the process the following month. A medicare reimbursement rate of $45 or so per visit adds up fast when you see perhaps 100 patients per day. And he’s a darned good doctor, too. He has netted over $1 million per year for the last ten years or so. I’ve seen his tax returns.


  57. Tex Taylor says:

    As far as being a “go-getter.” Nope – it’s better than that. She even drives herself to work. 🙂

    Jealous of sixteen hour days? That would be a big nyet. I could have had that in medical school.

    Why don’t you share your friend’s name so I can observe an expert at work? A hundred patients a day? That’s approximately nine minutes and a half minutes per patient. That’s terrific patient care. What does your “friend” do, take their temperature and pat their back? Kind of like an assembly line, hey? Yeah, I can see why you guys would be good friends.

    I would call that a classic case of Medicare Fraud.

    Or more likely, you’re full of shit. What other lie would you like me to catch you in tonight?

    Or back to my original question. Why don’t you give me his name so I can report him for fraud and abuse?

  58. Tex Taylor says:

    By the way, your math still doesn’t work liar – unless of course, your “friend” works every day of the year at 16 hours a day, does it without help, and has no expenses to speak of.

    Want to try again about your rich friend Graychin and where he derives his “income.”

  59. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    ” That’s approximately nine minutes and a half minutes per patient. ”

    It’s less. Graychin said so.

    “…he spends all of a couple of minutes on each one…”

  60. El Tigre says:

    G-chin, you said it all: “About the biggest negative I can say about Kagan has to do with her physical appearance.” Profound. Thank you for proving my point.

  61. graychin says:

    He has lots of help – nurses and office staff. But no other doctors. No nurse practitioners, no PA’s. It’s all him.

    His process can accurately be described as an “assembly line.” The patients in the nursing homes line up to see him. He dictates his orders to a nurse standing at his elbow. His nurses do the taking of vitals etc.

    He is also my mother’s doctor, and his management of her prescriptions has literally saved her life – over two distinct conditions. She is healthier under his care today than she has been in decades. And my mother is very fond of him personally. They joke and talk about the city where both of them are born. She asks him about his kids. I wouldn’t let her see him if I thought she could get better care from someone else.

    He rarely sees patients in his office. My mother has only been there once while he was figuring out how to manage her congestive heart failure (which has faded away with the right meds). I would estimate that he spends less than five minutes per month with my mother at her residence now that she is stable. He spends a lot of office time on each patient in addition to face time with them, reviewing blood work, managing prescriptions, charting etc.

    Like I said, who decided that a geriatric doc has to be average? The AMA? Obama? You? Are you some kind of socialist or something? The guy has simply learned how to maximize his skill financially in a way that is entirely ethical and legal. You got a problem with that?

  62. graychin says:

    Tiger – and what was your point again?

  63. El Tigre says:

    The depth of your analysis is no different than expected, which is zero. But in response, I will say that Rehnquist’s and Thomas’ appearance was/is acceptable to me. Kagan appears to me to be a lesbian. Since she won’t comment but Obama has, who knows? I am curious about that. I am also curious about her intellectual leanings when it comes to issues she might face such as reproductive rights, gay marriage etc. You know; the kinds of things that might be influenced by her sexual orientation — or might not. Well hell, I would like to know anything about her. Obviously you don’t since, while butch and unattractive, she seems well-kempt. My 8 year old son shares your observations.

    Tell me how Rehnquist and Thomas bolster or detract from Kagan’s credentials again?

  64. Tex Taylor says:

    Sounds like a raging case of Medicare Fraud to me, plus a heap of exaggeration from Jack Black Sr.

    But if this doctor friend of yours is so spectacular and your saintly friend running with a sacred cow like you, why the need to charge Medicare rates for assembly line service? That’s glorified pill pushing and nothing more. That’s why the system is going bankrupt.

    Surely your priestly “friend” could live on a couple of hundred thousand a year and do it as charitable works instead of enriching himself where bankruptcy imminent? Where’s these charitable works that you say only you and your ilk can demonstrate?

    Or is this a classic case of Lefty doing as he says and not as he does?

  65. Tex Taylor says:


  66. El Tigre says:

    Tex, I hadn’t been able to lift the lid on Rehnquist’s coffin. I understand he let himself go over last few years.

  67. graychin says:

    I have no clue about the doctor’s politics, except that he whines much less about his taxes than most doctors do who have much less income.

    Actually he makes very generous donations to the schools he attended. But he doesn’t go to church. Most of the highly pious types whose taxes I have seen make huge donations to one church, and no donations anywhere else. Which is their right, of course.

    I remain surprised at how resentful you are of the doctor’s financial success. Class envy? Class warfare?

    Or are you just a dirty Socialist?

  68. graychin says:

    “Tell me how Rehnquist and Thomas bolster or detract from Kagan’s credentials again?”

    Obviously, they don’t.

    I’m merely pointing out your hypocrisy in fretting over Kagan’s resume, when it is actually much stronger than the resumes of either of those two fine “conservative” icons.

  69. graychin says:

    “That’s glorified pill pushing and nothing more.”

    As is much of what passes for medical practice in America today. Doctors are under constant pressure from the clinics that employ them to see more patients, and to generate more revenue for the employer’s affiliated hospital. But not outside the law of course! (wink, wink)

    What my mother needed for both of her life-threatening conditions was… PILLS! The right pills, of course, in the right dosages – which other doctors couldn’t find. The two minutes that he spends with my mother are worth infinitely more than a doctor who spends thirty minutes with her and can’t figure her out.

    And Tex – don’t forget to ask YOUR doctor which pill is right for YOU! 😀

  70. El Tigre says:

    Using hypocrisy to point out “my hypocrisy???” Where have I commented on Thomas or Rhenquist previously? In the words of Mark Twain, “get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

    Clearly you and logic are not meant for each other. But you do keep things entertaining.

  71. Tex Taylor says:

    Congestive heart failure doesn’t fade away Jack with a pill – that’s commonly referred to “masking”. Or did our resident pseudo-scientist not know evolution hasn’t yet solved the problem of mitosis for the heart?

    I always found that ironic…kind of like we’ve timed for death.

    By the way dunce cap – most doctors still set their own number of patients. This baloney about pushing for more and more patients is another in a long list of lib lies about medicine.

    After all, you as much admitted doctors are mostly evil Republicans. Libs are more interested in liberal arts, as all but a few bad at math as your example from above attests.

  72. Alfie says:

    Just to keep it political….
    PILLS! The right pills, of course, in the right dosages
    So you appreciate that the blue pill may not be the right pill even if a bureaucrat says you should /must take the blue one.

  73. Elric66 says:

    Kagan: Shrill for Sharia?

    by Frank Gaffney

    Newt Gingrich is among those who have noted a serious chink in the protective armor the Obama administration and Elena Kagan’s other defenders have tried to throw up around her Supreme Court nomination. The vulnerability has taken on increased importance insofar as it involves one of the few concrete positions or actions taken by the nominee in a long career almost completely bereft of written or spoken positions that shed light on her judgment and potential judicial philosophy.

    Well she is a demomarxist, isnt she?

  74. graychin says:

    A “shill for Sharia”? 😀 😀 😀

    That’s even weaker than the “anti-military” nonsense.

    Keep trying, Elric. Your persistence is admirable, if your lack of critical skills is not.

  75. graychin says:

    “So you appreciate that the blue pill may not be the right pill even if a bureaucrat says you should /must take the blue one.”

    Indeed I do. I also appreciate that it may be the wrong pill when the for-profit insurance company (that is accountable to no one) says she should / must take it.

    What’s the difference? At least bureaucrats are accountable – at some level, however remote – to the political process.

  76. graychin says:

    “But you do keep things entertaining.”

    That’s me – spreading joy to the world! 😀

  77. Elric66 says:

    “That’s even weaker than the “anti-military” nonsense.”

    Great counter argument. About as strong as your arguement on why the Palis didnt have a statehood from 48-67. Oh wait, you pussed out on that, you totally dodged that. 🙂

Comments are closed.