Barack Obama

[transjen]

Bingo ... !!! So how is this any differnt from a HMO? Where a pencil pushing accountant who is not a DR decides wheather or not you recive a needed treatment, All the scare tactics that those agianst healthcare reform claim will happen already happens every single day by ins companies who can care less about your health they only care about profits and are scared to death that there gravey train my be coming to an end


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Jen, I can tell you firsthand that gov. run healthcare is shitty. How do I know? There are 2 letters that explain it:VA. The VA provided healthcare that veterans get for life is absolutely fucking abysmal.

The wait for services is incredibly long(It took me 6 fucking months to get a goddamn X-ray of my knee and I have preference because I'm an OIF vet.)so god knows how long it takes for WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets.

They use the same kind of treatment that would be seen on active duty; namely the "prescribe painkillers till the problem goes away" type treatment.

They don't really bother to try and treat something unless you are on the brink of death.

They don't have a very good track record for keeping their shit together; it seems to be procedure to lose hundreds of thousands of vets records which resulted in thousands of people being the victims of identity theft.


After experiencing firsthand the abuses of the VA system, I'm gonna have to stick with privatized healthcare.(I also used to be enrolled in the state run system, MediCal, when I was a kid and that was an even bigger clusterfuck.)


It's amazing that people want the same Gov. that stiffed its vets returning home from WW1 of their pay and then shot them when they protested, to be in charge of their health and wellbeing.

[randolph]

ROHRABACHER LETS LOOSE.... When a liberal Democrat accuses congressional Republicans of being more interested in playing "political games" than governing, it's not especially surprising. When a conservative Republican House member does it, the remarks tend to stand out.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) took shots at his own party's leaders in the House currently, and blasted fellow Republicans for having failed to have reform healthcare during the first six years of the Bush administration, when Republicans held Congress and the White House.

"Unfortunately, I see a lot of Republicans simply involved in political games," Rohrabacher said in an interview with conservative bloggers at this past weekend's Western Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), in videos posted by the conservative blog Hot Air.

"The Republican leadership in the House right now is constantly trying to play a political game every day to try and get a headline, and I don't think that's going to take us anywhere," he added.

Rohrabacher added that his GOP colleagues as focused solely on the "next couple days of headlines." He went on to say that some Republican lawmakers, and even some Republican leaders on the Hill, are "totally out of touch" with "what's going on" with "regular" Americans.

Keep in mind, Rohrabacher is not exactly some reform-minded moderate. He's a very conservative lawmaker -- he once said global warming was caused by dinosaur flatulence and dismissed torture as "hazing pranks from some fraternity" -- who was even caught up in the Abramoff scandal.

And even he's disdainful of congressional Republicans right now.

from Washington Monthly

[transjen]

I know next to nothing about the VA healthcare as i never servied and the only family member who i know ever servered in the army was my father's older brother who was drafted in nam and sadly he was kia so i know none of the pluses or draw backs to VA care, Is goverment run healthcare the cure all? I don't know but i do know the current system is way over due for a major fix and trusting the insureance companies to govern themselves is not the answer
:eek: Jennifer

[raconteur]

So how is this any differnt from a HMO? Where a pencil pushing accountant who is not a DR decides wheather or not you recive a needed treatment, All the scare tactics that those agianst healthcare reform claim will happen already happens every single day by ins companies who can care less about your health they only care about profits and are scared to death that there gravey train my be coming to an end.
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Well, I belong to a HMO and I get whatever I need or want, so I have no complaints. If anything, there may be a few too many referrals to specialists for concurrences! Were it not for the very attentive staff at my HMO, I surely would be dead now, or, slowly dying in agony from terminal cancer!

I volunteered for a while at a VA hospital and I can tell you, firsthand, that the care given is awful. I wrote complaint letters to the VA and my legislators which got me banned! My cat gets better care from his Vet!

Ask the Canadians who have to come to the US to avoid death what they think of the "public option"!

Robbing elder care to fund folly is insanity! But then, none of us will ever grow old, so why should we worry ... NOT! :lol:

Go volunteer at the VA, or a charity rest home, and you'll gain a new perspective! You need to try to walk a mile in the shoes of the neglected to have any real feeling for how badly our Congress is trying to screw us!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress ...

[randolph]

I belong to the Kaiser HMO in California. They saved my life when I had a burst appendix. Their health care has improved dramatically over the years and I now consider excellent. I believe one of the reasons it provides excellent health care at competitive cost is that it is a NONPROFIT CORPORATION. It is run by doctors not accountants for the benefit of their members, not investors. :yes:
Other countries, like Holland can have excellent health care without breaking the bank. Unfortunately the US is so politicized and dominated by corporate interests that good health care for everyone seems impossible.:frown:

[raconteur]

I volunteered for a while at a VA hospital and I can tell you, firsthand, that the care given is awful. I wrote complaint letters to the VA and my legislators which got me banned! My cat gets better care from his Vet!


CORRECTION:

Saying, "the care given is awful", was unfair of me. I should have more correctly said that a lot of good people at the VA hospital were woefully underfunded and tried very hard to help, though their resources were very limited. It is difficult for them to endure knowing that a few more bucks would make such a real, positive difference. They do what they can with what they're given to work with. (Our Congress strikes again. :broken: )

Our injured fighting men and women deserve better, for sure! :respect:

[The Conquistador]

Unfortunately the US is so politicized and dominated by corporate interests that good health care for everyone seems impossible.

The thing that really bites us in the ass is that we do have "universal healthcare"; it's called the ER. The fact that people walk into the ER for all sorts of problems regardless of whether or not it is life threatening is what hurts us. Since it is the policy to not turn away anyone who comes in and alot of those people don't have the money to pay for their stuff, the cost gets passed on to those who can. Those who pay end up covering the costs so that their neighbor can pop Prozacs like Bon-Bons.

I can choose what type of vehicle I buy, I can choose what kind accessories come with it, I can choose my own insurance provider, so why can't I choose who I want to buy my healthcare from?

[The Conquistador]

CORRECTION:

Saying, "the care given is awful", was unfair of me. I should have more correctly said that a lot of good people at the VA hospital were woefully underfunded and tried very hard to help, though their resources were very limited. It is difficult for them to endure knowing that a few more bucks would make such a real, positive difference. They do what they can with what they're given to work with. (Our Congress strikes again. :broken: )

Our injured fighting men and women deserve better, for sure! :respect:

Actually it is rather shitty; I don't use it any more for that exact reason.

[The Conquistador]

I know next to nothing about the VA healthcare as i never servied and the only family member who i know ever servered in the army was my father's older brother who was drafted in nam and sadly he was kia so i know none of the pluses or draw backs to VA care, Is goverment run healthcare the cure all? I don't know but i do know the current system is way over due for a major fix and trusting the insureance companies to govern themselves is not the answer
:eek: Jennifer

The VA sucks fat donkeyballs. The more distance you can get from any Gov. run programs, the better. What we need is for healthcare to be more competitive. Competition spurs growth, and growth increases supply and the more you have of something, the less the cost will be. Sure, some medical plans may not be the fanciest and provide ass reduction surgery or something like that, but it would definetly cover the basics and that's all anyone really needs. The rest is just bonus. I don't know about you but I'd like to to choose from either Provider A, Provider B, Provider C, Provider D, Provider F or Provider G rather than get stitched up at Peoples Medical Facility # 274. :yes:

[transjen]

. What we need is for healthcare to be more competitive. Competition spurs growth, and growth increases supply and the more you have of something, the less the cost will be. Sure, some medical plans may not be the fanciest and provide ass reduction surgery or something like that, but it would definetly cover the basics and that's all anyone really needs. The rest is just bonus. I don't know about you but I'd like to to choose from either Provider A, Provider B, Provider C, Provider D, Provider F or Provider G rather than get stitched up at Peoples Medical Facility # 274. :yes:The would be ideal but you know it will never happen look at Bush's drug plan for medicare drug prices haven't gone down they went up and when W gave them his drug plan he said that comatition would bring down drug prices logical yes but the drug companies don't compete with each other they hang together as does the health insurence companies eho were given antitrust protection which allows them to met and set rates


:frown: Jennifer

[The Conquistador]

The would be ideal but you know it will never happen look at Bush's drug plan for medicare drug prices haven't gone down they went up and when W gave them his drug plan he said that comatition would bring down drug prices logical yes but the drug companies don't compete with each other they hang together as does the health insurence companies eho were given antitrust protection which allows them to met and set rates


:frown: Jennifer

No, it would work. What we need is for the Gov. to stop meddling with private business. Medicare is another Gov. run crock-o-crap. Why did the drug plan not work? Since the "man" runs Medicare, it just went back to him. It was only done as a sort of publicity stunt to show that the Gov. is actually doing something regardless of who benefits from it to keep people from getting pissed off. All it was was a warm, fuzzy feeling that did nothing. There was no competition going on since it was all funneled through a Gov. program.

An institution that has been known to pocket your money for themselves and leave you with "lowest bidder" products (Government)

vs.

Multiple institutions that compete for your cash and put out superior products(private business)



The choice ain't that hard.

[The Conquistador]

In other news: I had a Chile Relleno burrito from 7-11. I feels:yes: good!

[transjen]

No, it would work. What we need is for the Gov. to stop meddling with private business. Medicare is another Gov. run crock-o-crap. Why did the drug plan not work? Since the "man" runs Medicare, it just went back to him. It was only done as a sort of publicity stunt to show that the Gov. is actually doing something regardless of who benefits from it to keep people from getting pissed off. All it was was a warm, fuzzy feeling that did nothing. There was no competition going on since it was all funneled through a Gov. program.

An institution that has been known to pocket your money for themselves and leave you with "lowest bidder" products (Government)

vs.

Multiple institutions that compete for your cash and put out superior products(private business)



The choice ain't that hard.So we should just let the health insurence compties do what ever the want after all we can trust big bussiness right well that kind of thinking lead to the whole WALL STREET mess the choice ain't that hard strip the health insurence companies of there anti trust proctection then perhaps prices will come down as they will no longer be able to meet in private and decide how much to charge


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

In other news: I had a Chile Relleno burrito from 7-11. I feels:yes: good!DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER gas alert gas alert


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

It's the only burrito that tastes good and doesn't cause me to shit myself.:D

[The Conquistador]

So we should just let the health insurence compties do what ever the want after all we can trust big bussiness right well that kind of thinking lead to the whole WALL STREET mess the choice ain't that hard strip the health insurence companies of there anti trust proctection then perhaps prices will come down as they will no longer be able to meet in private and decide how much to charge


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

I'm not saying that businessess are squeaky clean, but given the choice, I'd pick the lesser of the two evils. People learn, Governments don't.

[transjen]

It's the only burrito that tastes good and doesn't cause me to shit myself.:DAll i know is that every time my boyfriend eats one of those he farts like there's no tommorow


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

The Chile Relleno burrito has no beans in it; it's a Serrano pepper stuffed with cheese, fried in an egg batter, surrounded with some more cheese and wrapped with a tortilla. No anal nerve agents produced:yes:


Beans, beans the musical fruit...

[transjen]

I'm not saying that businessess are squeaky clean, but given the choice, I'd pick the lesser of the two evils. People learn, Governments don't. And that is why there anti trust protection needs to be taken away and someone needs to watch over em to make sure they play fair to let them do what ever they want will leave us in the same mess we are in now, I find it hard to belive that any company that pays there CEO over a hundred million+ per year want to see any kind of reform and will do what's best for the suckers who have there policy. We are the only country who has a for profit healthcare system and the drug companies and health insurance don't want anything to change. Something needs to change good healthcare should not be reserverd for the rich but should be for everyone


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Something needs to change good healthcare should not be reserverd for the rich but should be for everyone

Read this: http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2007_healthcare.shtml

1) Healthcare is one of those things where it is a personal responsibility. While your body can regenerate, it is your responsibility to take care of it. I shouldn't have to have my money taken from me because some lardass doesn't have enough self control to stop eating Ho-Hos; if they want to self -induce diabetes, they can do it on their own dime. Same thing with people who are cavalier with their body. Your health is not my responsibility.

2) It is not an entitlement just for being popped out of someones crotch. If you don't work and contribute nothing, you deserve nothing. I shouldn't have to pay for some welfare bums medical treatments after he gets a nightstick shoved up his ass by the cop he tried to shoot. Society needs to reward those who are hardworking, successful and positive, not burden them with "guilt" because some loser is "less fortunate".

3) What I do with my money is my damn business, not the governments. Who the hell needs more red tape in their lives?

4) The ER is for EMERGENCIES ONLY! If you're a hypochondriac who worries about getting cancer from a paper cut, you need to see a shrink, not a surgeon. If you're a cheap bitch who can't shell out $3 for some Tylenol and wastes time getting it free from the ER, don't be surprised when I give you an even bigger headache with a tire iron.

5) Having the Gov. tell me that I need this is equivalent to telling me that I am a knucklewalking schmuck who is incapable of making coherent decisions myself, so I need a G-man to do it for me. I don't take kindly to being called an idiot, especially by lazy, self-serving bureaucrats.

6) Dr. Thomas Sowell: "If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves."

[transjen]

So only the rich should be taken care of and screw the poor guy who maybe is stuck between jobs and no longer has any health ins just let him suffer with a broken arm or how about those who are stuck at a low paying job who can't afford to buy there own so i guess it to bad for them just let them die after all it's there own fault they are not rich and only the rich deserve top health care
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

So only the rich should be taken care of and screw the poor guy who maybe is stuck between jobs and no longer has any health ins just let him suffer with a broken arm or how about those who are stuck at a low paying job who can't afford to buy there own so i guess it to bad for them just let them die after all it's there own fault they are not rich and only the rich deserve top health care
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

It is obvious you did not read the link nor took the time to read my actual statements as you have just tried to counter an arguement with emotions.

[randolph]

Wall Street's Naked Swindle
A scheme to flood the market with counterfeit stocks helped kill Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers - and the feds have yet to bust the culprits

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Oct 14, 2009 9:30 AM

These are the last three paragraphs of a extremely important article in Rollingstones. Very scary!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30481512/wall_streets_naked_swindle/print

The counterfeit nature of our economy is troubling enough, given that financial power is concentrated in the hands of a few key players - "300 white guys in Manhattan," as a former high-placed executive puts it. But over the course of the past year, that group of insiders has also proved itself brilliantly capable of enlisting the power of the state to help along the process of concentrating economic might - making it less and less likely that the financial markets will ever be policed, since the state is increasingly the captive of these interests.

The new president for whom we all had such high hopes went and hired Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive who accepted a $2.2 million bonus after he joined the White House, to serve on his economic transition team - at the same time the government was giving Citigroup a massive bailout. Then, after promising to curb the influence of lobbyists, Obama hired a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, as chief of staff at the Treasury. He hired another Goldmanite, Gary Gensler, to police the commodities markets. He handed control of the Treasury and Federal Reserve over to Geithner and Bernanke, a pair of stooges who spent their whole careers being bellhops for New York bankers. And on the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when he finally came to Wall Street to promote "serious financial reform," his plan proved to be so completely absent of balls that the share prices of the major banks soared at the news.

The nation's largest financial players are able to write the rules for own their businesses and brazenly steal billions under the noses of regulators, and nothing is done about it. A thing so fundamental to civilized society as the integrity of a stock, or a mortgage note, or even a U.S. Treasury bond, can no longer be protected, not even in a crisis, and a crime as vulgar and conspicuous as counterfeiting can take place on a systematic level for years without being stopped, even after it begins to affect the modern-day equivalents of the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What 10 years ago was a cheap stock-fraud scheme for second-rate grifters in Brooklyn has become a major profit center for Wall Street. Our burglar class now rules the national economy. And no one is trying to stop them.:eek::frown::censored:

[ila]

This post is for those that want to debate the healthcare issue in the U.S.

I think that you should start a new thread to deal with just the proposed government healthcare. This is a debate with the potential to generate many comments and should not be confined to the Obama thread as this involves more than just Obama. If you would like, I can move all healthcare posts into the new thread should one be started.

[transjen]

It is obvious you did not read the link nor took the time to read my actual statements as you have just tried to counter an arguement with emotions. I did read your post and i was responding to the first point you pointed out while i agree that it is your own responisibilty to take care of yourself but you don't seem to consider the mishaps of everyday life you can eat all the rite foods exercise everyday and still fall off a bike or go skiing and break a bone from the points you made it sounds like if you don't have your own health ins or a large bank account then it's to bad for you just suffer and die quickly, As for just walk in to an ER and get free care well guess what you get the bill by being charged a lot more since you have health ins so in fact you are paying for the unhealthy all ready so why not just pony up and give everyone decent healthcare which will help small bussness since they will no longer need to provide healthcare benfits and the GOP should love this it would end medicare and medicade as both will no longer be needed universel healthcare is what we need and end our backwards for profit healthcare system


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

I did read your post and i was responding to the first point you pointed out while i agree that it is your own responisibilty to take care of yourself but you don't seem to consider the mishaps of everyday life you can eat all the rite foods exercise everyday and still fall off a bike or go skiing and break a bone from the points you made it sounds like if you don't have your own health ins or a large bank account then it's to bad for you just suffer and die quickly, As for just walk in to an ER and get free care well guess what you get the bill by being charged a lot more since you have health ins so in fact you are paying for the unhealthy all ready so why not just pony up and give everyone decent healthcare which will help small bussness since they will no longer need to provide healthcare benfits and the GOP should love this it would end medicare and medicade as both will no longer be needed universel healthcare is what we need and end our backwards for profit healthcare system


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen


In an idealistic world that would work. Unfortunately we live in the real world where things like that don't happen. Look at all the countries that have adopted Gov. run this and Gov. run that. Even though there is "economic equality" or some other BS, the quality of products is quite shitty and everyone is made equally poorer than if they had not had Gov. involvement. Universal healthcare is another scam by the powers in charge to make people dependent on the "man" for their needs. Look at how bogus welfare, Social Security and numerous other programs are and do you honestly expect Gov. controlled healthcare to be any less of a clusterfuck just because Obama "says so?"

Besides, how often do you expect to use your healthcare? Yes some things are out of our hands, but the odds of something detrimental happening to you are enormously small. Unless you get hit by a flaming gas tanker or something or happen to be accident prone, you are not going to rack up a giant debt.

Healthcare is not an entitlement. It is earned just like everything else we have. It is part of the meritocracy that helped to make America. Saying that everyone derves this or that is rather naive. Being compassionate to the point where you let it blind you to certain truths like the fact that life is cold is a losing strategy.

If you can afford a plasma screen TV, an Escalade with spinners and a hot rod or rice rocket but are to lazy to shell out extra bucks for your health, you deserve to get hit by a car. Life is full of trade offs; your health should be priority and everything else is just a bonus.

[transjen]

Then why is the average life span in England,French, Germany, Sweden longer then ours and healthcare is no where near as expensive? And what about the guy who has no plasma tv or sports car who barely gets by? A guy who works 40 hrs a week but his company pay low wages and offers no benafits? How in the nine hells can he afford $7000 and up for healthcare insurence? And you forget just a visit to your reg DR is around $100 just for a check up you want a flu shot that's another 50 buck added to the bill and God help you if he needs lab work done on you hope you have an extra grand sitting around
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Then why is the average life span in England,French, Germany, Sweden longer then ours and healthcare is no where near as expensive? And what about the guy who has no plasma tv or sports car who barely gets by? A guy who works 40 hrs a week but his company pay low wages and offers no benafits? How in the nine hells can he afford $7000 and up for healthcare insurence? And you forget just a visit to your reg DR is around $100 just for a check up you want a flu shot that's another 50 buck added to the bill and God help you if he needs lab work done on you hope you have an extra grand sitting around
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

For the first part:

Who cares about Europe? You forget that alot of them come over here for surgeries just like our Canadian neighbors are. If it was so great, people would be going to Europe, not coming here. Show me links about their longevity and other such stuff for me to actually care about them.

For the second part:

How often would said person be going to the doctors for a check up? How much money could be saved between check ups if people were responsible and not blowing thier money on stupid shit?

[The Conquistador]

Here's one for you Jen. You constantly talk about "Big Business" and "lining their pockets" and "the rich getting richer".

Take a gander at this: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2009/10/insurance-industry-profits.html


Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Insurance Industry Profits

It is claimed by the Obama administration as well as leftists who like to make You Tube videos that the reason health care costs are so high is because of the profits the insurance industry makes. And that if we were to just get rid of those profits then the savings could be passed onto everyday people like you and me.

I was excited about this prospect of paying lower health insurance and so to see how much in savings would be passed onto me I looked up Aetna, one of the larger publicly traded insurance companies out there. I did this on Reuters because Reuters will not only show you the profit margins for the company you are looking at, but the entire industry. That way you can see just how high of profit margins these companies have and how much you're going to save!!!

*See Profitability Ratios picture below*

Wow! The past 12 months the insurance industry has had a profit margin of .94%. That's not 94% for those of you who majored in liberal arts and never took calculus, that's .94%, LESS THAN 1%.
Now I'll be kind and intellectually honest enough to admit the 5 year average has been 4% in the industry, but are you freaking kidding me? At maximum a savings of 4%?

And let us not kid ourselves kiddies, with the amazing efficiency of the government managing a health insurance plan, you damn well know it's going to gobble up more than that paltry 4% LIKELY COSTING YOU MORE THAN A PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER WOULD.

Oh, but it's not really about the cost, is it? It's the fact somebody else will be paying for it. And that's what this is all about. I just wish people would be intellectually honest about this.





Now compare ins. company profits with their archnemesis COCA-COLA!
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=KO

It would seem that Coca-Cola is "lining their pockets" with alot more money than the Ins. companies, seeing as how sugary drinks scored a 26.3%. Alot higher than medical...

Somehow I feel that you are going to completely disregard this though...

[transjen]

Well i went to Thailand for a major sugery this past Jan as the same sugery here is over double the cost and i won't have received better care or even a better outcome i just would have paid a hell of a lot more and fyi i saved a long time to pay for it
So you think everything is just fine and dandy as it is the poor should save there money and gladly fork it over to greedy DR's or just curl up and die, Oh you got cancer and are one of the working poor well sucks to be you so just curl up and die because only the rich deserve healthcare
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Well i went to Thailand for a major sugery this past Jan as the same sugery here is over double the cost and i won't have received better care or even a better outcome i just would have paid a hell of a lot more and fyi i saved a long time to pay for it

I'm glad that your surgery went A-OK.:) That is one of the reasons why I advocate competitive healthcare. The more competition there is, the less the costs are. That is why your surgery cost less. More competition selling their goods at a lower price.


So you think everything is just fine and dandy as it is the poor should save there money and gladly fork it over to greedy DR's or just curl up and die, Oh you got cancer and are one of the working poor well sucks to be you so just curl up and die because only the rich deserve healthcare
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

No I do not think everything is fine as it is. I think the Gov. needs to STOP MEDDLING IN BUSINESS and let the market function as it should. I'm one of the working poor and yet I have saved up enough money to cover my costs. Just because I can afford my healthcare doesn't mean I'm rich Jen. If someone is too stupid to save their money or invest it wisely, then they will get what's coming to them and I will not feel sorry in any way.

It seems you have preformed predjuices and don't care what I have to say, so until you stop basing every single one of your arguements off of emotion, I will not respond to any more of your comments.

[TracyCoxx]

Oh you got cancer and are one of the working poor well sucks to be you so just curl up and die because only the rich deserve healthcare
I just skimmed through your posting. Whatever country you're talking about should do it like the US system where 80% are satisfied with their healthcare. Not just for the rich.

It seems you have preformed predjuices and don't care what I have to say, so until you stop basing every single one of your arguements off of emotion, I will not respond to any more of your comments.
That would be Jen's World. She's very happy there.

[TracyCoxx]

Remember that little thing in the constitution about freedom of press? The highly educated Obama must have missed that day in school. Probably while he was in Indonesia. They have denied access to the 'pay czar' from Fox News, while giving other networks access to him. Thank you to the other networks who stood up for Fox News and the constitution and insisted the White House give Fox News access.

[randolph]

Remember that little thing in the constitution about freedom of press? The highly educated Obama must have missed that day in school. Probably while he was in Indonesia. They have denied access to the 'pay czar' from Fox News, while giving other networks access to him. Thank you to the other networks who stood up for Fox News and the constitution and insisted the White House give Fox News access.

The so called "Fox News" is nothing more than a propaganda machine for conservatives. It's a piece of shit distorting everything Obama and the moderates in this country are trying to do. F--k Fox News.:censored:

[randolph]

The following site documents many of the most outrageous distortions, lies and misinformation put out by Fox News.:frown:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

[jimnaseum]

Politics has become so SOCIAL that platforms are being determined by the same people that program TV shows and commercials. The truth has become anything you want to hear. But Republican or Democrat, the middle class needs salvation. The middle class in the USA pays for EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING

[TracyCoxx]

The following site documents many of the most outrageous distortions, lies and misinformation put out by Fox News.:frown:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047I will admit that Fox News is biased. You should also admit that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS are liberally biased. Not to mention several national newspapers such as the New York Times. While I admit that Fox News is biased, I also think Fox News has a lot of reporting that a hypothetical non-biased news channel would be airing, and it only seems like it's right wing propaganda because you've become numbed to all the liberal reporting out there. And as far as their actual bias, it happens to be the type of news I'm looking for. Yes, it's biased, but aside from occasional errors, it is accurate. Otherwise you guys could easily cry BULLSHIT on the stuff I'm writing.

And I see you've dodged the issue I brought up by waving around Fox News errors. Careful, you'll end up not being taken seriously like Jen if you start to blow off obvious foul-ups. Don't pretend other media outlets don't make mistakes. The point is the Obama administration is once again restricting freedom of the press, and this time even the other networks saw BO went too far and said Enough. Take a cue from your favorite liberal news sources. Even they remember 'I may not approve of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

[randolph]

I will admit that Fox News is biased. You should also admit that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS are liberally biased. Not to mention several national newspapers such as the New York Times. While I admit that Fox News is biased, I also think Fox News has a lot of reporting that a hypothetical non-biased news channel would be airing, and it only seems like it's right wing propaganda because you've become numbed to all the liberal reporting out there. And as far as their actual bias, it happens to be the type of news I'm looking for. Yes, it's biased, but aside from occasional errors, it is accurate. Otherwise you guys could easily cry BULLSHIT on the stuff I'm writing.

And I see you've dodged the issue I brought up by waving around Fox News errors. Careful, you'll end up not being taken seriously like Jen if you start to blow off obvious foul-ups. Don't pretend other media outlets don't make mistakes. The point is the Obama administration is once again restricting freedom of the press, and this time even the other networks saw BO went too far and said Enough. Take a cue from your favorite liberal news sources. Even they remember 'I may not approve of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

I would have to agree that most of the commercial media is biased, which I can live with. I check Drudge Report every day along with Huffington Post. The flagrant rhetoric spewing out of the likes of Glenn Beck make a mockery of news reporting. Increasingly, the news media is a blend of news and silly verbal antics. It is hard enough to comprehend what is going on in the world without all this wild nonsense. :frown:

[randolph]

Nice family!:yes:

[randolph]

Ahimsa
(Non-violence)

by Douglas Milburn, Editor

World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin anew.
-King.

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
-Gandhi.


These people on television, our rulers, understand violence. Very well. Everywhere in the world they have massive schools of violence (called "armies"), and the students of those schools use the most advanced tools of violence that scientists and engineers can devise.

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.
-King.

How do we respond to this ancient governance of violence?

Two wise humans in the 20th century came to the same answer: non-violence, Gandhi and King. (Don't dismiss Gandhi and King for their imperfections; very wise humans aren't perfect just as very talented humans aren't either-viz. Mozart and Shakespeare).

Simple? Well, yes and no.

The violent of course view non-violence as at best simplistic and at worst dangerously naïve ("We live in a violent world; we must fight fire with fire...").

Non-violent resistance implies the very opposite of weakness. Defiance combined with non-retaliatory acceptance of repression from one's opponents is active, not passive. It requires strength, and there is nothing automatic or intuitive about the resoluteness required for using non-violent methods in political struggle and the quest for Truth.
-Gandhi.

I am neither smart enough nor wise enough to figure out what to do-and how to do it-in response to these people who are driving the world to destruction.

Consider this graph, which shows the number of war-deaths by century:

wardeaths.jpg (22072 bytes)

Note the logarithmic increase.

Question: As you survey the world now, can you see ANY reason why the bar for the 21st century will not continue upward? Ponder the political, religious, commercial, and scientific leadership of the world now, and ask yourself: Does the behavior of any of those people give any indication that the outcome of their leadership will be any less bloody than that of the leadership of previous centuries?

I cannot find any such indication, a result that, if correct, means we are facing a planetary blood-letting on an unprecedented scale. 200,000,000 war-dead in the 20th century is a horrific statistic. Given the exponential nature of the graph and the endemic lack of wisdom on the part of our present leaders we can only assume a 21st-century number that is beyond horrific, indeed beyond language.

Somewhere, younger, smarter, and potentially wiser humans must give thought to the problem and find new versions of old answers, just as King did vis-à-vis Gandhi.

In a huge, poor country, Gandhi, faced with the army and resources of the greatest empire in world history, came up with a solution that worked. Through ahimsa (non-violence), he achieved independence for India.

King, modeling his revolution on Gandhi's philosophy, pulled off a similar miracle, bringing an end to the long-standing legal implements of American racism.

Presented wisely, the philosophy of action called "non-violence" is powerful and, for many desperate humans, as irresistible as an oasis in the desert.

Where is the young, thoughtful Muslim infected to the point of boundlessly optimistic non-violence by the thoughts and deeds of Gandhi and King? Where is the similarly infected young, thoughtful American? Or Chinese? Or Indian?

We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers.
-King.

There is no way we can defeat these people, our rulers, on their own terms with their own weapons. Not only are we outnumbered, we are wholly out-armed. They can escalate to any level of violence they deem necessary to maintain the status quo (meaning, their world of violence): start with billyclubs and truncheons, go to tasers and water cannons, then tear gas, then tanks and mortars and landmines, then bombs and bombs and more bombs.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
-Gandhi.

If we let them define the conflict as one of force, they will always win.

Gandhi knew this. King knew this.

The way of ahimsa, non-violence, is the only way. Because it is the only way that can work for us.

Because it is truly subversive: the violent, remember, scorn the non-violent as cowards, not worthy of attention (at least at first, until our numbers grow).

Because it is the only way that can change the world. To respond to violence with violence only produces more violence, no matter how good the initial intentions (viz. the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution).

The first, and in many ways the hardest, step to non-violence is within. It is the step that must be taken by one, then by many, if we are to not merely survive but survive and thrive.

You must be the change you want to see in the world.
-Gandhi.

Literally speaking, ahimsa means non-violence. But to me it has much higher, infinitely higher meaning. It means that you may not offend anybody; you may not harbor uncharitable thought, even in connection with those who consider your enemies. To one who follows this doctrine, there are no enemies. A man who believes in the efficacy of this doctrine finds in the ultimate stage, when he is about to reach the goal, the whole world at his feet. If you express your love- Ahimsa-in such a manner that it impresses itself indelibly upon your so called enemy, he must return that love.
This doctrine tells us that we may guard the honor of those under our charge by delivering our own lives into the hands of the man who would commit the sacrilege. And that requires far greater courage than delivering of blows.
-Gandhi.

Once one assumes an attitude of intolerance, there is no knowing where it will take one. Intolerance, someone has said, is violence to the intellect and hatred is violence to the heart.
-Gandhi.

Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our very being.
-Gandhi.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
-Gandhi.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
-King.

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love.
-King.

Nonviolence is absolute commitment to the way of love. Love is not emotional bash; it is not empty sentimentalism. It is the active outpouring of one's whole being into the being of another.
-King.

And the leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every time we drop our bombs in North Vietnam, President Johnson talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They are talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but one day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.
-King.

In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.
-King.
:yes::respect:

More:
"The Essential Gandhi"
$10.40 at amazon.com.

More:
"A Testament of Hope:
The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King"
$15.57 at the amazon.com

[The Conquistador]

All that stuff sounds great and all, but is entirely unrealistic.

[randolph]

All that stuff sounds great and all, but is entirely unrealistic.

Unrealistic? well it worked for India and for blacks in America. I'm not so sure it would work for a-rab terrorists.:frown:

[The Conquistador]

Unrealistic? well it worked for India and for blacks in America. I'm not so sure it would work for a-rab terrorists.:frown:

Unrealistic? Yes. It fails to notice that no matter how much people strive for peace, someone will always be there to take advantage of the situation. And no it did not work well for India or Black America. India just got the Brits to leave (look at how impoverished they are now) and the Assassination of Dr. King just lead the way for ideological slavery of a community that was actually making leaps and bounds up until that point.

However you are correct about the Middle Eastern folks.

[TracyCoxx]

The flagrant rhetoric spewing out of the likes of Glenn Beck make a mockery of news reporting. Increasingly, the news media is a blend of news and silly verbal antics. It is hard enough to comprehend what is going on in the world without all this wild nonsense. :frown:
Glenn Beck doesn't do news. Although most of what he says seems to be accurate.

[randolph]

Glenn Beck doesn't do news. Although most of what he says seems to be accurate.


From dickipedia

Personal life

Beck talks about his life all the time, so even the most casual listener or viewer knows that he grew up in the Seattle area with a serious case of attention deficit disorder, and his mother drowned herself when he was 13, and one of his brothers committed suicide, and another brother died of a heart attack, and he was a major pothead and an alcoholic who downed a gallon of Jack Daniel's a week, all of which cost him his first marriage.

After his divorce, Beck met his second wife, Tania. As a condition for marrying him, Tania said that she and Beck would have to jointly find a religion that suited both of them. They picked Mormonism, an odd choice considering that it's the kind of religion where you feel sorry for those poor kids who are born into it and can't imagine anyone joining it voluntarily
[edit]
Radio and TV

Beck did the traditional radio bounce-around, doing deejay duty in Washington, Corpus Christi, Baltimore, Houston, Phoenix and Hartford. His career was undistinguished until he subbed for a talk show host and "suddenly realized I've been in the wrong format." In January 2000, he landed on WFLA-AM in Tampa, where The Glenn Beck Program combined right-wing talk with a form of humor, one example of which is: "Hezbollaerobics...because no one fears a tubby terrorist!"

Okay, you're not laughing, but the show started out in 18th place and went to #1 not long before September 11, 2001.

Beck, like Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA), whose sex scandal story evaporated in the heat of the 9/11 flames, was a direct beneficiary of the planes flying into the buildings, since the result was that jingoistic and xenophobic talk show hosts were suddenly in higher demand. The Glenn Beck Program was nationally syndicated and quickly found a very large audience of people eager to believe that ignorant criminals were not running the country.

Newly empowered as a nationally syndicated right-wing radio dick just as White House dick George W. Bush was drumming up support for what would turn out to be the most humiliating, reputation-trashing fiasco in the nation's history, Beck organized pro-Iraq War "Rally for America" events in 18 cities for his Bush-buddy bosses at Clear Channel.

Beck used the forum of the people's airwaves to go after the Dixie Chicks, who'd had the effrontery to share with a London audience their shame at what was being done in America's name. He also felt compelled to weigh in on the Terri Schiavo case, leading the charge of rant radio against letting the poor woman die.

In May 2006, Beck's empire expanded into television when he began hosting the eponymous prime-time hour Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News. Not long after, he declared himself to be "sick of this whole global warming thing." Beck claims it takes generations before we can tell anything about climate change, so what we should do now is just go about our lives in a business-as-usual fashion and not worry so much about finding out later that we've destroyed the planet.

In November 2007, Beck signed a five-year deal with Premiere Radio Networks said to be worth $50 million.

In his 2007 Washington Post profile of Beck, David Segal wrote, "Listen to a few of Beck's shows and what strikes you most is the enormous ratio of words to substance - how Beck can monologue for minutes at a time and leave behind almost nothing except the impression of great vehemence."

In the spring of 2009, Beck will depart CNN for Fox News. The move will provide more money and even lower journalistic expectations making it a win-win for Beck, but a lose-lose for people who like information. Though, as some have noted, this will leave a gaping hole in CNN's "department of embarrassing conservatives we keep around to help us appear unbiased," insiders expect that other irritable commentators will continue to step up in this area.

Sounds like a real winner. Millions of people listen to this guy? :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Sounds like a real winner. Millions of people listen to this guy? :frown::censored:
Yeah, he's done a great job exposing the gang of nut jobs that BO has for czars, and who the Apollo alliance is, who ACORN is, and how whackjobs from Weather Underground are still alive and well and influencing BO's policies and bills.

I do not agree with him about Global Warming though. As I may have said before, global warming is not a political issue. It's science. Politicians and political talk show hosts from either side should not be talking about it. They should shut up and let actual climatologists talk about it.

About him being a Mormon? The christian crap is something I have to grit my teeth over with these conservatives. As long as they don't say we should be conservatives because in the bible it says blah blah blah... And yes, I know some, including Bush do say that. I ignore that and pay attention to more down to earth reasons for the conservatism agenda.

[randolph]

Glenn Beck doesn't do news. Although most of what he says seems to be accurate.

"Clearly, Glenn Beck is not your typical teleprompter-reading news host. Beck admitted to CBS anchor Katie Couric that he was not a journalist, yet he disseminates news, information and opinions to a large portion of the American populace. What is he, then, if not a journalist?

Beck seems to borrow heavily from a variety of trades, functioning as a quasi-comedian, actor, news host, journalist, radio disc jockey, entertainer, author and preacher, just to name a few. He can be as funny and entertaining as the Comedy Channel's satirical hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but he also possesses the gravity and moral certitude of a religious pastor.

More so than most journalists and news hosts, Glenn Beck knows how to effectively sell the news to his audience. Moreover, he uses the medium of television to make the process of news-gathering simultaneously entertaining and easy for his viewers. Of course, any semblance of objectivity goes out the window when a provocative and emotive character like Beck takes such a primetime stage.

If Beck is any indication of the future of television news, given his show's popularity and high ratings, we will most likely see an upswing in the amount of emotion and entertainment infused in news production at the expense of careful, objective, balanced and thoughtful analysis among journalistic sources.

But do most viewers want thoughtful analysis? Or do they want to be entertained?"

The trouble is most viewers now don't know the difference between news and entertainment.:(

[randolph]

"I do not agree with him about Global Warming though. As I may have said before, global warming is not a political issue. It's science. Politicians and political talk show hosts from either side should not be talking about it. They should shut up and let actual climatologists talk about it."

Unfortunately, some morning we are going to wake up to climate change and wonder why we didn't try to do something about it.
We are in a canoe drifting down a river and the noise of the waterfall is getting louder and louder.:eek:

[TracyCoxx]

"Clearly, Glenn Beck is not your typical teleprompter-reading news host. Beck admitted to CBS anchor Katie Couric that he was not a journalist, yet he disseminates news, information and opinions to a large portion of the American populace. What is he, then, if not a journalist?
He's a political commentator.

Beck seems to borrow heavily from a variety of trades, functioning as a quasi-comedian, actor, news host, journalist, radio disc jockey, entertainer, author and preacher, just to name a few. He can be as funny and entertaining as the Comedy Channel's satirical hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but he also possesses the gravity and moral certitude of a religious pastor.
A versatile political commentator.

But do most viewers want thoughtful analysis? Or do they want to be entertained?"I'll take some entertainment. When he goes off the deep end I laugh but I want to see more of his analysis. At times he presents a very thorough and scary picture of what's going on with the government. And I realize it takes time to gather this information, so I tolerate his occasional bouts of goofiness.

[randolph]

" By Kevin Drum | Tue October 27, 2009 12:03 PM PST

Andrew Sullivan thinks the "opt-out" public option is a piece of political genius. Imagine, he says, what happens next if it passes:

Well, there has to be a debate in every state in which Republicans, where they hold a majority or the governorship, will presumably decide to deny their own voters the option to get a cheaper health insurance plan. When others in other states can get such a plan, will there not be pressure on the GOP to help their own base? Won't Bill O'Reilly's gaffe - when he said what he believed rather than what Roger Ailes wants him to say - be salient? Won't many people - many Republican voters - actually ask: why can't I have what they're having?

....Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere. Now, of course, if the public option is a disaster in some states, this argument could work in the long run. But in the short run? It's political nightmare for the right as it is currently constituted. In fact, I can see a public option becoming the equivalent of Medicare in the public psyche if it works as it should. Try running against Medicare.

I was mulling over the exact same scenario last night and couldn't quite make up my mind about how this would play out. In the end, though, I think Andrew's argument is pretty compelling. As Rich Lowry complained over at The Corner, "Does a state get to opt-out of the taxes too?" That's technically a moot point if the public option is truly self-funding, but in the reality of the political world it's powerful whether it makes sense or not. It's like Republican governors turning down stimulus money: it sounds good on the stump, but who's going to do it in the real world? It's crazy if you're paying for it anyway.

So yes, this could be a huge winner. If it passes, then for the next four years Republican state legislators all over the country will be teaming up with the universally loathed insurance industry to try and deny their citizens access to a program that, to most of them, sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't know if Harry Reid was deviously thinking exactly that thought when he decided on this, but I'll bet someone was. It's hard to think of something that could force the GOP to make itself even more unpopular than it already is, but this might be it."

It won't be the first time Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

[randolph]

He's a political commentator.


A versatile political commentator.

I'll take some entertainment. When he goes off the deep end I laugh but I want to see more of his analysis. At times he presents a very thorough and scary picture of what's going on with the government. And I realize it takes time to gather this information, so I tolerate his occasional bouts of goofiness.

Ahh yes, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, ect, ect. What ever happened to the likes of Eric Sevareid and Edward R. Murrow? :(

[TracyCoxx]

Well, there has to be a debate in every state in which Republicans, where they hold a majority or the governorship, will presumably decide to deny their own voters the option to get a cheaper health insurance plan.
If the debate is about a cheaper health care system that provides at least the same coverage that the majority of the population receives now, then sure, there's no debate. But Kevin Drum forgot to mention the little detail that it will cost more for worse health care.

[The Conquistador]

I can see a tax hike if the "public option" healthcare goes through. How else will they appropriate people's money to pay for the crap?

[randolph]

If the debate is about a cheaper health care system that provides at least the same coverage that the majority of the population receives now, then sure, there's no debate. But Kevin Drum forgot to mention the little detail that it will cost more for worse health care.

Cost more for whom? right now we pay through the nose for healthcare and one of the reasons is that hospitals have to provide healthcare for people who dont pay at emergency centers. The cost is applied to the payers. The system is broken and will get worse without revision.
The other aspect is that the conservative leadership doesn't give a shit about healthcare they are using the issue to try to weaken Obama's popularity by endless distortions and outright lies. Fuck the poor, fuck the underprivileged, only the people with good paying jobs deserve to have their healthcare paid by their employers. :frown::censored:

[The Conquistador]

Cost more for whom? right now we pay through the nose for healthcare and one of the reasons is that hospitals have to provide healthcare for people who dont pay at emergency centers. The cost is applied to the payers. The system is broken and will get worse without revision.
The other aspect is that the conservative leadership doesn't give a shit about healthcare they are using the issue to try to weaken Obama's popularity by endless distortions and outright lies. Fuck the poor, fuck the underprivileged, only the people with good paying jobs deserve to have their healthcare paid by their employers. :frown::censored:

Ha ha ha! The Government is one giant clusterfuck. Look at the DMV, Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security and numerous other programs/Gov. run institutions and ask yourself if they will do any better with healthcare. And give a clear, concise reason as to why and not the usual "Cuz the Obamessiah sez so" reason.

Then ask yourself where in the heck will they get the money to pay for all of it.

Why do people from Canada and other countries come here to get treated if they have Gov. sponsored healthcare in their own homelands that is "accessible" and "affordable"?

What is to stop them from denying you coverage?

Where else will you go if you get denied?

Are you willing to give up your healthcare for a lower standard?




A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on Paul's support

Villainy wears many masks; but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

[randolph]

I suggest you find a nice cute young California tranny and let her release your frustrations.
California is heaven on earth compared to the rest of the earth where its either too hot or too cold or too wet or too dry or the government is even more fucked up than California's.;)

[The Conquistador]

I suggest you find a nice cute young California tranny and let her release your frustrations.
California is heaven on earth compared to the rest of the earth where its either too hot or too cold or too wet or too dry or the government is even more fucked up than California's.;)

I have been looking for a cute Cali tranny but have been unsuccessful so far. The only good thing about this state is the weather. I might just move to TJ. I've seen soem smokin hot tgirls down there.

Who's the cute chick in the pics? Is she local to SD?

[The Conquistador]

SUNDAY FORUM: SUCK IT UP, AMERICA
We have become a nation of whining hypochondriacs, and
the only way to fix a broken health-care system is for all of
us to get a grip, says DR. THOMAS A. DOYLE
Anita Dufalla/Post-Gazette, Sunday, October 11, 2009,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09284/1004304-109.stm
Post-Gazette illustration by Anita Dufalla
Emergency departments are distilleries that boil complex
blends of trauma, stress and emotion down to the essence
of immediacy: What needs to be done, right now, to fix the
problem. Working the past 20 years in such environments
has shown me with great clarity what is wrong (and right)
with our nation's medical system.
It's obvious to me that despite all the furor and rancor,
what is being debated in Washington currently is not
health-care reform. It's only health-care insurance reform. It
addresses the undeniably important issues of who is going
to pay and how, but completely misses the point of why.
Health care costs too much in our country because we deliver too much health care. We
deliver too much because we demand too much. And we demand it for all the wrong
reasons. We're turning into a nation of anxious wimps.
I still love my job; very few things are as emotionally rewarding as relieving true pain and
suffering, sharing compassionate care and actually saving lives. Illness and injury will
always require the best efforts our medical system can provide. But emergency
departments nationwide are being overwhelmed by the non-emergent, and doctors in
general are asked to treat what doesn't need treatment.
In a single night I had patients come in to our emergency department, most brought by
ambulance, for the following complaints: I smoked marijuana and got dizzy; I got stung by
a bee and it hurts; I got drunk and have a hangover; I sat out in the sun and got sunburn; I
ate Mexican food and threw up; I picked my nose and it bled, but now it stopped; I just had
sex and want to know if I'm pregnant.
Since all my colleagues and I have worked our shifts while suffering from worse symptoms
than these (well, not the marijuana, I hope), we have understandably lost some of our
natural empathy for such patients. When working with a cold, flu or headache, I often feel I
am like one of those cute little animal signs in amusement parks that say "you must be
taller than me to ride this ride" only mine should read "you must be sicker than me to come
to our emergency department." You'd be surprised how many patients wouldn't qualify.
At a time when we have an unprecedented obsession with health (Dr. Oz, "The Doctors,"
Oprah and a host of daytime talk shows make the smallest issues seem like apocalyptic
pandemics) we have substandard national wellness. This is largely because the media
focuses on the exotic and the sensational and ignores the mundane.
Our society has warped our perception of true risk. We are taught to fear vaccinations,
mold, shark attacks, airplanes and breast implants when we really should worry about
smoking, drug abuse, obesity, cars and basic hygiene. If you go by pharmaceutical
advertisement budgets, our most critical health needs are to have sex and fall asleep.
Somehow we have developed an expectation that our health should always be perfect, and
if it isn't, there should be a pill to fix it. With every ache and sniffle we run to the doctor or
purchase useless quackery such as the dietary supplement Airborne or homeopathic cures
(to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year). We demand unnecessary diagnostic
testing, narcotics for bruises and sprains, antibiotics for our viruses (which do absolutely
no good). And due to time constraints on physicians, fear of lawsuits and the pressure to
keep patients satisfied, we usually get them.
Yet the great secret of medicine is that almost everything we see will get better (or worse)
no matter how we treat it. Usually better.
The human body is exquisitely talented at healing. If bodies didn't heal by themselves, we'd
be up the creek. Even in an intensive care unit, with our most advanced techniques applied,
all we're really doing is optimizing the conditions under which natural healing can occur.
We give oxygen and fluids in the right proportions, raise or lower the blood pressure as
needed and allow the natural healing mechanisms time to do their work. It's as if you could
put your car in the service garage, make sure you give it plenty of gas, oil and brake fluid
and that transmission should fix itself in no time.
The bottom line is that most conditions are self-limited. This doesn't mesh well with our
immediate-gratification, instant-action society. But usually that bronchitis or back ache or
poison ivy or stomach flu just needs time to get better. Take two aspirin and call me in the
morning wasn't your doctor being lazy in the middle of the night; it was sound medical
practice. As a wise pediatrician colleague of mine once told me, "Our best medicines are
Tincture of Time and Elixir of Neglect." Taking drugs for things that go away on their own is
rarely helpful and often harmful.
We've become a nation of hypochondriacs. Every sneeze is swine flu, every headache a
tumor. And at great expense, we deliver fantastically prompt, thorough and largely
unnecessary care.
There is tremendous financial pressure on physicians to keep patients happy. But unlike
business, in medicine the customer isn't always right. Sometimes a doctor needs to show
tough love and deny patients the quick fix.
A good physician needs to have the guts to stand up to people and tell them that their baby
gets ear infections because they smoke cigarettes. That it's time to admit they are
alcoholics. That they need to suck it up and deal with discomfort because narcotics will
just make everything worse. That what's really wrong with them is that they are just too
damned fat. Unfortunately, this type of advice rarely leads to high patient satisfaction
scores.
Modern medicine is a blessing which improves all our lives. But until we start educating the
general populace about what really affects health and what a doctor is capable (and more
importantly, incapable) of fixing, we will continue to waste a large portion of our health-care
dollar on treatments which just don't make any difference.
Dr. Thomas A. Doyle is a specialist in emergency medicine who practices in Sewickley
(tomdoy@aol.com). This is an excerpt from a book he is writing called "Suck It Up,
America: The Tough Choices Needed for Real Health-Care Reform."
Read more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09284/10 ... z0Ug4SHeOn

[CreativeMind]

I suggest you find a nice cute young California tranny and let her release your frustrations.
California is heaven on earth compared to the rest of the earth where its either too hot or too cold or too wet or too dry or the government is even more fucked up than California's.;)

Nice advice, there's just one problem.
Speaking as a resident, NOTHING is more fucked up than California's state government.
Seriously, it's about as incompetent as you can get.

Washington DC is an incredibly close choice -- it would seem to be the obvious choice -- but at least Washington can swerve left... right... left... right... constantly weaving in the middle of the road and SORT of have some forward momentum that eventually gets somewhere.

In comparison, California is like a blind person driving a car, with the wheel turned hard to the left. And as a result it just goes round and round in circles, and never goes anywhere and never gets anyplace.

You've heard the phrase "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation?"
HEAVEN FORBID!!!!

[randolph]

Nice advice, there's just one problem.
Speaking as a resident, NOTHING is more fucked up than California's state government.
Seriously, it's about as incompetent as you can get.

Washington DC is an incredibly close choice -- it would seem to be the obvious choice -- but at least Washington can swerve left... right... left... right... constantly weaving in the middle of the road and SORT of have some forward momentum that eventually gets somewhere.

In comparison, California is like a blind person driving a car, with the wheel turned hard to the left. And as a result it just goes round and round in circles, and never goes anywhere and never gets anyplace.

You've heard the phrase "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation?"
HEAVEN FORBID!!!!

No doubt Sacramento is fucked up. However, I much prefer to live here than anywhere in the Middle East. Canada or Australia might be good alternatives. At least in Canada they know how to control their banks and the Aussies like their beaches. Does anybody have a really good government? Er, how about Iceland?:lol:

[ila]

.....You've heard the phrase "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation?"
HEAVEN FORBID!!!!

I'm sure I heard Hillary Clinton say the same thing last year during your presidential primaries, but it was Ohio (or another state in that area) and not California.

[randolph]

Here is part of the reason California is fucked up.
1-It has the most conservative Republicans of any state.
2-It has the most liberal Democrats of any state.
3-The State voting districts are totally screwed to favor incumbents.
4- The constitution allows voters to bypass Sacramento and vote in endless bond issues.
5- And so on.:frown::censored:

[The Conquistador]

Here is part of the reason California is fucked up.
1-It has the most conservative Republicans of any state.
2-It has the most liberal Democrats of any state.
3-The State voting districts are totally screwed to favor incumbents.
4- The constitution allows voters to bypass Sacramento and vote in endless bond issues.
5- And so on.:frown::censored:

I blame the hippies and their drum circles. We need Eric Cartman to help us out.

[St. Araqiel]

Don't forget the Canadians, eh?:lol:

[Jenae LaTorque]

No doubt Sacramento is fucked up. However, I much prefer to live here than anywhere in the Middle East. Canada or Australia might be good alternatives. At least in Canada they know how to control their banks and the Aussies like their beaches. Does anybody have a really good government? Er, how about Iceland?:lol:

On the news - Iceland is in such a mess that McDonalds has pulled out:lol:

[randolph]

I blame the hippies and their drum circles. We need Eric Cartman to help us out.

"Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.
Eric Cartman"

They don't seem to be all that much of a problem, except for the smell. :lol:
What we need to do is legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.
:cool:

[ila]

On the news - Iceland is in such a mess that McDonalds has pulled out:lol:

Actually the owner of the McDonalds franchises in Iceland gave up the franchise because McDonalds made it too expensive to run. The owner wasn't allowed to use any local products in his restaurants. Instead he had to import everything from Germany to stay within the terms of his contract. The news reported that the owner will reopen his restaurants under a new name and use local products rather than import everything.

[randolph]

Actually the owner of the McDonalds franchises in Iceland gave up the franchise because McDonalds made it too expensive to run. The owner wasn't allowed to use any local products in his restaurants. Instead he had to import everything from Germany to stay within the terms of his contract. The news reported that the owner will reopen his restaurants under a new name and use local products rather than import everything.

So what are they going to serve, steamed fish burgers and lava cakes? :lol:

[The Conquistador]

So what are they going to serve, steamed fish burgers and lava cakes? :lol:

No. They will start serving generous amounts of lutefisk! Bleh!!!

[randolph]

From Kevin Drum;

From the Los Angeles Times, here's the latest on the healthcare front:

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy - both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist....The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.

I have a conflict of interest here since I come from a Christian Science background, but holy cow does this seem like a bad idea. Just a really, stupendously bad idea. It's true that not everything that seems like a slippery slope really is one, but this really is one. If it passes, can you imagine how this would play out among the Colorado Springs set within a few years? The mind reels.

[randolph]

Bear kills militants in Kashmir
By Altaf Hussain
BBC News, Srinagar

A bear killed two militants after discovering them in its den in Indian-administered Kashmir, police say.

Two other militants escaped, one of them badly wounded, after the attack in Kulgam district, south of Srinagar.

The militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise - police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked.

It is thought to be the first such incident since Muslim separatists took up arms against Indian rule in 1989.

Bodies found

The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear's den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.

The dead have been identified as Mohammad Amin alias Qaiser, and Bashir Ahmed alias Saifullah.

News of the attack emerged when their injured comrade went to a nearby village for treatment.

"Word spread in the village that Qaiser had been killed by the bear," another police officer said.

A joint party of the police and army personnel went into the forest and collected the bodies of the two militants.
Police say they also recovered two Kalashnikov assault rifles and some ammunition from the hideout.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8339549.stm
Published: 2009/11/03 12:28:41 GMT

Hey, we have been missing out. We should train bears and release them in Afghanistan to eat all those terrorists hiding in caves.:lol:

[sesame]

Usually I like Mr. Obama, but this Nobel Peace Prize this is tickling the wrong part of my brain. This used to be a lifetime achievement award, given in appreciation of someone's lifetime struggle for bringing piece to the world of men. Well, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama deserved it. Mahatma Gandhi more than deserved, but never got it!

What did Obama achieve (apart from winning the election and goint to some diplomatic tours and lectures in several countries)?

Obama said in his statement, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize". Well, you are correct, Mr. President!

Its like pouring oil in an over-lubricated machine. Pleasing the bigboss is an old routine. It just hurts to see the Nobel Award getting cheapened in the process. Those of you who have gone through Churchill's literary works, do you think he really deserved the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature? """for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values"""

Oh! How charming! Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, son of Lord Randolph Churchill, this Nobel will be another jewel in your overcrowded crown, Prime Minister, sir! But, even Sir Churchill had more right to his Nobel that Obama. At least Churchill wrote his 6 volumes History of World War II and 4 Vol. History of English speaking Peoples; And he had a significant role to play in WWII.

And Obama has just begun to warm-up, he has'nt even started to run!

[tslust]

:respect:great story:respect:
Hey, we have been missing out. We should train bears and release them in Afghanistan to eat all those terrorists hiding in caves.:lol:

Send in the 10th Mountain Kodiak Division supproted by the Independent Grizzly Brigade.

[ila]

From Kevin Drum;

From the Los Angeles Times, here's the latest on the healthcare front:

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy - both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist....The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.

I have a conflict of interest here since I come from a Christian Science background, but holy cow does this seem like a bad idea. Just a really, stupendously bad idea. It's true that not everything that seems like a slippery slope really is one, but this really is one. If it passes, can you imagine how this would play out among the Colorado Springs set within a few years? The mind reels.

Randolph, when quoting sources, such as in the post here that I am quoting, ensure that you put quote tags around the quote and credit the source.

Dont' know how to quote?
Highlight the text that is to be quoted and the click the quote icon in the grey area at the top of the post dialogue box. Then after the first [QUOTE] and inside the brackets and to the right of the QUOTE put in an equal sign = and then type the name of the source. Then click Submit Reply.

[The Conquistador]

Hey, we have been missing out. We should train bears and release them in Afghanistan to eat all those terrorists hiding in caves.:lol:

Pfffffttt! That's already been done by those crazy Pollaks.

http://badassoftheweek.com/voytek.html


Voytek The Soldier Bear

For centuries, Poland has been known specifically for two things – badass spicy sausages, and getting epically fucked over by every other European nation in every possible way. Polish people are constantly getting about as much respect as the Duke University football program, and the once-proud nation has been carved up more times than Joan Rivers’ face. The early days of World War II was no exception, when the unsuspecting, peaceful Poles all of a sudden found themselves getting sneak-attack double-teamed by the international military superpower dickheads Germany and the Soviet Union. Sure, the Communists and Fascists fucking hated each other, but apparently they were willing to join forces and work together to oppress the citizens of Poland, steal their land, and imprison anyone they damn well pleased.

Of course we know about what the Germans did to the people of Poland, but it certainly wasn’t any picnic being on the receiving end of the sickle and hammer either. Captured Polish POWs that weren’t executed on the spot by the Russkies were shipped out to fucking hardcore Gulags in Siberia, where the spent twelve hours a day eating disgusting borscht and gruel, mining snow from ice caves with pickaxes like the Dwarves in Snow White and toiling away in temperatures that never got above negative fifty degrees in the summertime. However, once Germany double-crossed the Soviets and started beating the holy living shitburgers out of the Red Army, Josef Stalin all of a sudden had a change of heart and decided to let captured Polish POWs out of prison so they could help fight for the Allies. Since the Poles weren’t too keen on fighting on behalf of the Russians who had oppressed and imprisoned them, they decided to serve under the British instead. A large number of these men were put on trains and sent to Iran, where they formed up into the Polish Second Army Corps. II Corps’ first mission was to travel to Palestine, link up with the British 8th Army and assist in the Allied invasion of Italy.

On their trip through Iran, the men of the Polish 22nd Transport Artillery Supply Company came across a young Iranian boy wandering through the desert like Jim Morrison tripping balls, and carrying a large cloth sack. The men thought the boy looked tired and hungry, so they gave him some food and a Crunch bar or some shit. When the kid thanked them, the Poles asked what was in the bag. The boy opened it up and revealed a tiny, malnourished brown bear cub. Since the soldiers knew the little cub was in very poor health and needed attention quickly, they bought the bear from the kid for a few bucks (or whatever the hell they used for money in 1940’s Iran – I can’t be bothered to look it up), and fed it some condensed milk from a makeshift bottle. For the next several days, they nursed the bear back to health, giving it food, water, and a warm place to sleep.

Over the long journey from Iran to Palestine, the bear, now named Voytek (it’s spelled Wojtek in Polish but pronounced "Voytek” because Polish is a crazy fucking language) quickly became the unofficial mascot of the 22nd Company. The bear would sit around the campfire with the men, eating, drinking, and sleeping in tents with the rest of the soldiers. The bear loved smoking cigarettes, drank beer right out of the bottle like a regular infantryman, and got a kick out of wrestling and play-fighting with the other soldiers. Of course, he was the most badass asskicking wrester in the entire company, thanks in part to the fact that he grew to be six feet tall, weighed roughly five hundred pounds, and could knock small trees over with a single swing of his massive, clawed paw. He grew to be a part of the unit, improving the morale of men who had spent several years getting their asses kicked in slave labor camps, and was treated as though he were just another hard-drinkin’, hard-smoking’, hard-fightin’, hair-growin’ soldier in the Company. When the unit marched out on a mission, Voytek would stand up on his hind legs and march alongside them. When the motorized convoy was on the move, Voytek sat in the passenger seat of one of the jeeps, hanging his head out the window and shocking the shit out of people walking down the street.

In addition to kicking peoples’ asses and drinking beer, Voytek also enjoyed taking hot baths for some reason. Over the summer in Palestine, he learned how to work the showers, and you could pretty much always find him splashing around the bath house. Once, he entered the bath hut and came across a spy who had been planted to gather intelligence on the Allied camp. Voytek growled, slapped the dude upside his stupid head, and the man immediately crapped his pants and surrendered. The Soldier Bear was lauded as a hero for successfully capturing an enemy agent, who in turn was interrogated and gave up vital intelligence on enemy positions.

When it was time to stop fucking around and get “in the shit” as they say, II Corps linked up with the hardcore British 8th Army and headed out to the middle of the Category 5 Crapstorm the was brewing in Italy. The problem, however, was that British High Command did not allow any pets or animals in their camp, so the Polish Army formally enlisted Voytek the Bear into their ranks. He was given the rank of Private, assigned a serial number, and from that point on was included in all official unit rosters. The Brits were like, “whatever chaps”, and didn’t even bat an eye when Voytek marched ashore with the rest of the 22nd Company.

The Poles’ Finest Hour of the war came in the incredibly bloody battle for Monte Cassino. By the time II Corps arrived, the Germans were deeply entrenched in the hilltop monastery, and three previous Allied assaults on the position had all proved more fruitless than a South Florida orange tree in the middle of a worldwide Nuclear Winter. The campaign was proving to be one of the bloodiest battles of the Western Front, and the Poles were brought in to make the final push to capture the fortress. During the fighting, Voytek the Hero Bear actually hand-carried boxes of ammunition, some weighing in at over 100 pounds, from supply trucks to artillery positions on the front lines. He worked tirelessly, day and night, bringing supplies to his friends who were bravely battling the Nazis. He never rested, never dropped a single artillery shell, and never showed any fear despite his position being under constant enemy fire and heavy shelling. His actions were so inspiring to his fellow soldiers that after the battle the official insignia of the 22nd Artillery was changed to a picture of Voytek carrying an armful of howitzer ammunition. In the same vein, you have to assume that it was pretty fucking demoralizing to the Germans to see that the Poles had a fucking GIANT GODDAMNED BROWN BEAR fighting on their side.

Thanks in part to the heavy shelling by their artillery, the Polish forces broke through the Nazi defenses and captured Monte Cassino. Voytek and his comrades would go one to fight the Germans across the Italian peninsula, breaking through the enemy lines and forcing the Krauts out of Italia for good. After the war, some elements of the Polish Army, including Voytek, were reassigned to Scotland, since Poland was under USSR control, and many Polish soldiers did not like the prospect of living in a Soviet-run police state. Voytek lived out the rest of his days in the Edinburgh Zoo, where he passed away in 1963 at the age of 22. It was said that he always perked up when he heard the Polish language spoken by zoo guests, and during his life in there he was always being visited by his old friends from the Polish Army – some of whom would throw cigarettes down into his open arms, some of whom would even jump into the bear enclosure and wrestle with him for old time’s sake.

The idea of a fucking alcoholic Nazi-fighting bear is so awesome that you’d think it was something out of a bizarre cartoon or a Sci-Fi Channel Original Movie. It’s the sort of shit that, even with all of the historical evidence, seems too totally awesome to be true. The bear was a hero of World War II, and there are statues of him and plaques memorializing his brave service in Poland, Edinburgh, the Imperial War Museum in London, and the Canadian War Museum. Unbelieveable.

[TracyCoxx]

Ahhhh... I'm enjoying this little preview of next year on election day. :turnon:

[transjen]

Ahhhh... I'm enjoying this little preview of next year on election day. :turnon:I wouldn't read to much in the results from NJ, We had GOP governors before from roughly 1980 - 88 Tom Kane from 92-00 Christy Todd Whitman so the winning is no big deal plus the fact he was running agianst one of the most unpopular governors in Jersey history ever he should have won with over 50 percent and by more then 4 to 5 percent but he didn't so don't start counting your chickens yet a year is a very long time away and 12 is even farther away


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[sesame]

Voytek The Soldier Bear

Thats a very well written story. I like the casual curse-ful language, the little jokes and similes. Very very well done. (Although I dont see any relevance to Obama in the Polish Army Bear's story! ;))

Thanks to TheAngryPostman :respect:

[randolph]

Ahhhh... I'm enjoying this little preview of next year on election day. :turnon:

Well Tracy, you may getting your hopes up a little prematurely. Listening to Fox news is often deceiving.;):yes:

THE IMPACT ON HEALTH CARE.... To hear a certain cable news network put it, a couple of gubernatorial wins for Republican candidates undermines the chances of health care reform.

As it turns out, the Republican spin is largely backwards. Neither McDonnell nor Christie will have votes on health care reform in Congress. But the Democratic candidates who won yesterday will. Brian Beutler raises a good point.

Most of the commentary about last night's elections has centered around Republican pickups in the New Jersey and Virginia statehouses. But what's gone largely unnoticed is that the two congressional seats up for grabs last night both went to Democrats, and that will have immediate ramifications for health care reform.

The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens -- the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.

That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could afford to lose no more than 38 Democratic votes on a landmark health care reform bill. Next week, after Owens and Garamendi are sworn in, she can lose up to 40. For legislation this historic and far-reaching, she'll need every vote she can get -- and both seem likely to support reform.

They sure do. In fact, by winning both of yesterday's congressional elections, Democrats have not only managed to expand their House majority, they've also moved the caucus ever so slightly to the left. Bill Owens is a moderate, but he's more liberal than the Republican he's replacing, John McHugh, and he's endorsed a progressive approach to health care reform.

Likewise, Garamendi is more liberal than Tauscher was, and he, too, favors a progressive approach to health care reform.

In this environment, every vote counts, and Democrats just picked up two more that are likely to prove helpful.

[The Conquistador]

(Although I dont see any relevance to Obama in the Polish Army Bear's story! ;))

Mr. sesame. The article about Voytek was a response to randolphs post about the Taliban fuckheads getting eaten by a bear. He said we should train bears to do this more often and I responded with the snippet about Voytek. ;)

[randolph]

GOP Grand odd party. :eek:;)

[TracyCoxx]

GOP Grand odd party. :eek:;)

**Democrat Party**
(Health Care Reform critics KEEP OUT)
(No Anti-Gay Marriage straight people)
(Down with white males)
(Illegal Immigrants - come on in)
(Global Warming deniers not welcome!)
(Anti-Abortioners Stay Away!)

[randolph]

**Democrat Party**
(Health Care Reform critics KEEP OUT)
(No Anti-Gay Marriage straight people)
(Down with white males)
(Illegal Immigrants - come on in)
(Global Warming deniers not welcome!)
(Anti-Abortioners Stay Away!)

Well, lets see.
I am skeptical of the health care plan.
I am a white male.
I am against illegal immigrants taking over the country.
I am skeptical of global warming, climate change,yes.
I believe in woman's rights, abortion should should be discouraged.
I am a Democrat.;):cool::yes:

[TracyCoxx]

Well, lets see.
I am skeptical of the health care plan.
MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/liberal-activist-groups-threatens-democrats-opposed-government-run-option/)
I am a white male.Obama's criticism of McCain: Too white!
I am against illegal immigrants taking over the country.You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!
I am skeptical of global warming, climate change,yes.The security and stability of each nation and all peoples-our prosperity, our health, and our safety-are in jeopardy.
I am a Democrat.;):cool::yes:

Careful... You may be a democrat, but Obama clearly would wish to have a talk with you and straighten your misguided wayward beliefs before you become 'part of the problem'.

[randolph]

MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/liberal-activist-groups-threatens-democrats-opposed-government-run-option/)
Obama's criticism of McCain: Too white!




Careful... You may be a democrat, but Obama clearly would wish to have a talk with you and straighten your misguided wayward beliefs before you become 'part of the problem'.

Yeah, I guess I am part of the problem, I believe both parties are crap. The Republican party is turning into a pseudo religious cult and the Democrats are a bunch of dithering idiots.
We need a new party.
Tranny lovers unite! :inlove::turnon::coupling::inlove:

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah, I guess I am part of the problem, I believe both parties are crap. The Republican party is turning into a pseudo religious cult and the Democrats are a bunch of dithering idiots.
We need a new party.
Tranny lovers unite! :inlove::turnon::coupling::inlove:

I think I would have to agree with you on that one. :respect:

[TracyCoxx]

If a TV show were made about Obama, what would it look like? Something that would include these elements:
* Charismatic leader from out of nowhere offering Hope and Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0drwfnGlF_E)
* Universal Health Care
* The portrayal of the swooning media (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc) that Obama wants to control by denying access to critical reporters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou7SGNo5QHE)
* Community organizing
* Supporters who are obsessed and have unquestioning devotion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI)
* Remarks like "Embracing change is never easy" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9F9vsG7Mvg)
* Well funded civilian force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y)
* Goal of one-world government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqYLCx83TMg)
* Laughable attempts at a 'bi-partisan' solution
* And of course the gun-toting religious protesters
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLGkFpsdHo)

ABC actually aired this show last Tuesday, and it was called V. It's a remake of the series V from the 80s where aliens come and want to be friends and offer hope etc. But in reality, they are lizard people from space here to eat us all. All the above points were not just now added to the show to criticize Obama, they were a part of the show in the 80s. And the producers started working on the updated version in 2007. But it just fits Obama so well to the point that liberals are calling the show's criticism of Obama blatantly obvious. Anyone who has seen the show gets the impression that they are deliberately targeting Obama's administration. No wonder BO doesn't want to show his actual birth certificate. He's a lizard man from space here to eat us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE
You can watch it online now from ABC.

[randolph]

Well, lizard man looks friendly, its the broad that looks ominous. ;):lol:

[transjen]

Well, lizard man looks friendly, its the broad that looks ominous. ;):lol: Got to love HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE so are you saying that Obama is HE-MAN and W is Skullator?


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Got to love HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE so are you saying that Obama is HE-MAN and W is Skullator?


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, you need to clue me in on this He-man and Skullator. I just saw the pic with the lizard guy, don't know the story. ;)

OK, I just found out the babe is Teela.

[transjen]

Hey Jen, you need to clue me in on this He-man and Skellator. I just saw the pic with the lizard guy, don't know the story. ;)

OK, I just found out the babe is Teela. HE-MAN and the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE was a popular kids cartoon back when i was a kid back in 83 or 84 HE-MAN was the hero and SKELATOR was the evil villian always plotting to take over the kingdom and always losing to HE-MAN in the end


Yes the babe is Teela and the man in green is Man at Arms
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[CreativeMind]

Well, lizard man looks friendly, its the broad that looks ominous. ;):lol:

With that creepy ass smile, Lizard Man is actually Nancy Pelosi.
The smile the result of her skin being pulled far too tight in her last face lift! :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

House democrats have voted to screw our country over. Listen up you fucks. AMERICANS AREN'T SCREAMING FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM. THEY WANT JOBS!!!

How are they going to pay for it? Does that simple question that any responsible person would think ever enter their pea-brained minds? Yeah, I know. Stupid question. They've already put us $2.5 trillion further into the hole. What's another $1.2 trillion? They say they will pay for it by making cost cuts. Bull shit. If they were serious about that then the health care bill would include tort reform.

This is what the first $trillion did to our money supply.
http://brokersfirstrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/money-supply.gif

Then there was another $trillion for the stimulus package, and now a $1.2 trillion health care package. They are totally numbed to the concept of a trillion dollars.

Back in the 70s Carter raised the money supply 13%. This can only be temporary, so then fed must then raise interest rates to get people paying money back to them so they can destroy it and get the money supply back to where it should be. With a 13% increase in money supply the feds had to raise interest rates to 20% within about 2 years. Now... health care bill not withstanding, the democrats have raised the money supply 130%. Experts either don't know yet or are afraid to say what that will do to our interest rates.

If the interest rates get too high, people will not be able to afford loans. Then we're right back to what we were trying to prevent a year ago with the Wall Street bailout. You can't escape it with something artificial like a bailout. Jen, before you reply, listen to the guy you voted for, Ron Paul. He'll tell you all this.

If people can't afford loans, and the fed can't get all that extra money back to destroy then there is no cure for it. We will be in hyperinflation.

Your dumbass representatives in congress should know this. That's what we expect of them. But they couldn't give a shit. Their boss is Nancy Pelosi and Obama. We no longer control them, because their constituents have been telling them to stop and they won't.

Hopefully the senate will put a stop to this. But does anyone seriously believe they will? If there's one thing we can count on it's for the democrats in congress to do the wrong thing. 2010 will be so sweet watching them drop like flies. But only bitter sweet since the damage will have been done.

[randolph]

Oh boy,
I thought the cold war was bad.
I thought Vietnam was bad.
I thought Watergate, Reagan, Bush and Bush were bad.
I know Greenspan was stupid.
I believe the investment bank leaders are criminals.
I believe the Republicans are nuts.
I am worried the Obama administration is now leading us to ruin.
Whats going to happen to this country?
Damned if I know. :frown::censored:

I need a tranny real bad, are you bad? :inlove:

[randolph]

By MARK SPITZNAGEL

Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises's ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome "Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel" ("The Theory of Money and Credit"). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn't exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Government-imposed expansion of bank credit distorts our "time preferences," or our desire for saving versus consumption. Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.

Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system-the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.

The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.

"Theorie des Geldes" did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity. The nerve of this Doubting-Thomas, perma-bear, crazy Kraut! Sadly, poor Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises's script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises's logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises's solution follows logically from his warnings. You can't fix what's broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don't encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail-no bailouts. (You see where I'm going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once "Theorie des Geldes" was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises's bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism's repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan's "Great Moderation" and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one.

How curious it is that the guy who wrote the script depicting our never ending story of government-induced credit expansion, inflation and collapse has remained so persistently forgotten. Must we sit through yet another performance of this tragic tale?

Mr. Spitznagel is the founder and chief investment officer of the hedge fund Universa Investments LP, based in Santa Monica, Calif.

[The Conquistador]

We will be in hyperinflation.

Ammunition will be the new currency...

[randolph]

Lack of Health Care Killed 2,266 US Veterans Last Year: Study

WASHINGTON - The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study.

[US soldiers attend a "Veterans Day" ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul. The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study. (AFP/Massoud Hossaini)]US soldiers attend a "Veterans Day" ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul. The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study. (AFP/Massoud Hossaini)
The analysis produced by two Harvard medical researchers estimates that 2,266 US military veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because they lacked health coverage and had reduced access to medical care.

That figure is more than 14 times higher than the 155 US troop deaths in Afghanistan in 2008, the study says.

Released as the United States commemorates fallen soldiers on Veterans Day, the study warns that even health care provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VA) leaves many veterans without coverage.

The analysis uses census data to isolate the number of US veterans who lack both private health coverage and care offered by the VA.

"That's a group that's about 1.5 million people," said David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program who co-authored the study.

Himmelstein and co-author Stephanie Woolhandler, also a Harvard medical professor, overlaid that figure with another study examining the mortality rate associated with lack of health insurance.

"The uninsured have about a 40 percent higher risk of dying each year than otherwise comparable insured individuals," Himmelstein told AFP.

"Putting that all together you get an estimate of almost 2,300 -- 2,266 veterans who die each year from lack of health insurance."

Only some US veterans have access to medical care through the VA and coverage is apportioned on the basis of eight "priority groups."

"They range from things like people who were prisoners of war, who have coverage for life, or who have battle injuries and therefore have coverage for their injuries for life," said Himmelstein.

Veterans who fall below an income threshold that is determined on a county-by-county basis can qualify for care, but many veterans are "working poor" and fall just above the bracket.

"The priority eight group, the lowest priority, are veterans above the very poor group who have no other reason to be eligible and that group is essentially shut out of the VA," according to Himmelstein.

The study comes as the US Senate weighs health care reform legislation and whether to offer government health insurance.

Himmelstein warns that congressional proposals could still leave veterans uncovered and favors a national health care program similar to those in Britain and Canada. :yes:

[franalexes]

Last time I checked, people die because they are sick.
Not because they are too poor to pay the bill.

[randolph]

Last time I checked, people die because they are sick.
Not because they are too poor to pay the bill.

Why do people have health insurance? Well, when they get sick they go to a doctor, who helps them get well so they don't die.
Makes sense to me.;)

[The Conquistador]

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

[The Conquistador]

Why do people have health insurance? Well, when they get sick they go to a doctor, who helps them get well so they don't die.
Makes sense to me.;)

The ER policy is to treat first, pay later.

[randolph]

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

Perhaps you both should reread the report.:frown:

[The Conquistador]

Perhaps you both should reread the report.:frown:

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

[randolph]

[QUOTE=TheAngryPostman;116638]I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.
Our so called "competitive" private health care system is the most expensive and inefficient in the world.
In Japan health care is paid for by the government. Hospitals, however are all private. A typical room is ten dollars a day and a luxury room is eighty a day. Hospitals here charge you five thousand dollars a day just to sit in the emergency room waiting for help. Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.:frown:

[ila]

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

John Stossel was very selective in his series on Canada's health care system. He wanted to prove a point and so he interviewed only people who would support his point of view. He never looked for anyone to provide a different view.

So now it's time to hear from someone who uses Canada's healthcare system. I am able to choose any doctor that I want. It doesn't cost me anything to see a doctor. If there is something that requires a specialist to look at then I will be referred to a specialist; no costs involved there. If I get a life threatening disease everything is paid for. I won't become homeless or destitute because I can't afford to pay my medical bills. I don't have long wait times to get medical tests or procedures. My hospital stays don't cost me anything.

So what do I have to pay for:

Prescription medications - but I have group health insurance to cover those costs
Hospital stays - if I want a private room I pay extra, but again I have group health insurance
Eyes - eye examinations and prescription lenses - group health insurance for that too
Dental - all dental expenses - group dental insurance for that.

Note that should I have a serious disease I will be guaranteed further medical treatment because there is no insurance company to cancel insurance. I won't lose my group health and dental insurance because it is group coverage.

[randolph]

Hey Ila,
Its always good to have someone come into these discussions who has first hand experience. The so called news media pundits are so often misinformed, uninformed, biased or just plain dimwits.
Personally, I have health care from a non-profit HMO (Kaiser Permanente). The care is excellent, I wish everybody had such a good plan. Yes, they saved my life (burst appendicitis).

[The Conquistador]

Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.:frown:


The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.


Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3







Mr. Polar Bear. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, but the majority of Canadians I've met seem to dislike the system you guys have. Same with the majority of British I've met likewise. However, I think that your opinion is insightful and helps give a balanced view to this debate.

[local]

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

Mr. Polar Bear. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, but the majority of Canadians I've met seem to dislike the system you guys have. Same with the majority of British I've met likewise. However, I think that your opinion is insightful and helps give a balanced view to this debate.

Uh, then I don't think you've met many Canadians in Canada. In the last year I was in Emergency twice in downtown Toronto. The first one I was in and out within 90 minutes (stitches on badly gashed hand) and the second time. The second time I was checked out for a very serious issue requiring an MRI and was out within 6 hours after seeing 1 doctor and 1 specialist. No hassle, no phone call to the bank to mortgage my home to pay the bill! Yes, there are issues, but we all have easy access to high quality health care.

The rabid hyperbole is VERY similar to the rants and threats of strikes by the doctors in Saskatchewan where this was first introduced in the 50s. NOw you would be hard pressed to find a doctor who would want to go back to what you have in the US. The only difference with what we have in Canada and what there is in the US is that the government here pays the bill, not the user. We still have the freedom to chose who treats us, where and how.

[randolph]

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

All of these arguments sound reasonable, but the truth of the matter is that good health care in many other countries is better, covers everybody and costs the government a lot.
There is a difference however, in most countries health care is not viewed as a profit making business. Look at the attitude of the bankers in this country in this country. They think its their right to make obscene incomes at our expense. The drug companies and the medical profession seem to have the same attitude. :frown:

[The Conquistador]

They think its their right to make obscene incomes at our expense.

So success should be punished rather than rewarded? If you don't like Company A, go buy from Company B. Vote with your dollar.

[local]

So success should be punished rather than rewarded? If you don't like Company A, go buy from Company B. Vote with your dollar.

Hmmm. If memory is correct, it was the ineptitude of Wall street that was rewarded while John Q Public was left holding the bag.

Free markets and have their limits. Success is often masked as guys in suits robbing the public they claim to serve -- including HMOs!

[The Conquistador]

Hmmm. If memory is correct, it was the ineptitude of Wall street that was rewarded while John Q Public was left holding the bag.

Free markets and have their limits. Success is often masked as guys in suits robbing the public they claim to serve -- including HMOs!

But that does not pale in comparison to our benevolent Lord Zero and the multi TRILLION dollar bill that we are now stuck with. It ain't too hard to figure out the lesser of the two evils in this case. Private sector>Government.

[The Conquistador]

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.:

I guarantee you that there are more than 1.4 million veterans enrolled in the VA system considering there are 26,549,704* vets in the US and Puerto Rico. Also, your study does not differentiate as to whether or not those that were part of those roughly 2300 vets have had their healthcare voided due to felony convictions or other dishonorable behavior. Beating your spouse, illegal substance possession or any other felony will revoke your privliges faster than you can say,"I just fucked myself in the ass" and get your ass sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas(federal prison).


*http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=1

[randolph]

I got this from a friend this morning. I LOVE it!

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending Your stimulus check wisely:

. If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China .
. If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
. If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
. If you purchase fruit or vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala .
. If you buy a car, it will go to Japan .
. If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
. If you pay off your credit cards, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses, and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by:
1. Spending it at yard sales, or
2. Going to ball games, or
3. Spending it on prostitutes, or
4. Beer, or
5. Tattoos.

(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day. :lol::lol::lol:

[The Conquistador]

It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day. :lol::lol::lol:

As long as she's a tranny, it's all good. I love tatted trannies!:heart:

[randolph]

As long as she's a tranny, it's all good. I love tatted trannies!:heart:

Yes, that is something we agree on!
A cold beer and a hot tranny! ;)

[transjen]

I got this from a friend this morning. I LOVE it!

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending Your stimulus check wisely:

. If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China .
. If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
. If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
. If you purchase fruit or vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala .
. If you buy a car, it will go to Japan .
. If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
. If you pay off your credit cards, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses, and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by:
1. Spending it at yard sales, or
2. Going to ball games, or
3. Spending it on prostitutes, or
4. Beer, or
5. Tattoos.

(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day. :lol::lol::lol: And this is why free trade is a load of horse crap it made it even easier for big bussiness to move production over seas and another load of horse crap is by cutting business tax rate they'll move back yeah right tell me another one, The high unemplotment is not due to the high debit rate it is do to over twenty years of out sourcing and NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other free trade aggreements these aggreements would have been allright if anything was still made in the USA but nothing is anymore so were are now starting to feel the effects


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

We already knew the democrats were corrupt because of organizations like ACORN that they wholeheartedly supported, and still support despite being shown to be the corrupt organization they are.

And how they like to spend billions-trillions on projects no one wants, and how their social policies have resulted in the recent financial meltdown, and how they want to move the US census to the White House, thereby taking control of an important driver of election processes, etc etc...

We now know that some of the money from the stimulus package is going to districts to create jobs. Only these are fictional districts. It has been happening in many states and US territories as well. There are hundreds of millions of dollars going... somewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853

Do you really trust the government to take over health care?

[randolph]

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, George H.W. Bush congratulated his son on running a "clean operation." Bush apparently wasn't paying very close attention. Everyone remembers weapons of mass destruction, the US attorney firings. But historians will note that those are only the beginning of the Bush administration scandals...

The Bush administration will leave the annals of presidential disrepute several times thicker than it found them. There's Iraq, the hospital visit to John Ashcroft, the US attorney firings. But historians will note that those are only the beginning of the Bush administration scandals. Does the name Jeff Gannon ring a bell? Boxgate? What about the anti-prostitution AIDS tsar who purchased the services of-wait for it-the D.C. Madam? The Daily Beast has put together 20 of Bush's greatest forgotten scandals.

Interior Department officials "frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives."

Sex and Shoplifting

1) In March 2006, Claude Allen, Bush's top domestic policy aide, was arrested when he tried to return items he had shoplifted from Target for cash refunds. Allen, who made $161,000 a year, blamed stress from Hurricane Katrina.

2) In 2005, bloggers pricked up their ears when a reporter named Jeff Gannon asked a softball question at a Bush press conference. Some sleuthing turned up nude photos of Gannon-real name: James Guckert-on male escort websites.

3) Randall Tobias, Bush's AIDS tsar, mandated that organizations must oppose prostitution in order to receive American aid. It later emerged that Tobias purchased services through the notorious D.C. Madam, though Tobias maintained he only bought "massages."

4) The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service would not seem to be the sexiest government agency. But a departmental investigation last year found that officials had "frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives."

Where'd the Money Go?

5) When testifying before Congress in 2007, L. Paul Bremer, the former head of reconstruction in Iraq, was unable to account for as much as $12 billion-about half of his budget-as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority between May 2003 and June 2004. According to a report by Rep. Henry Waxman, contractors brought bags to meetings in order to collect shrink-wrapped bundles of money.

6) In 2004, Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton had not adequately accounted for $1.8 billion of the bill it sent to the United States government for its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

7) Also that year, Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer, charged that KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, unfairly received billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq. Greenhouse was demoted in 2005.

Disappearances

8) In 2002, Canadian citizen Maher Arar was detained at an airport in New York and spirited away to Syria, where he was tortured and held for 10 months by his captors before being returned home. Canadian officials investigated Arar's case, declared he was innocent, and paid him $9 million in compensation. American officials refused to admit the mistake and instead kept Arar on a terrorist watch list.

9) Army Captain James Yee, a Muslim chaplain in Guantanamo Bay, was hooded, shackled, and detained in solitary confinement for 76 days on charges of espionage. Within a year the case against Yee had collapsed and the Army tried to save face by charging him with hoarding pornography.

All the President's Wordsmiths

10) In an email to friends, Danielle Crittenden, the wife of White House speechwriter David Frum, bragged that her husband had written Bush's famous "Axis of Evil" line. The e-mail leaked to Slate, causing a minor scandal.

11) Part of the self-created mythology of White House speechwriter Michael Gerson was that he composed his speeches in longhand. But as fellow scribe Matthew Scully later noted: "At the precise moment when the State of the Union address was being drafted at the White House by John [McConnell] and me, Mike was off pretending to craft the State of the Union in longhand for the benefit of a reporter."

President Bush Ron Edmonds/AP No Administration Friend Left Behind

12) First there was Columnist Gate: In 2005, USA Today reported that conservative commentator Armstrong Williams received a $240,000 contract from the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind on his television show and to sell other African-American journalists on the legislation. Later, The Washington Post uncovered a similar deal with columnist Maggie Gallagher to promote a marriage initiative for the Department of Health.

13) A Defense Department report in 2006 urged the military to end its practice of paying Iraqi journalists to publish pro-American stories in their newspapers, arguing the tactic would "undermine the concept of a free press."

14) According to The New York Times, Karl Rove scored lobbyist Ralph Reed a lucrative contract with Enron in 1997 to gain his support in the 2000 presidential race.

15) David Safavian, the former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, was convicted of helping Jack Abramoff on a shady land deal as well as concealing a "lavish weeklong golf trip" paid for by Abramoff.

16) As head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign in disgrace after he helped his "female companion," Shaha Riza, score a $60,000 pay raise and promotion-and then tried to cover it up.

Down the Memory Hole

17) Bush fundraiser Lurita Doan's gig as chair of the General Services Administration went down in flames when she was accused of asking agency staff to help Republican candidates win elections. Doan denied any wrongdoing. When witnesses said she asked her staff at a meeting, "How can we use GSA to help our candidates in the next election?" Doan claimed she had no memory of the presentation.

18) Though Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, was suspected of being the anthrax mailer, that didn't keep Bush and Cheney from openly speculating that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks and even going so far as to pressure FBI officials to come up with a bin Laden connection, according to the New York Daily News.

Mission Accomplished

19) In 2003, Bush went to a warehouse in St. Louis to give a speech titled "Strengthening America's Economy." But the boxes laid out before the presidential podium bore the label "Made in China." The labels were then obscured with white paper. The White House blamed an "overzealous advance volunteer."

The Last Word

20) The administration ethos was nicely summarized during the investigation in the firing of US attorneys, in a testy exchange between former White House Political Director Sara Taylor and Sen. Patrick Leahy. Taylor: "I took an oath to the president...And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the president." Leahy: "No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the president refers to the government being his government-it's not."

Hi Tracy, just a little reminder of the wonderful Republican administration we just survived. Don't you think Republicans should clean up their own house before complaining about others?:yes:

[The Conquistador]

Hi Tracy, just a little reminder of the wonderful Republican administration we just survived. Don't you think Republicans should clean up their own house before complaining about others?:yes:

I like how everyone thinks it's all about Democrat vs Repiblican and such nonsense. They are pretty much the same thing; just different labels.

[CCC]

On the left or liberal side I only have one need SEX. On the right or conservative side I have the rest of my life, dollars and the idea that I earned it so it's mine--keep your damn hands off it. I don't want to share-equalize with any lazy S.O.B. If it wasn't for TS Ladies--I would be the biggest tight as conservative going.

Love this:
(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute (TS Lady Preferred) that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day.

Want me to stop talking ????? Feed me a nice TS cock :turnon::turnon::turnon::inlove:

[randolph]

On the left or liberal side I only have one need SEX. On the right or conservative side I have the rest of my life, dollars and the idea that I earned it so it's mine--keep your damn hands off it. I don't want to share-equalize with any lazy S.O.B. If it wasn't for TS Ladies--I would be the biggest tight as conservative going.

Love this:
(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
It would be best if you went to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute (TS Lady Preferred) that you met at a yard sale and drink American beer with all day.

Want me to stop talking ????? Feed me a nice TS cock :turnon::turnon::turnon::inlove:

Don't assume all trannies are "liberal". We have some real pistol packing mamas on this site;):yes::turnon::inlove:

[jimnaseum]

Zardoz is right, it's always going to be Republicans for a while, then Democrats for a while. If Obama can pull it off, we can put extended Medicare on the list of things our taxes pay for, like Schools and Social Security. That would be a huge boon for the American Citizen. No matter who's in the White House, or who controls the House and Senate.

Insurance Companies don't want to cover sick people, they want to cover healthy people. That's a direct conflict to what they're needed for.

Drug companies don't want a cure for Diabetes, they want a patent for Viagra.

As for taxes, you don't even KNOW how much money you spend on taxes!
You buy gasoline, you pay taxes, you buy booze and cigarettes, you pay taxes, Cable TV, Cell phone, Property tax, sales tax, you buy a Coca-Cola, Coke doesn't pay a dime in taxes, the people who buy Cokes do. When someone steals something from Safeway, the average consumer makes up the loss. The Middle Class pays for EVERYTHING!! And we can't afford Universal Healthcare? BULLSHIT!

[TracyCoxx]

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, George H.W. Bush congratulated his son on running a "clean operation." Bush apparently wasn't paying very close attention. Everyone remembers weapons of mass destruction, the US attorney firings. But historians will note that those are only the beginning of the Bush administration scandals...

I haven't heard of many of those things, but some of the things I have heard of, like WMD cannot be blamed on Bush alone, no matter how hard libs try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

I didn't read most of that because I never said Bush was the solid example of small government. For some reason there's the automatic assumption that I'm a Bush fan. I will defend him against lies from the left, and I can see why he did a lot of what he did, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan. There's a lot I didn't like about him as well.

Actually there's debate within the republican party between moving towards the center (i.e. the left) or staying with tried & true conservatism. For the republicans, I say it's Small Government stupid.

Bottom line, making up districts to funnel money to who knows where is pretty crooked.

[randolph]

Tracy -- Small government?
I wonder if corruption and excess government regulation is correlated with government size. The more government you have, the worse it gets. This seems to be true at all levels. I know from personal experience it is true at the county level. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy -- Small government?
I wonder if corruption and excess government regulation is correlated with government size. The more government you have, the worse it gets. This seems to be true at all levels. I know from personal experience it is true at the county level. :frown:

The bigger the government, the more power they have, and they like their power.

[The Conquistador]

Democrats are liberals and progressives who believe in the expansion of government and more federal control. Republicans are the conservatives who stick up for individual rights, state rights, and smaller government... right?

WRONG!

While there has been truth to both of these statements at one time or another in our modern era... it just isn't that simple. Both sides have expanded freedom, and more often than not, reined it in. So I thought I'd try to provide everyone with a short ideological history of the modern era to show who the real heroes and villains really are.

It is best to start with Republican Herbert Hoover who took the presidency in 1929. While the government had been growing slightly for some years, it was the Hoover administration that started things down the wrong path. In an effort to deal the the Great Depression Hoover began to listen to Keynesian economists... he started make-work programs, raised taxes, and signed the disastrously protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that caused far more economic distress that it could ever have solved. A lot of conservatives like to blame FDR for our problems, but the really bad shit started under Hoover... FDR just took things much, much further.

FDR was a Democrat and an egotistical monster who wanted to be king. Yes, that is harsh, but I'm going to stick by my statement. He did more than anyone in American history to shit all over our Constitution. In a practical sense, we lost our balance of power and very nearly our democracy under FDR. We only gained it back because Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were better men.

FDR ruled by executive order, declaring things law, and sending them to congress to pass the next day, often without finished text. When the Supreme Court struck down a number of his "New Deal" policies... he threatened to simply nominate a few new justices... the court backed down. FDR also broke President Washington's precedent of only running for two terms, which is essential for balance between the executive and the courts. FDR won four terms... this allowed him to pack the court with a bunch of his ideological cronies who were willing to sign on to any of his schemes.

I'm not done with FDR. His most offensive violation of our Constitution and of human rights was Executive Order 9066 in which he imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese nationals and American Citizens based purely on their race. They lost their homes and their businesses because of this tyrant's rule by fiat. Short of slavery, this was the most flagrant violation of the the wording of our Constitution ever committed. Fuck you FDR... fuck you!

Yup... still not done with FDR. He raised top marginal tax rates as high as 90%, and he ran the farm sector like a command economy with price controls and output quotas. Surprise... farm output went down disasterously. The government started paying large farming operations to destroy crops and livestock during a time of food shortages. FDR redistributed taxes to swing states and political cronies, and sold so much government debt he crowded out all sorts of private investment... making a proper recovery from the Great Depression that much more difficult.

Nobody in private industry could work around federal encroachment in most sectors of the economy, and as a result only large businesses with political ties succeeded while others failed. FDR claimed to be for "the little guy", but government control of the economy left thousands without their farms and businesses. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. FDR was more than a well meaning progressive pushing failed ideas, he was downright sinister.

Harry Truman took office on April, 12 1945 following the death of FDR. Humorously, FDR had left the nation and Truman with one more example of his egomania... Truman hadn't yet been briefed on many issues pertaining to the the war, and had zero knowledge of The Manhattan Project. Keeping Truman out of the loop was a dangerous decision, thankfully Truman didn't drop the ball, and pulled the fucking trigger when given the opportunity to nuke the Japanese... twice!

While Truman was a much more likable and humble man than FDR, he did share many of FDR's political ideas. Thankfully, Truman was not a popular president after the war, and the Republicans were able to do away with many of FDR's price controls, labor laws, and they passed tax cuts over Truman's veto. Truman's "Fair Deal", and his ideas of providing national health insurance never went anywhere. In the end I'm no fan of Harry Truman, but it's hard to argue that his Presidency set us back in any way. I might also add that Truman fought hard for civil rights, and it was Truman who desegregated the US Military. Good work Harry!

The Eisenhower administration was not filled with strict constitutionalists, but Ike was a huge improvement of the tyrant FDR. The Eisenhower administration kept income tax rates high, but they did undo many of the most offensive of FDR's policies. Ike also oversaw the passing of the 22nd Amendment, making George Washington's two term precident law. Eisenhower was also on the right side of the civil rights movement, and enthusiastically enforced the Brown v. Board of Education decision. By 1953, America was in a much better place.

Things start to get really confusing with John F. Kennedy. Kennedy really wasn't very liberal... at least not in the FDR mold. In Fact, Kennedy passed one of the the biggest tax cuts in American history. Top marginal rates fell from about 90% to around 60%. This was certainly a win for those who believe in freedom. Kennedy was also a hawk, though he entered office a bit naive, made some early mistakes, and began our Vietnam entanglement. Kennedy did abuse the FBI and the CIA with illegal wiretaps on political enemies and civil rights leaders... but the real tragedy of the Kennedy administration is his untimely death, which gave his Vice President Lyndon Johnson all the political capital he needed to tear up what was left of The Constitution.

[The Conquistador]

Lyndon Johnson was a miserable asshole racist intent on growing his political base by making more Americans dependent on the government. It was under Johnson that black Americans gained the remainder of their civil rights... and while this was clearly a positive development... black America was then saddled with LBJ's "Great Society". Federal welfare programs would go on to completely destroy black culture and the black family in America. Just as blacks were poised to enter American life on equal footing... they were crassly struck down by LBJ's political maneuvering to secure long-term majorities. I know, some of you will say that black Americans still had opportunities... and they did... but I'd like you to show me any culture that wouldn't be destroyed by getting everything for free. The catastrophic cultural failure of black America can be placed on the head of LBJ as far as I'm concerned.

LBJ's administration tried to deal with economic problems with a loads of unconstitutional federal price controls. He also escalated Vietnam and made that "war" the disaster we now see it as by micro-management and running the war from behind a desk. But as LBJ won his second term in a landslide, his opponent Barry Goldwater helped to change the entire political landscape for decades.

Barry Goldwater lost when he ran against LBJ, but Goldwater was a true believer in freedom and The Constitution. Even with Goldwater's example set, we would still have to suffer through two terrible Republican Presidents before seeing any real change. The Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations bleed together for me. They abused their power, and continued failed "Keynesian" economic policies. Price controls were used to "solve" food and gas price inflation, monetary inflation ran rampant destroying savings accounts, high interest rates made home ownership more difficult... and Americans were overall becoming less and less free. At best, our basic freedoms lay stagnant for most of the 60's and 70's... as did our economy.

Ronald Reagan was a Goldwater conservative. He entered office determined to lessen the power of the federal government, solve our economic problems, and stand up to the Soviet Union. On most accounts... he delivered. Top marginal tax rates fell from 75% down to 50%, then down to 28%, while government revenue went up.

New monetary policy from the fed managed to control inflation, enabling middle class citizens to save their money again. Interest rates came down. Entire industries were deregulated (some of which began under Carter), and the economy responded in a big way. Reagan may not have cut the size of the federal government, but he did succeed in minimizing its encroachment into our daily lives. Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect, but his administration was a huge plus for those of us who believe in freedom and the Constitution.

The best thing about the Reagan era, was that it continued for two more administrations. George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton both raised taxes before they left office. But Clinton's top marginal rate was never higher than 40%... and Clinton cut capital gains taxes as he raised income taxes. This was clearly a better situation than we had under Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Clinton also signed the massive federal welfare reform that has raised the living standards of many who were previously on federal aid, and who are now productive workers. I have my complaints about Clinton personally, but in hindsight, his administration was a huge improvement over the Democratic, and most of the Republican Presidents that came before him. The Reagan era lived on!

George W. Bush ran as a conservative against Al Gore, but Bush was no conservative. Bush expanded government entitlements with Medicare Part-D, ran up massive debt with pork-laden budgets, pandered to religious groups to consolidate power, and build a new and completely unnecessary cabinet level bureaucracy called The Department of Homeland Security. Now our airports are filled with fat depressed federal employees, just sucking up our hard earned tax dollars. Fuck you W!

All of this is bad, but the single worst thing about the Bush administration wasn't Bush's big government liberal policies... it was the fact that his failure was branded as conservatism in the media and the public's eye. The name of conservatism was tarnished... which leads us to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is a power hungry statist who has been able to lead America to the left by falsely calling Bush's policies the failed ideas of the right. Right now the Obama administration is making Bush's already massive debt look like child's-play, and they are passing out federal dollars to all sorts of political interest groups in very much the same way as FDR.

The government now owns Chrysler and GM, and is dictating where they build their cars, where their front offices must be located, and what types of cars they make. Money from government managed bankruptcies (a bankruptcy through the courts would have been just fine) was illegally given to bankrupt union pension programs, while preferred lenders stood around contemplating the meaning of "the rule of law".

We may soon be saddled with federally managed health care, and a debt that will be impossible to pay off without massive tax increases and inflation. We are looking at an almost certain return to the stagflation of the 1970's. It seems Obama has learned nothing from the mistakes of the past. If the Democrats are smacked down in the mid-term elections we may be able to avoid disaster... but don't bet on it. Thanks a bunch George W. Bush!

There you have it... a modern ideological history of both parties. Some good, some bad, some presidents who fit our conventional wisdom, and some that break it...



The article can be found here: http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_presidents.shtml

[transjen]

I'm surpised that no one has brought up the purposed war tax on the rich, Guess you're still waiting for Rush to give you talking points
:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

I'm surpised that no one has brought up the purposed war tax on the rich, Guess you're still waiting for Rush to give you talking points
:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

It sounds like a good idea to me, Jen. It is the rich that profit from all these wars, it seems reasonable that they should help pay for them. :yes:

[transjen]

It sounds like a good idea to me, Jen. It is the rich that profit from all these wars, it seems reasonable that they should help pay for them. :yes: I agree but i feel everyone should help foot the bill not just the rich,But the rich deserve to pay a higher part of the bill for the wars after all it was there beloved W who started these messes and they were fully in favor of these wars so the biggest parts of the bill should be paid by them


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[ifleye2004]

Barrack is doing a good job in a tough sitation. He cant fix everything right away

[The Conquistador]

I'm surpised that no one has brought up the purposed war tax on the rich, Guess you're still waiting for Rush to give you talking points
:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

Probably not gonna happen.

[transjen]

Probably not gonna happen. Why? Both wars added greatly to the debit yes the Iraq is pretty much over but it still left a hugh debit and it appears Obama will keep the Afgan war going with hugh support from the GOP so how are we going to pay for it?Cut spending on other projects? Get real not going to happen when has either party cut back on spending? answer never. Ever other time we were at war there was some kind of tax made to pay for the war so why should these two wars be any differnt? The easest way is a war tax added to income tax with the top paying 5% and have it go down as you reach the lower tax brackets yeah it sucks but to all those now crying about the debit time to stop crying and start ponying up crying about it won't make the debit go away and just cutting programs for the poor won't make it go away either so that means higher taxes
:yes: Jerserygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

You forgot to mention the $10 trillion debt that Lord Zero ran up.

If they do enact a tax, everyone will get hit by it, not just the "rich". Any tax will hurt the "working man" regardless of why it was formed and who it was originally aimed at.

The problem with a tax like that would be the standards of such legislation. If you allow them to tax someone who makes a certain amount of money, it will be a matter of time before they start taxing you because you are making a couple more bucks than your neighbor. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[transjen]

You forgot to mention the $10 trillion debt that Lord Zero ran up.

If they do enact a tax, everyone will get hit by it, not just the "rich". Any tax will hurt the "working man" regardless of why it was formed and who it was originally aimed at.

The problem with a tax like that would be the standards of such legislation. If you allow them to tax someone who makes a certain amount of money, it will be a matter of time before they start taxing you because you are making a couple more bucks than your neighbor. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Are you talking about the ten trillon that a big part of which took in to account the war funding that the former president never put in the budget? Start adding up at the addintal fund the former kept going to congress for his debit level is a lot higher then he is credited for, Obama added the war funding to his budget notice he hasn't gone before congress asking more money for the wars like W kept doing 3x a year.


Since you don't want to pay tax to dry up the red ink then stop crying about the debit since it appears since you don't want to help pay it down then you must not be as worried about it, The upper tax brackets made out like bandits for 8 yrs so they can afford to start paying the tab that was rung up for all there perks, I say start hitting making them pony up and pay there fair share
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

The amount that W spent on the war since it first kicked off to when he left was roughly 900 billion.

Zero just spent 10x that on handouts for his cronies, "stimulus spending" that was supposed to "jumpstart the economy" and pay increases for the politicians(professional bullshitters) who voted on the stimulus bill.


Since you don't want to pay tax to dry up the red ink then stop crying about the debit since it appears since you don't want to help pay it down then you must not be as worried about it.

Oh I am quite concerned my dear. There is quite alot of pork that they are spending our money on and instead of cutting back on useless programs and other such nonsense, they are going to pass the products of their wasteful spending on us and hold us responsible for a debt they created.

The Gov. has been notorious for their wasteful spending such as $100,000 on an oak desk, $750 on a toilet seat, and $50 for a flathead screwdriver and you expect them to be fiscally responsible with money that they take from you?

The upper tax brackets made out like bandits for 8 yrs so they can afford to start paying the tab that was rung up for all there perks, I say start hitting making them pony up and pay there fair share

Hahahahaha! Those with more money have more influence and will not write legislation to lose that money/influence. They are going to pass the buck onto you while they find a way to skirt around it. They always have and will continue to do so. Even if you do manage to get something like that passed, they will lose so much that they will just pull their investments out of the market and do business elsewhere. And once the major players in the American markets who keep the economy up leave, we will be fucked.

You are advocating for the same type of bureaucracy that got us into this financial mess in the first place. The less Gov. meddling there is, the quicker things can get fixed.

[randolph]

By Paul krugmen

November 27, 2009, 10:03 am
Deficits: the causes matter

"Jim Hamilton has a post challenging my optimistic view about current deficits. I won't go through it in detail, except to notice that Jim seems to be slightly rewriting history about his earlier analysis, which I critiqued back in August. What was then a seeming demonstration of the impossibility of servicing the debt - but in fact demonstrated no such thing - has now become just an effort to "personalize" the issue. OK, I guess.

But rather than get into a he-said-he-said, let me try to focus on what I think is the key point: the source of the current deficit matters when you try to figure out what kind of problem we have.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways you can get into severe deficits: fundamental irresponsibility, or temporary emergencies. There's a world of difference between the two.

Consider first the classic temporary emergency - a big war. It's normal and natural to respond to such an emergency by issuing a lot of debt, then gradually reducing that debt after the emergency is over. And the operative word is "gradually": it would have been incredibly difficult for the United States to pay off its World War II debt in ten years, which Jim apparently thinks is the right way to view debts incurred more recently; but it was no big deal to stabilize the nominal debt, which is roughly what happened, and as a result gradually reduce debt as a percentage of GDP.

Consider, on the other hand, a government that is running big deficits even though there isn't an emergency. That's much more worrisome, because you have to wonder what will change to stop the soaring debt. In such a situation, markets are much more likely to conclude that any given debt is so large that it creates a serious risk of default.

Now, back in 2003 I got very alarmed about the US deficit - wrongly, it turned out - not so much because of its size as because of its origin. We had an administration that was behaving in a deeply irresponsible way. Not only was it cutting taxes in the face of a war, which had never happened before, plus starting up a huge unfunded drug benefit, but it was also clearly following a starve-the-beast budget strategy: tax cuts to reduce the revenue base and force later spending cuts to be determined. In effect, it was a strategy designed to produce a fiscal crisis, so as to provide a reason to dismantle the welfare state. And so I thought the crisis would come.

In fact, it never did. Bond markets figured that America was still America, and that responsibility would eventually return; it's still not clear whether they were right, but the housing boom also led to a revenue boom, whittling down those Bush deficits.

Compare and contrast the current situation.

Most though not all of our current budget deficit can be viewed as the result of a temporary emergency. Revenue has plunged in the face of the crisis, while there has been an increase in spending largely due to stimulus and bailouts. None of this can be seen as a case of irresponsible policy, nor as a permanent change in policy. It's more like the financial equivalent of a war - which is why the WWII example is relevant.

So the debt question is what happens when things return to normal: will we be at a level of indebtedness that can't be handled once the crisis is past?

And the answer is that it depends on the politics. If we have a reasonably responsible government a decade from now, and the bond market believes that we have such a government, the debt burden will be well within the range that can be managed with only modest sacrifice.

OK, that's a big if. But it's not a matter of dollars and cents; it's about whether America is still America."

This is a very very big IF considering the behavior of our political parties.:frown:

[randolph]

Biden with party crasher blonde babe. Hilarious! What ever happened to security! Heads will roll over this.:yes::lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Barrack is doing a good job in a tough sitation. He cant fix everything right away

He could fix something though...

[randolph]

He could fix something though...

Unfortunately, Obama cant fix things by himself. He needs a responsible Congress that is dedicated to the Countries interest rather their own selfish interests. It would also help if the Republicans backed off on their hysterical efforts to tear him down.
You know, what "benefit" does Washington provide to us, as citizens, anyway?
:frown::censored::turnoff::(

[ila]

Unfortunately, Obama cant fix things by himself. He needs a responsible Congress that is dedicated to the Countries interest rather their own selfish interests. It would also help if the Republicans backed off on their hysterical efforts to tear him down.
You know, what "benefit" does Washington provide to us, as citizens, anyway?
:frown::censored::turnoff::(

As if the Democrats are so innocent. Randolph, you will find that in any democratic country the opposition will always be trying to tear down the party in power. And then when the tables are turned and those that were in opposition are now in power will be pilloried by those that are now in opposition.

[randolph]

As if the Democrats are so innocent. Randolph, you will find that in any democratic country the opposition will always be trying to tear down the party in power. And then when the tables are turned and those that were in opposition are now in power will be pilloried by those that are now in opposition.

The first sentence in my post was referring to the Democratic controlled Congress. :frown:

[jimnaseum]

I guarantee you Obama has an eight year plan, and all he is showing is the tip of the iceberg. And the name of the plan is "Look what a Black Man did, you simple cocksuckers"

[randolph]

As if the Democrats are so innocent. Randolph, you will find that in any democratic country the opposition will always be trying to tear down the party in power. And then when the tables are turned and those that were in opposition are now in power will be pilloried by those that are now in opposition.

Further thoughts, traditionally, this is true the opposition's job is opposing. However, the current situation is different, we are in a very critical situation, the survival of our way of life is at stake and Obama's opposition acts like it is business as usual. Obama offered to work jointly to stave off disaster but the opposition is unable to see beyond their ego centric political self interest.
As a professor in S. Calif is doing, many of us may be doing dumpster diving soon if Obama's/Congress.s/ Bernake's programs fail. Who will be blamed? Bush's irresponsible administration or Obama's administration. Obama inherited this mess from the people who are criticizing him. His opposition is doing everything they can to lay the blame on him, endless lies, distortions and just plain bullshit. Its disgusting. :censored:

[tomvan20000]

You obviously have little to no understanding as to the political legality within the United States. Barack Obama's political agenda is in direct defiance of the US Constitution; as such, he is breaking the law. The issue is not now, nor has it ever been, whether you agree with his principles, but rather are such principles allowed to manifest themselves into action within said country...they are not.
*Several of Obama's ideas can be inacted quite legally on the state level, but as aforementioned, they are illegal on a federal premise.

*In any case, i do not even know why i am here, i just came to find pictures of hot girls with dicks

[jimnaseum]

Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review.

[randolph]

" With all of the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, young people are beginning to think that the allied powers defeated Nazi Germany because Germany had too much health care."

- Jim Hansen
Proposed extensions of Godwin's Law

[CCC]

Well at this minute Obama is doing his speech before his friends and allies listening intentlyand the poor cadets from West Point who must sit there and listen to this idiot. The independant thinking people have barf bags in hand. Hopefully there will be enough country to take back in three years.

Think I'm going to be sick---see ya

[jimnaseum]

There are no Republican garbagemen. Republicans speak for half the country, the half with money and power. It shows your weakness as a human being and American to bend over for GOP Inc. while ignoring the real problems this nation has. If you're a Republican and make less than 200K/year, you're a complete fool. Huddle up with your guns and religion and stem cells. If you have a cardboard cut-out of Ronald Reagan in your shitty little trailer park home you have the Real Reagan.
You're too stupid to see anything except what you're spoon fed.

[transjen]

Well at this minute Obama is doing his speech before his friends and allies listening intentlyand the poor cadets from West Point who must sit there and listen to this idiot. The independant thinking people have barf bags in hand. Hopefully there will be enough country to take back in three years.

Think I'm going to be sick---see ya At least he can read which is more then can be said about W and Palin


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[CCC]

There are no Republican garbagemen. Republicans speak for half the country, the half with money and power. It shows your weakness as a human being and American to bend over for GOP Inc. while ignoring the real problems this nation has. If you're a Republican and make less than 200K/year, you're a complete fool. Huddle up with your guns and religion and stem cells. If you have a cardboard cut-out of Ronald Reagan in your shitty little trailer park home you have the Real Reagan.
You're too stupid to see anything except what you're spoon fed.

There are a lot of Independants that are garbagemen. The majority of voters in this country are independants. It's too bad that during the last election there were no string candidates at all. McCain is just a RINO. Look what happened in the last election. Republicans ousted Dems that were in power in 2 of the three major spots. In the other it took the RINO who pulled out of the race one day and threw her votes to the Dem to narrowly beast out an Indepent candidate. American is waking up and getting tired of both parties.

[CCC]

At least he can read which is more then can be said about W and Palin


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Yes he can read but have you ever seen what happens to him when the telepromter goes down? :lol::lol::lol:

[TracyCoxx]

What do you all think about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan? :turnon: or :turnoff:?

[jimnaseum]

What do you all think about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan? :turnon: or :turnoff:?

Fishguts Cheney shood have gone toe to toe with Pakistan right after we blew killing Bin Laden in Tora Bora. That's what our Nuclear Arsenal is for. We could have cleaned up the entire 9-11 mess in six months by simply giving the American People the head of Osama Bin Laden, like they always wanted. For Obama, it's square One. If he's convinced Pakistan to attack Al Queda from the right, then our troops can smoke A-rabs this year, opium next year.

[randolph]

What do you all think about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan? :turnon: or :turnoff:?

One- Cut a deal with the Taliban, money talks in Afghanistan.

Two- Clean out Al Qaida in Pakistan

Three- Support Pakistan's moderates.

Four- Get serious about energy.

Five- Stop eating beef (cow gas = 50% of global warming)

Obama's plan? :turnoff:

[randolph]

But while the president may be showing disloyalty to his political base, he's remaining faithful to the defense industry interests that so generously funded his campaign.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database, the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain's $696,948.

During the 2008 cycle, the industry contributed a total of $23.7 million to federal candidates -- far more than the $17.4 million it invested during the 2006 cycle or the $18.1 million in the 2004 cycle.

The top five defense industry contributors during the 2008 elections were Lockheed Martin at $2.5 million, Boeing at $2.1 million, Northrop Grumman at $1.8 million, and Raytheon and General Dynamics at $1.7 million each.

And it appears their investment may be paying off: The Associated Press reports that analyst Howard A. Rubel of the global investment bank Jefferies & Co. sent out a client note today stating that the fiscal 2010 Defense Department Budget will likely boost demand for precision munitions, communications gear, helicopters, armor and surveillance systems.

Among the companies whose stock Rubel rated as "Buy"? General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.

We have been fucked again. Guess who is going to pay for it! :censored:

[randolph]

This is one of the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.


A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend fromGermany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late. :eek:

Emanuel Tanay, M.D. 2980 Provincial St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104

[randolph]

Obama's War

by Jim Hightower

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to war we go! Pound the drums loudly, stand with your country proudly!

Wait, wait, wait - hold it right there. Cut the music, slow the rush, and let's all ponder what Barack Obama, Roberts Gates, Stanley McChrystal and Co. are getting us into ... and whether we really want to go there. After all, just because the White House and the Pentagon brass are waving the flag and insisting that a major escalation of America's military mission in Afghanistan is a "necessity" doesn't mean it is ... or that We the People must accept it.

Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain about war-whooping generals and politicians: "Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

How many more dead and mangled American soldiers does the government's "new" Afghan policy deserve? How many more tens of billions of dollars should we let them siphon from our public treasury to fuel their war policy? How much more of our country's good name will they squander on what is essentially a civil war?

We've been lied to for nearly a decade about "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan - why do the hawks deserve our trust that this time will be different?

Their rationales for escalation are hardly confidence boosters. The goal, we're told, is to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist network that threatens our national security. Yes, but al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan! Nor is it one network. It has metastasized, with strongholds now in Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Yemen and Somalia, plus even having enclaves in England and France.

Well, claims Obama himself, we must protect the democratic process in Afghanistan. Does he think we have suckerwrappers around our heads? America's chosen leader over there is President Hamid Karzai - a preening incompetent who was "elected" this year only through flagrant fraud and whose government is controlled by warlords, rife with corruption and opposed by the great majority of Afghans.

During the election campaign from July through October, 195 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 wounded to protect this guy's "democratic process." Why should even one more American die for Karzai?

Finally, Washington's war establishment asserts that adding some 30,000 more troops will let us greatly expand and train the Afghan army and police force during the next couple of years so they can secure their own country and we can leave.
Mission accomplished!

Nearly every independent military analyst, however, says this assertion is not just fantasy, it's delusional - it'll take at least 10 years to raise Afghanistan's largely illiterate and corrupt security forces to a level of barely adequate, costing us taxpayers more than $4 billion a year to train and support them.

Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people's lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.

So, we must look elsewhere, starting with ourselves. The first job of a citizen is to keep your mouth open. Obama is wrong on his policy - deadly wrong - and those of you who see this have both a moral and patriotic duty to reach out to others to inform, organize and mobilize our grassroots objections, taking common sense to high places.

Also, look to leaders in Congress who are standing up against Obama's war and finally beginning to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional responsibility to oversee and direct military policy. For example, Rep. Jim McGovern is pushing for a specific, congressionally mandated exit strategy; Rep. Barbara Lee wants to use Congress' control of the public purse strings to stop Obama's escalation; and Rep. David Obey is calling for a war tax on the richest Americans to put any escalation on-budget, rather than on a credit card for China to finance and future generations to pay.

This is no time to be deferential to executive authority. Stand up. Speak out. It's our country, not theirs. We are America - ultimately, we have the power and the responsibility.

I agree, Obama appears to be a weak President following the hawks. We need to resist.

[Hedonistman]

Obamaman a war loving President,,, lol. This megolomaniac is into EVERYTHING. And he's not got 1 single policy issue right yet.... No wait, his very 1st call was I think a good 1 ---allowing more stem cell research. Other than that though, he's a Bushboy clone..... Anyone here feel 'stimulated' yet,,
ie from/by Obamaman and his 1,000 or more plans,,, ? lol

[jimnaseum]

It's hard to get too serious about International Affairs when you're staring at pictures of Raging Shemale Schlongfests, and since I've missed all the Presidential briefings on the Middle East, I admit I have no idea what's going on over there. It's possible Obama could do a JFK and take us to the brink of Nuclear War, it's obvious we're not sending 100,000 troops over there to respond to 19 guys armed with box-cutters. We're sending 100,000 troops over there to respond to one imaginary guy armed with a nuclear suitcase.

One day there will be a most fascinating book written about what Time Magazine calls "The Decade from Hell." I can't wait to read it to find out what the hell happened these last ten years. It'll be a page turner.

[TracyCoxx]

There's about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The rest are Taliban. I never really knew what Bush's beef was with the Taliban. Sure they suck, but we're not going to change that mentality over there, and they are entitled to it, as long as they don't interfere with us. Our war is not with the Taliban, it's with Al Qaeda. And right now it looks like they're in Pakistan. Pakistan should answer for that. We're giving them a lot of money to help us track Al Qaeda down. If they're allowing Al Qaeda to run around in their country, I say we do some air strikes, and renegotiate.

So what are we doing in Afghanistan? BO hasn't really said. Just that he's sending 30000 more troops there (finally), and then starting to bring them home before the 2012 elections. We have to have a goal there. Does he intend to completely wipe out the Taliban? Then he's in for something like Iraq. Maybe worse if he doesn't handle the Afghan war as well as Bush did.

Question... while BO is attacking the Taliban, is he apologizing (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html) too?

I will say Bush, or the military commanders or whoever, royally :censored: up Tora Bora. That could have been a clean victory.

[randolph]

I found the part of his speech about the Afgan army needing more training really ludicrous. We already have more soldiers in Afghanistan than the Afghan army. Besides, the Afghans are some of the toughest fighters in the world. They don't need more training, they need to be on the "right" side. If they don't want the Taliban then let them work it out. We need to focus on Pakistan and keep those rockets and a-bombs secure. Obama seems to be going down the same path as Bush/Cheney. :censored::censored::censored:

[jimnaseum]

Since August '45, the office of President only has one real job -preventing a nuclear war. The Government is so bereaucrocized that you could put a cardboard cut-out in the oval office and nobody would notice (Reagan)
In the summer of '45 we had our brand new B-29 bombers fly over Tokyo one night and drop incindiary bombs, the city was built largely of wood and we killed 100,000 "Jap" civilians. (More than the individual A-bombs killed.) That was a good policy back then. Today, you BOW to the Japanese leader. Because we're going to need the japanese, chinese, russians, and anybody else we can find to prevent Iran, Israel, N Korea, Pakistan, and India from selling Thermonuclear Missles on eBay.

[DSL]

Well here is a look at our national debt clock this is
how much the u.s. owes.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[transjen]

I find it funny that from 01 thru 08 when W was spending quicker then the money could be printed most of the GOP didn't say word one but know it's there top concern and yet not one of them has said anything about ending the wars and ending W's tax cuts the biggest cause of this mess, So let's get real here people if you are truely worried about the sea of red ink end the wars and end every one of W's tax cuts and that will go a long way draining the bottomless sea of red ink

[TracyCoxx]

I find it funny that from 01 thru 08 when W was spending quicker then the money could be printed most of the GOP didn't say word one but know it's there top concern and yet not one of them has said anything about ending the wars and ending W's tax cuts the biggest cause of this mess, So let's get real here people if you are truely worried about the sea of red ink end the wars and end every one of W's tax cuts and that will go a long way draining the bottomless sea of red ink

Oh, btw... have I mentioned that in 2 months BO has increased the debt 2.5 times more than all of Bush's 8 years in office?

Not only that but almost 90% of the $350 billion of Bush's portion of the Wall Street bailout has already been paid back. Of course the democrats think this is money to spend. NO! It goes towards paying back the debt!

And what's more? The fucking house has approved a $290 billion increase in the debt limit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_debt_limit).

[jimnaseum]

One Percent of the population owns fifty percent of the wealth. The National debt is not what we owe ourselves, it's what the rich owe us. THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED!!!! Merry Christmas, Everyone!! Oh Oh Oh, the Big Big O.........

[TracyCoxx]

Well, lets see.
I am skeptical of the health care plan.
I am a white male.
I am against illegal immigrants taking over the country.
I am skeptical of global warming, climate change,yes.
I believe in woman's rights, abortion should should be discouraged.
I am a Democrat.;):cool::yes:

Joe Lieberman:
Skeptical of the health care plan.
A white male.
Doesn't seem to mind illegal immigrants taking over the country.
Believes US should accept responsibility for Global Warming

No longer considered a democrat.
Shut down by democrats in the middle of his speech.

[randolph]

Joe Lieberman:
Skeptical of the health care plan.
A white male.
Doesn't seem to mind illegal immigrants taking over the country.
Believes US should accept responsibility for Global Warming

No longer considered a democrat.
Shut down by democrats in the middle of his speech.

I am switching my registration to independent.

Politicians - Republicans/Democrats hears to you!

[randolph]

"FRANKEN AMENDMENT BECOMES LAW.... In October, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) proposed a key amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. Yesterday, it was signed into law.

Motivated by the harrowing violence Jamie Leigh Jones suffered in 2005 while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense contracts from companies that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. The 30 opponents -- representing 75% of the entire GOP Senate caucus -- were Republican men.

There were some implantation questions from the Pentagon, but after some additional efforts, and overcoming a Republican filibuster, Franken's measure became law after President Obama signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act over the weekend.

Digby had a good take on this.

The reason I think it's good news isn't just on the substance (which it certainly is) but on the politics. Franken's amendment is driving the Republicans crazy because they basically voted to protect rapists and are now paying a political price for that. And now they are whining that Franken was somehow "uncollegial" because the amendment put them in an embarrassing position (which makes me wonder how many other things issues are swept under the rug because it would make members of the opposition uncomfortable.)

That's the kind of thing the Democrats should do more of. Expose the Republicans' hypocrisy and cruelty by forcing these issues on to the agenda.

Remember, Republicans can barely contain their outrage over this -- Franken proposed a common-sense measure; it passed easily; and opponents of the amendment have faced some severe criticicism as a result. "The nerve of that guy," conservative senators keep saying.

For his part, this is Franken's first key legislative success. Here's to many more like it."

At least some things are done right.:yes:

[pighead63]

I honestly hoped Obama would bring about change.. so powerful charismatic and motivating speaker in the campaign. but that seems to be gone.

* Health Care debacle - heard something got passed or almost passed?

* Afghanistan - 30k troops, after winning Nobel Peace Prize, and his explanation speech used identical language to Bush.

* Banks - had a meeting and 3 of the biggest just blew him off, after they were give 750 billion interest free loans which they then lent out on Credit Cards at 30%

I am not an Amrerican but terrifies me. Watching Bush get away with everything he did was sickening but Obama is no different.

JFK and Martin Luther were 2 of the biggest and best promoters of civil rights and transparency of government. They were both assasinated. JFKs brother picked it up and he was assinated. Ever since the President has towed the same corporate & military line.

Obama should have done what whether he promised or not people believed he would..

* Pull out of the unnecessary Wars
* Fix Health Care
* Regulate Wall Street

He should as Cheney did say stuff bi-partisan, this is the change people are screaming for and I am going to do it. Maybe his slow and steady approach might pay off in the long run.. but seeing him holding a useless 1 hour meeting with the banks and even then have 3 of the biggest blow him off I don't hold much 'hope'.

[TracyCoxx]

Senate Passes Health Insurance Overhaul

The Senate passed a health insurance overhaul on Thursday morning, 60-39, as both Democrats and Republicans held unified in their positions on the massive bill that mandates coverage for about 9 percent of the U.S. population now without insurance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/24/senate-poised-pass-health-care-reform/

Fuck you Senate. Fuck you very much.
You have violated your oath of office and passed a bill that is unconstitutional. What's more, you haven't represented your constituents. In EVERY poll over the past several months, US citizens DO NOT WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM! I don't need to wait for November 2010 for all you dipshits to be cleared out of congress because all the democrats in the senate should be thrown in jail.

He should as Cheney did say stuff bi-partisan, this is the change people are screaming for and I am going to do it.
He did say 'stuff bi-partisan'. They voted 60-39 along party lines. Only thing is he went against what the people were screaming for.

[TracyCoxx]

Damn Tytler, does he have to be so right?
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.

[randolph]

Health industry lobbyists spent $600,000,000 on Congress to keep out the public option. They succeeded and Obama will sign it anyway. Corporate America owns the government, we are here just to pay the bills of the rich. How much longer are we going to put up with this shit? :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Health industry lobbyists spent $600,000,000 on Congress to keep out the public option. They succeeded and Obama will sign it anyway. Corporate America owns the government, we are here just to pay the bills of the rich. How much longer are we going to put up with this shit? :censored:

You want the government to run health care? Give me an example of an efficient, well run government agency. You'll say corporations aren't well run or efficient, but many of them are. They have to be other wise they will not be competitive. Government agencies OTOH do not have to be competitive. They don't even have to be mediocre. They will receive their budgeted amount regardless of how well they are doing, and regardless of whether the country actually even has money to pay them! This guarantees that they will be inefficient because they don't need to be. It also guarantees that they will be filled with schmucks who can't make it in the real world where they are held accountable for their performance.

[The Conquistador]

You want the government to run health care? Give me an example of an efficient, well run government agency. You'll say corporations aren't well run or efficient, but many of them are. They have to be other wise they will not be competitive. Government agencies OTOH do not have to be competitive. They don't even have to be mediocre. They will receive their budgeted amount regardless of how well they are doing, and regardless of whether the country actually even has money to pay them! This guarantees that they will be inefficient because they don't need to be. It also guarantees that they will be filled with schmucks who can't make it in the real world where they are held accountable for their performance.

Damn skippy Tracy!

[transjen]

Senate Passes Health Insurance Overhaul

The Senate passed a health insurance overhaul on Thursday morning, 60-39, as both Democrats and Republicans held unified in their positions on the massive bill that mandates coverage for about 9 percent of the U.S. population now without insurance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/24/senate-poised-pass-health-care-reform/

Fuck you Senate. Fuck you very much.
You have violated your oath of office and passed a bill that is unconstitutional. What's more, you haven't represented your constituents. In EVERY poll over the past several months, US citizens DO NOT WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM! I don't need to wait for November 2010 for all you dipshits to be cleared out of congress because all the democrats in the senate should be thrown in jail.


He did say 'stuff bi-partisan'. They voted 60-39 along party lines. Only thing is he went against what the people were screaming for.Geez relax girl the GOP is already planning to do away with it before it ever takes effect the Senator from Texas is planning to go to the unsupreme court claiming health care for everyone is unconstoutional and if that doesn't work they plan in the next two election to retake the house, senate and white house and by a partasain vote take healthcare away from the poor and give it back to the rich so relax and don't blow a gasket the GOP will restore everything back to big business and the rich

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

You want the government to run health care? Give me an example of an efficient, well run government agency. You'll say corporations aren't well run or efficient, but many of them are. They have to be other wise they will not be competitive. Government agencies OTOH do not have to be competitive. They don't even have to be mediocre. They will receive their budgeted amount regardless of how well they are doing, and regardless of whether the country actually even has money to pay them! This guarantees that they will be inefficient because they don't need to be. It also guarantees that they will be filled with schmucks who can't make it in the real world where they are held accountable for their performance.

Well if government is so inefficient why did the health industry spend six hundred million dollars to get the public option dropped? Sounds like the public option was a threat to their obscene profits screwing sick people.:censored:

[The Conquistador]

Well if government is so inefficient why did the health industry spend six hundred million dollars to get the public option dropped? Sounds like the public option was a threat to the people's individual liberties and their ability to choose what they deem necessary; not what some G-man says.:censored:


Fixed it for you.

[randolph]

Fixed it for you.

Hey man, If you want to quote me fine. just don't screw around with what I have to say. If you disagree, fine, say what you want, OK! :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Geez relax girl the GOP is already planning to do away with it before it ever takes effectI doubt they have the votes to enforce the people's will.

the Senator from Texas is planning to go to the unsupreme court claiming health care for everyone is unconstoutional and if that doesn't work they plan in the next two election to retake the house, senate and white house and by a partasain vote take healthcare away from the poor and give it back to the richHopefully they'll take health care away from the illegal aliens too that will wind up with it.

Health care for everyone - of the quality that most Americans are used to, is just not possible. The government is broke and the quality of health care is going to go down if you provide blanket health care for everyone. You don't solve the problem for 15% of the population by crippling a system that 85% of the population is fine with. You don't provide health care for illegal aliens (we all know this is next, and they're practically getting it anyway). If the government is broke, which it is btw, you don't launch yet another $multi-trillion program. Is it just me or are these things not obvious?

Well if government is so inefficient why did the health industry spend six hundred million dollars to get the public option dropped? Sounds like the public option was a threat to their obscene profits screwing sick people.:censored:Because the public option is a threat to the quality of health care in America, and they don't want government to move in and install a paralyzing bureaucracy.

[transjen]

Hopefully they'll take health care away from the illegal aliens too that will wind up with it.


It's a Christmas miracle we actualy aggree on something


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Hey man, If you want to quote me fine. just don't screw around with what I have to say. If you disagree, fine, say what you want, OK! :frown:

Tee hee hee... Where's the love ole chap?

[randolph]

I doubt they have the votes to enforce the people's will.

Hopefully they'll take health care away from the illegal aliens too that will wind up with it.

Health care for everyone - of the quality that most Americans are used to, is just not possible. The government is broke and the quality of health care is going to go down if you provide blanket health care for everyone. You don't solve the problem for 15% of the population by crippling a system that 85% of the population is fine with. You don't provide health care for illegal aliens (we all know this is next, and they're practically getting it anyway). If the government is broke, which it is btw, you don't launch yet another $multi-trillion program. Is it just me or are these things not obvious?

Because the public option is a threat to the quality of health care in America, and they don't want government to move in and install a paralyzing bureaucracy.

Oh, please! You think the health care industry cares about quality? All they care about is profits. They are corporations and they are beholden to their stockholders for dividends and stock value growth. If they don't come through, their shareholders will sell their stock. As long as we have this kind of system running our health care we will see escalating costs until none of us can afford it. :frown:

[randolph]

It's a Christmas miracle we actualy aggree on something


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Hey, hey Jen is that you in your avatar? :cool:

[transjen]

Hey, hey Jen is that you in your avatar? :cool: I wish, No it's the actress who played Buffy the vampire slayer


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

It's a Christmas miracle we actualy aggree on something


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Cool :hug:

[TracyCoxx]

Oh, please! You think the health care industry cares about quality? All they care about is profits.Well that's the funny thing about capitalism. There's a relationship between quality and profits. If it's government run, they'll get paid either way. No incentive for profits. I keep bringing this up. Do you not agree with that?

[randolph]

Well that's the funny thing about capitalism. There's a relationship between quality and profits. If it's government run, they'll get paid either way. No incentive for profits. I keep bringing this up. Do you not agree with that?

You seem the think that "profits" are the sin qua non of human motivation. I belong to an HMO called Kaiser Permanente. It was set up during WWII to serve the workers at Kaiser steel mills. Since then it has expanded to become a major HMO in the far West. I have belonged to it for many years. The clinic service is excellent and the hospitals are first class and they will pay for emergency health costs outside of their territory. Also, they saved my life after a burst appendix. There is no quibbling over health services, if you need something done, you get it done.
Now is this HMO one of you beloved profiteering corporations?
NO! It is a NONPROFIT organization run by doctors!
It is very efficient and has a state of the art computer record and health maintenance system. There are no lines, no waiting when you have an appointment, they are ready.
I know of no for profit HMO that comes close to Kaiser and a friend who works for a private HMO confirms that view. :yes:

[TracyCoxx]

Well that's the funny thing about capitalism. There's a relationship between quality and profits. If it's government run, they'll get paid either way. No incentive for profits. I keep bringing this up. Do you not agree with that?

You seem the think that "profits" are the sin qua non of human motivation.

Sorry... above I meant to say "If it's government run, they'll get paid either way. No incentive for quality."

Now is this HMO one of you beloved profiteering corporations?
NO! It is a NONPROFIT organization run by doctors!
It is very efficient and has a state of the art computer record and health maintenance system. There are no lines, no waiting when you have an appointment, they are ready.
I know of no for profit HMO that comes close to Kaiser and a friend who works for a private HMO confirms that view. :yes:Awesome. Dedicated health practitioners can certainly provide great quality health care. I do not believe that profit is the only motivation. What I have said all along is that the government has never been, and never will be efficient. In some cases it may be state of the art, but certainly not in national health care.

Does this look efficient to you?

[randolph]

Well that's the funny thing about capitalism. There's a relationship between quality and profits. If it's government run, they'll get paid either way. No incentive for profits. I keep bringing this up. Do you not agree with that?

Yes, I will have to agree with you there. I was president of my own agricultural company for many years. I went to Washington several times to deal with Agricultural regulations. The "Washington" bureaucracy is appalling, consisting of mostly "administrators" supervising people that do nothing.
OK, I just shot down my own view of gov. run health care, well not really, Medicare is a fairly well run system. The value of a gov. run alternative to private insurance is that it provides a damper on excess profits that private companies strive for. Our goal is to hold down escalating costs of health care, right?

[jimnaseum]

Yeah, let's put these guys in charge.

[TracyCoxx]

OK, I just shot down my own view of gov. run health care, well not really, Medicare is a fairly well run system. The value of a gov. run alternative to private insurance is that it provides a damper on excess profits that private companies strive for. Our goal is to hold down escalating costs of health care, right?Ok, you tell me how pharmaceutical companies should be run. Are you a benevolent non-profit organization run by brilliant and giving chemists and microbiologists? Will your organization be able to map cancer genes? Run studies that will be safe for users and get an ok by the FDA?

Or will you grant that pharmaceutical companies have large expenses in research and trials, not to mention drug ingredients, processing, etc. If you do concede this, and you're the president of this pharmaceutical company, what do you do when the government mandates that the costs of your drugs go down? Does that magically erase your research and drug trial expenses? Probably not. So you have a choice. Do you continue developing drugs in the US, or do you go to some other country where they accept the realities of your business?

BTW, I bet of medical practitioners from clinics to insurance companies to pharmaceutical companies could lower a lot of their costs if Tort Reform were passed. Is that part of the health care bill? No! Why not? Aren't they interested in making health care affordable for everyone? Hmmm, maybe not. I think these lawmakers that you're depending on to provide you and everyone else in this country the health care we all need are on the take. Are those the people you want deciding what kind of health care you receive? No thanks!

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah, let's put these guys in charge.

I don't get the Hannity/Eddie comparison. They both have black hair? Is that it? And I think Coulter looks more like a hippie that grew up into one of your liberal congresswomen.

[transjen]

I don't get the Hannity/Eddie comparison. They both have black hair? Is that it? And I think Coulter looks more like a hippie that grew up into one of your liberal congresswomen.

I still say Hannity looks like a grown up Eddie Monster and for Coulter growing up into a hippie liberal that would be her worst and scarest nightmare but funny to everyone else
:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Question- how much money does the goverment shell out on serect service to protect the Carters, Bushs, Clinton's, Bush's?
Ok Hillary being the sitting sec of state so i can see the need for secert service protection but if she wasn't why are we spending all this money? I mean really they are former presidents and not in danger like they were when they were in office, When has anyone ever took a shot at a former president? I just feel these are resources and money that could be better spent elsewhere if they feel they need secert service protection still then let them pick up the tab. Just something to think about
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Question- how much money does the goverment shell out on serect service to protect the Carters, Bushs, Clinton's, Bush's?

...

I just feel these are resources and money that could be better spent elsewhere if they feel they need secert service protection still then let them pick up the tab. Just something to think about
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
$1.5 billion/year, or about .075% of the money Obama wasted on BS spending programs. Think about that.

[transjen]

$1.5 billion/year, or about .075% of the money Obama wasted on BS spending programs. Think about that.Is that 1'5 billion the total for all the former presidents or is that 1.5 for each? but regauardless why should the tax payers keep them with secert service no one is going to waste there time trying to knock off a former president come on Carter left office in 81 Bush in 92 Clinton in 01 and W in 09 no terrorist will think or even try to knock one off them off only the sitting president is in any real danger the money wasted on the former presidents would be better spent elsewhere.


And how does Obama spending more money else where make spend the 1.5 billion guarding former presidents ok?The GOP keep yelling for the president to trim the bufget well here a 1.5 billion dollar trim

[CreativeMind]

but regauardless why should the tax payers keep them with secert service no one is going to waste there time trying to knock off a former president come on Carter left office in 81 Bush in 92 Clinton in 01 and W in 09 no terrorist will think or even try to knock one off them off only the sitting president is in any real danger the money wasted on the former presidents would be better spent elsewhere.


Why would anyone want to "waste their time" trying to topple two twin towers filled with civilians? For the exact same reason -- it's a symbolic strike against America and, if successful, would instantly make WORLD news and give immediate credibility and notoriety to any terrorist organization that successfully pulled off such a thing.

And, Jen, just as an FYI -- the Secret Service deals with constant threats to ex-Presidents on a DAILY basis...in fact, often to their immediate family members TOO, who potentially could be even easier targets...which is why they are also kept under watch and given protection for life. I mean, come on, let's be honest here. Regardless of whether it was a Republican or Democrat in office, the sheer act of BEING President of the United States... and of holding the most powerful office in the world... is literally THE most exclusive club that any person could ever be in.


And how does Obama spending more money elsewhere make spend the 1.5 billion guarding former presidents ok? The GOP keep yelling for the president to trim the bufget well here a 1.5 billion dollar trim

Unfortunately, once you've sat in the Oval Office, you will also be a potential target for the rest of your life -- hence the reason that BOTH sides of the political aisle in Congress has ALWAYS approved the budget and provided constant security to not only the current sitting President, but former ones as well...with absolutely no questions asked. In short: this is simply one of those things that is NOT open for debate regarding the budgetary costs, and this is simply one of those very rare things where Congress (both sides of the aisle) will NEVER look to trim costs, out of sheer respect for whoever held that office.

[jimnaseum]

I'm sure this pie chart is faulty, but you get an idea that the Secret Service payroll is peanuts compared to the bigger issues.
Count on Obama capturing Bin Laden about Oct 27, 2010.
Count on Obama secretly changing the way we do our Military Spending.
Don't count on Obama fixing the National Debt til like 2015.

I think Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter are like 1900 Europeans who looked to their leaders to be "Father Figures" and not "Civil Servants" I read about this in a Hermann Hesse book, set in a small German town, and the townsfolk had a Mayor they all trusted and obeyed like a Father, and in many cases I think a system like this is good. Clint Eastwood said being the Mayor of Carmel was the biggest headache of his life because the people really thought they had a role in running the town.

Anne Coulter's Dad was a Union-busting Commie Hunter, and was rumoured to be a real asshole. I think that explains alot about Daddy's little girl.

[transjen]

Why would anyone want to "waste their time" trying to topple two twin towers filled with civilians? For the exact same reason -- it's a symbolic strike against America and, if successful, would instantly make WORLD news and give immediate credibility and notoriety to any terrorist organization that successfully pulled off such a thing.

And, Jen, just as an FYI -- the Secret Service deals with constant threats to ex-Presidents on a DAILY basis...in fact, often to their immediate family members TOO, who potentially could be even easier targets...which is why they are also kept under watch and given protection for life. I mean, come on, let's be honest here. Regardless of whether it was a Republican or Democrat in office, the sheer act of BEING President of the United States... and of holding the most powerful office in the world... is literally THE most exclusive club that any person could ever be in.




Unfortunately, once you've sat in the Oval Office, you will also be a potential target for the rest of your life -- hence the reason that BOTH sides of the political aisle in Congress has ALWAYS approved the budget and provided constant security to not only the current sitting President, but former ones as well...with absolutely no questions asked. In short: this is simply one of those things that is NOT open for debate regarding the budgetary costs, and this is simply one of those very rare things where Congress (both sides of the aisle) will NEVER look to trim costs, out of sheer respect for whoever held that office.Because they want to attack the USA and make a point while doing it and Bin-Laddin never took a shoot at W when he was in office so why would he now? his new targets are still the USA and the current me in the office he can now careless about W.


And i wasn't saying to protect only certian former presidents i included all of them i wasn't playing favorites but i did say i can see an exception made for Clinton as Hillary is the current sec of state, And when has anyone ever tried to knock off a former president? Yeah they proably get hate mail and threats but so do Judges cops mayors governors and nothing ever comes out of it

[jimnaseum]

My Sister worked for the State Department, she knew alot of Secret Service guys at one time, and yes, even though she was dumb as she could be, she earned $100,000/year, just by keeping her mouth shut and playing the game. The government bloated and corrupt???? Oh no!!! The Washington DC area is said to be recession proof just because of the Government jobs here. You really think the lawmakers are going to screw themselves over? Government is about the Law of the Jungle as much as the Law of the People.

[TracyCoxx]

Is that 1'5 billion the total for all the former presidents or is that 1.5 for each?
Total

but regauardless why should the tax payers keep them with secert service no one is going to waste there time trying to knock off a former president come on Carter left office in 81 Bush in 92 Clinton in 01 and W in 09 no terrorist will think or even try to knock one off them off only the sitting president is in any real danger the money wasted on the former presidents would be better spent elsewhere.Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. after he left office. In theory, any enemies a president makes while in office is in the course of defending the constitution and acting in the best interests of the USA (I mean, can you imagine a president doing something that most Americans oppose? Crazy I know). It's only right that tax payers return the favor by protecting the president, current or not, from those enemies.

And how does Obama spending more money else where make spend the 1.5 billion guarding former presidents ok?The GOP keep yelling for the president to trim the bufget well here a 1.5 billion dollar trimBecause the point is trimming the budget. It's silly to worry about a $1.5 billion expense when over $2 trillion was just thrown away. The problem is the mindset that blew that $2 trillion is still in Washington on the verge of blowing another several trillion on healthcare reform.

What your suggesting is like using a teaspoon to bail out water shooting up from a baseball-sized hole in the bottom of a boat.

[TracyCoxx]

Janet Napolitano is another idiot that BO put into office. She's the head of Homeland Security. When talking about the failed bombing of the plane bound for Detroit on Christmas, it is her basic position that the "system worked" because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was "foiled" by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right.

I wonder what color the skies are on her world? The terrorist's father warned the US state department 6 months ago about his son. Yet still he makes it on to the flight with explosives. In what possible fantasy does her claim even remotely make sense?

Monday she admitted the system failed. Uh, yeah... No shit Sherlock. She needs to be fired. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to BO.

Perhaps he should spend more time and effort helping the CIA stop terrorists abroad than pursuing investigations into CIA personnel who have kept us safe since 9/11.

Perhaps he should stop spending so much time and effort to remove terrorists from Gitmo and to arranging their trial in New York and their imprisonment in Illinois and spend much more time arranging for more terrorists to spend more time in Gitmo's secure confines.

Perhaps he should spend less time in Copenhagen seeking Olympic games and global warming fame and more time at home demanding more vigilance from his incompetent Homeland Security staff.

Perhaps he should spend more time encouraging and consulting with our allies like Great Britain and Israel than pleading with our enemies in Iran and North Korea for breakthroughs that will not come.

But hey, I'm just a ladyboy lover. What do I know?

[randolph]

Janet Napolitano is another idiot that BO put into office. She's the head of Homeland Security. When talking about the failed bombing of the plane bound for Detroit on Christmas, it is her basic position that the “system worked” because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was “foiled” by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right.

I wonder what color the skies are on her world? The terrorist's father warned the US state department 6 months ago about his son. Yet still he makes it on to the flight with explosives. In what possible fantasy does her claim even remotely make sense?

Monday she admitted the system failed. Uh, yeah... No shit Sherlock. She needs to be fired. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to BO.

Perhaps he should spend more time and effort helping the CIA stop terrorists abroad than pursuing investigations into CIA personnel who have kept us safe since 9/11.

Perhaps he should stop spending so much time and effort to remove terrorists from Gitmo and to arranging their trial in New York and their imprisonment in Illinois and spend much more time arranging for more terrorists to spend more time in Gitmo's secure confines.

Perhaps he should spend less time in Copenhagen seeking Olympic games and global warming fame and more time at home demanding more vigilance from his incompetent Homeland Security staff.

Perhaps he should spend more time encouraging and consulting with our allies like Great Britain and Israel than pleading with our enemies in Iran and North Korea for breakthroughs that will not come.

But hey, I'm just a ladyboy lover. What do I know?

Agreed, heads should roll. What about the idiots that gave him a visa?
Why didn't the warning from his father have any effect.
Also, apparently the attack was planned by guys released from Gitmo.
The radical Islamists seem to be making every effort to make this a religious war.
Scheduling the attack for Christmas day!
I would like to keep a moderate view toward Muslims but things like this make my blood boil.
:censored:

[jimnaseum]

19 guys armed with boxcutters- We killed about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Lets call it even and figure out what to do with Iran. Before Israel does.

[transjen]

Janet Napolitano is another idiot that BO put into office. She's the head of Homeland Security. When talking about the failed bombing of the plane bound for Detroit on Christmas, it is her basic position that the "system worked" because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was "foiled" by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right.

I wonder what color the skies are on her world? The terrorist's father warned the US state department 6 months ago about his son. Yet still he makes it on to the flight with explosives. In what possible fantasy does her claim even remotely make sense?

Monday she admitted the system failed. Uh, yeah... No shit Sherlock. She needs to be fired. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to BO.

Perhaps he should spend more time and effort helping the CIA stop terrorists abroad than pursuing investigations into CIA personnel who have kept us safe since 9/11.

Perhaps he should stop spending so much time and effort to remove terrorists from Gitmo and to arranging their trial in New York and their imprisonment in Illinois and spend much more time arranging for more terrorists to spend more time in Gitmo's secure confines.

Perhaps he should spend less time in Copenhagen seeking Olympic games and global warming fame and more time at home demanding more vigilance from his incompetent Homeland Security staff.

Perhaps he should spend more time encouraging and consulting with our allies like Great Britain and Israel than pleading with our enemies in Iran and North Korea for breakthroughs that will not come.

But hey, I'm just a ladyboy lover. What do I know? But you failed to mention both bozos were releashed in 07 under your belove W so this is another fine mess created by W and left for others to clean up


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

19 guys armed with boxcutters- We killed about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Lets call it even and figure out what to do with Iran. Before Israel does.

Yeah, those Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and we wonder why Arabs hate us. Also, Israel (with our support) drives the Arabs insane with their arrogant continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian territory. Yet our leaders seem unable to face up to the reasons Arabs hate us and do something about it other than bomb the hell out of them.

Also, the Arab Shias and Sunnis hate each other why not let them fight each other, maybe then they would let us alone. :yes:

[transjen]

Yeah, those Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and we wonder why Arabs hate us. Also, Israel (with our support) drives the Arabs insane with their arrogant continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian territory. Yet our leaders seem unable to face up to the reasons Arabs hate us and do something about it other than bomb the hell out of them.

Also, the Arab Shias and Sunnis hate each other why not let them fight each other, maybe then they would let us alone. :yes: Go back and read Tracy's comment about how Saddam wanted to get former president George H Bush and then you see why W wanted the war in Iraq so badly and why our troops worked harded to capture Saddam then they did going after Bin-Laddin the course and master mind behind 9/11

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Wow, here's something I didn't miss, The thread that won't die.



Oh, and the only thing you can compare Ann Coulter to is an escapee from a secure mental hospital...

[randolph]

from Krugman

" December 29, 2009, 9:31 am
Part D, revisited

Associated Press did a good report on the trouble Republicans have been having as they try to explain why, if they consider the fully-funded, deficit-reducing Democratic health care reform unaffordable, they voted for the completely unfunded Medicare drug benefit 6 years ago. None of their explanations make a bit of sense.

But the AP dropped the ball, I think, by not pointing out just how irresponsible the bill really was. According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years. That's a big number, even for an economy as big as ours.

What were they thinking? Mostly, they probably weren't thinking at all. To the extent that there was a theory of the case, however, it went something like this: pass whatever legislation was needed to win the next election, then, once total conservative political dominance has been achieved, dismantle the whole welfare state.

The best laid plans ..."

Rovers plans didn't quite work out. There's little doubt that's what they wanted to do. That's probably why now they are so hysterical about any progressive social legislation.:censored:

[TracyCoxx]

19 guys armed with boxcutters- We killed about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Lets call it even and figure out what to do with Iran. Before Israel does.

Not to mention thousands of Al Qaeda & Taliban in Afghanistan. At what point does Al Qaeda realize they fucked up?

[TracyCoxx]

But you failed to mention both bozos were releashed in 07 under your belove W so this is another fine mess created by W and left for others to clean up


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Which bozos do you speak of?

[TracyCoxx]

Also, Israel (with our support) drives the Arabs insane with their arrogant continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian territory.
I'm not an expert on the history of Israel, the Arabs and the Palestinians, but didn't Israel expand into Arab territory after the 6-day war when Arabs decided Israel needed to go? And wasn't it the ancestors of the Palestinians, the Phoenicians, that first occupied Israelite territory?

Yet our leaders seem unable to face up to the reasons Arabs hate us and do something about it other than bomb the hell out of them.Enlighten me, why do they hate us?

[TracyCoxx]

Go back and read Tracy's comment about how Saddam wanted to get former president George H Bush and then you see why W wanted the war in Iraq so badly and why our troops worked harded to capture Saddam then they did going after Bin-Laddin the course and master mind behind 9/11

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Jen, Saddam wasn't firing at our planes that patrolled the no-fly zone over Iraq was he? Saddam wasn't actively trying to block UN inspectors was he? Saddam wasn't diverting funds from the UN for food to weapons was he? These all violated conditions of the cease fire of Gulf War I. So to say that W attacked Iraq ONLY because of the assassination attempt of his father is a bit short sighted.

And Saddam had to be caught. Not because of anything to do with 9/11, but because of his violations of UN resolution 687, and acts of biological warfare. Yes we allowed Iraq to import bacteria cultures which they used for weapons. Even more reason why it's our responsibility to put an end to Saddam.

[TracyCoxx]

Yemen's foreign minister says hundreds of Al Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen.

In other news, 34 of the Yemen nationals in Guantanamo Bay are set to be released back to Yemen.

[randolph]

I'm not an expert on the history of Israel, the Arabs and the Palestinians, but didn't Israel expand into Arab territory after the 6-day war when Arabs decided Israel needed to go? And wasn't it the ancestors of the Palestinians, the Phoenicians, that first occupied Israelite territory?

Enlighten me, why do they hate us?

Well Tracy, I am not a historian but my understanding of Israel is that Arabs and Jews lived there for centuries before WWII in relative harmony. After the war the Zionists wanted there own country (fed up with predjudice) and they wanted their homeland Israel. Britan controlled Israel and did not want a Jewish state. They knew it would cause trouble. With US encouragement the British pulled out and the Zionists took over and pushed out the Palestinians and created a Jewish dominated state. Source one of US hatred.

Source two, Iran created a socialist state that thumbed their nose at the US and heaven forbid, developed relations with Russia. We found that intolerable, created a coup and installed the Shaw as a "monarch". The Iranians finally got fed up and installed a radical Islamic state which further fostered hatred of the US to strengthen their power.

Source three, years ago we cut a deal with Ibn Saud, leader of a tribe in Saudi Arabia to set him and his family up as permanent leaders of Arabia in exchange for their oil (Aramco). Arab religious leaders deeply resent the control of Arabia by the US and teach Arab male youths to hate the US (Whabinism an extreme form of Islam).

Source four, British imperialism thoroughly fucked up the Middle East by arbitrarily dividing it up into militarily controllable states that did not consider tribal and ethnic differences in the area. Consequently, there has been constant turmoil there and we inherited it from the British.

Source five, our firm support of Israel at the expense of the rights and concerns of Arabic peoples in the region.

The list goes on and on.

Anyway, HAPPY NEW YEAR!;)

[The Conquistador]

THE MID EAST
by Howard S. Katz
10-12-09

There are very few weeks that go by in this day and age without some news item about the turmoil in the Mid-East between Israelis and Arabs. In part this is due to the fact that the media have made a decision to feature and over-dramatize this area of the world. There are similar incidents of low-level violence (short of outright war) in many areas of the world. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, for example, have been waging a full scale war for over 30 years (until this past May), and it was almost never mentioned.

For another part, the troubles in the Mid-East are a perfect example of the philosophy of peace and the manner in which it leads to almost continual violence. And finally they are a very good example of the way in which the media today will report almost any event via a succession of lies. That is, first one lie is told. In the world of the "respectable" media this lie then becomes sacrosanct, and anyone who questions it is met with a campaign of vilification and hate. Then the lie becomes a basic "fact" in the narrow world of media figures, and soon another lie is laid on top of it, and then another lie and another lie, etc. I can deal with what I call this onion of lies (because they lay over each other like the layers of an onion) in the field of economics by simply making predictions of the future. Since my view of reality (in economics) is correct, I am able to make correct predictions about the future, and this past week's explosion in the price of gold and fall in the U.S. dollar (which is making my subscribers very happy) is one example. Events, however, are more confusing and difficult to predict in the field of human relations. Things are not as black and white, and often both sides of an issue will claim, after the fact, that their predictions have proven correct.

Be that as it may, I would like to explore the Arab-Israeli conflict and try to untangle the onion of lies which the media has created.

The first, and most important, point is that there are no Palestinians. And indeed, it is only via a severe twisting of history can there be said to have ever been a Palestine. If you read the Bible (Catholic, Protestant or Jewish), it provides us with our earliest history of that region, and the name by which it is known is not Palestine. It is Canaan. After the Israelite invasion circa 1250 B.C. the land is known as Israel or Samaria (in the north) and Judah or Judea (in the south) These names are used until the defeat of the Jews in their second revolt against Rome in 135 A.D. At that time, the Jewish population is forcibly removed from Judea and scattered through the Roman Empire. The Romans rename the territory Palestine, meaning land of the Philistines. The Philistines, as you know, are the people of Delilah and Goliath who fought the Israelites at the time of King David. They were Greeks, not Arabs, and had disappeared long before 135 A.D. (By the way, the Philistines are a very interesting people and not at all the bad guys we read about in the Bible. They were also known as the Sea People and were the first people known in history to use iron weapons, i.e., to enter the Iron Age. They fought their way down the coast of Asia Minor and attacked Egypt while Moses and the Israelites were wandering their 40 years in the wilderness. Egypt was the super power of the day, but the Philistines came within a hair's breath of defeating them, after which they settled down on the western coast of Canaan. The poor Canaanites were then caught between the Philistines (the coastal people) attacking from the west and the Israelites (the mountain people) attacking from the east, all leading up to the famous battles which are described in the Bible.

So the name "Palestine" was a fraud made up by the Romans, and it was never very much accepted by the (few) people who lived in the territory. For example, if you study the Crusades, you find the country being referred to as The Holy Land, not as "Palestine." When the Crusaders were driven out, by Saladin (1138-1193 A.D.), and the land reconquored for Islam, it was resettled But since Saladin was a Kurd and hated Arabs, he did not use any Arabs in the resettlement of The Holy Land. (And in fact the entire mid-East was Christian from the 4th century A.D. until the Muslim conquest. These people were conquered by the Arabs and converted to Islam, but they are not ethnically Arab. An Arab is a person who comes from Arabia. To call such people Arab today simply refers to the fact that they speak Arabic and has nothing to do with their ethnicity.)

The Turks conquered the land in 1517 A.D. and returned to the name Palestine. However, they were better at conquering than governing. The residents were driven off the land and the population reduced to a very low level. Karen Armstrong reports:

"Peasants began to leave their villages to escape from rapacious pashas....In 1660 the French traveler L. d'Arrieux noted that the countryside around Bethlehem was almost completely deserted, the peasants having fled the pashas of Jerusalem." [Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), p. 342.]

This set up the situation which led to the modern Zionist movement. An 1840 census recorded the population of Jerusalem as 10,750. [Karen Armstrong, p. 352.] The modern city is about ¾ million. I have seen an estimate for the total Arab population of the Turkish province of Palestine in the mid-to-late 19th century as 65,000.

Mark Twain visited The Holy Land in 1867. He reported:

"We never saw a human being on the whole route [meaning the section from the Sea of Galilee to Mount Tabor]....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere....Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes...Jerusalem itself [whose population Twain put at 14,000] is become a pauper village." [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, (New York, Grosset & Dunlap, 1911), pp. 371, 397, 438, 439.]

In short, the basic assumption reported by the modern media when dealing with any Arab-Israeli issues - that there was a viable nation of ethnic Arabs who lived in a place called Palestine for a long period of time prior to the Zionist movement - is another lie.

In the late 19th century, Theodore Hertzl began a movement to urge European Jews to return to Zion. Zion was the mountain in Jerusalem on which the ancient Temple had been built, and Hertzl used the term to refer to the entire territory of Judah/Israel. This movement to return to Zion was called Zionism. It began slowly in 1880 when the country was still under Turkish rule. However, the Turks were defeated by the British, who took control in 1918.

One problem that most modern writers on the Mid-East have to face logically but try to bury is, since there were so few Arabs in the country in 1880, how come there are so many today? Where did they come from?

The answer is that;, when the British took over, they had greater respect for people's freedom. They allowed more Jewish immigration into the country. Many of these Jews then hired foreign (Arab) labor (at higher than prevailing wages for the Mid-East). Arabs flocked into "Palestine" to get these high-paying jobs, and these were the people who began to object when the Jews created the state of Israel in 1948. Basically they were transient labor with no real ties to the land. One of the real injustices of the situation (never mentioned by the media) was the refusal of the surrounding Arab countries to take back their own citizens after 1948 when they indicated a desire to return home. These were the people who later wound up in camps supported by the U.N. (which means by your tax money). The media blamed their plight on the Israelis and used it to stir up hate.

[The Conquistador]

According to John Locke's labor theory of value property can only be owned by adding one's labor to a piece of land. No state, as such, owns land (with a few exceptions such as land purchased via its citizens tax money). Certainly no state owns the entire territory in which its citizens live. Land ownership is an individual, not a collective, concept. The only power that a given state has is if the people of a territory voluntarily choose it as their government. This gives it the right to govern (not to own) that territory.

The Jews of "Palestine" of 1948, being very much influenced by the British tradition declared the State of Israel along the lines set out by John Locke. It was very similar to what the 13 colonies did in 1776. This is the moral basis of the claim to legitimacy of the state of Israel. In general, any human being has the right to travel to any point on the surface of the earth (his right of liberty), and if a group of people chose to travel to the same spot, they have the right to form a government.

The Arabs, on the other hand, had an archaic, ethnic concept of government. One belonged to a government by virtue of one's ethnic group, and this was not a matter of choice. This was why the young state of Israel was attacked, not by any entity which could be called Palestinian by any stretch of the imagination, but by 6 Arab countries which had no conflict with Israel other than the fact that it existed.

This is the biggest of all the lies which are continually told about the Arab-Israel conflict. Israel has been attacked by people who consider themselves to be one entity, the Arab nation. They feel themselves offended not because they were attacked, not because they have been economically disadvantaged, not because they have any kind of practical conflict., but because people who are different from them want to live next to them. For example, Barack Obama recently made a comment about the "occupied territories" in the Mid-East. implying (but not saying explicitly) that Israel had committed aggression and conquered Arab territory. The facts are that in the process of their aggression against Israel, Jordon and Egypt conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively, and they were then thrown back from these territories. And the Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza is simply a result of their victory in a defensive war.

Having been defeated in their war of nation-states the Arab countries have resorted to subterfuge. They are pandering to the western media by pretending to be engaged in a war of national liberation. As noted, the war between the Arab peoples and the state of Israel broke out in 1948. Some 16 years later, after several defeats, the Arabs got the idea that they were Palestinians and had always lived in the country called Palestine. (1964 was the year of the formation of the PLO.) The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us:

"the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine, but it was rarely used by the Arabs themselves; mostly they saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community." [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Vol. 25, p. 421.]

And, of course, this is what has been going on since 1948, a war between the Israelis and the Arab community. In this sense, it is like 99% of the wars that go on in the world. There are two groups of people. They live next to each other. They don't like each other. So the stronger attacks the weaker. The Arabs thought that they were stronger because they have an enormous advantage in population, but they were whipped badly. Now they are whining, pretending to be victims and trying to get the major powers of the world to come into the conflict, destroy the state of Israel and give them a victory they cannot earn on their own. This is why a central Arab precondition for "peace" is that Israel cease to exist. Who would agree to such a condition and how sincere is such a desire for peace?

But on a deeper level the reason for the conflict is the left-wing media of the world. These are composed of people with a philosophy of love and peace, as per Jesus of Nazareth. As I have explained in previous blogs, such people talk loudly of peace, but there is an enormous amount of hate in their hearts. Always being careful not to put themselves at risk of physical violence, they work tirelessly behind the scenes to stir up hate and violence.

The first experience I had with this alliance between a love/peace faction and a hate/violence faction was at Harvard in the 1950s. The professors kept agitating to stir up violence among American union workers. "We are your friends. We are peaceniks and cannot engage in violence ourselves, but your cause is just, and we are on your side." The union workers, mostly average (or below average) guys fell for it hook, line and sinker. The peacenik professors were able to enjoy the vicarious violence but did not have to get their hair mussed or their faces bruised by angry workers whose jobs they were stealing. One sees this alliance between what seem on the surface to be two very opposite types of people. The professors' technique was to look for a group of people dumb enough to believe pretty much anything they were told and then to weave their web of lies and finally declare, "We are on your side." They then sit back, out of the range of whizzing bullets and swinging fists, and get the violence they want. It is a lot of fun.

You will find such people in various odd places where they can champion the cause of the "Palestinians" (and incite them with hatred) without themselves actually being at risk of violence. If the Angel of Death could walk through the Mid-East and strike down such people, then, lo and behold, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza would suddenly be able to live in peace with their neighbors in Israel. (Remember that the two groups first came into contact because the latter offered attractive jobs to the former.

Dwight Eisenhower was a fairly decent person, but after the 1956 war he forced the Israelis to give up their conquest of the Sinai Peninsula. This was later formalized as the land-for-peace idea. However, when Eisenhower defeated Germany in 1945, there was no talk of American withdrawal. Germany was severely punished for her aggression. She gave up her thoughts of becoming the master race and concentrated on economic development. On the other hand, the Arabs were repeatedly rewarded for their aggressions. This is why there is no war in Central Europe, but war continues in the Middle East.

A portion of the blame lies with the Israelis. "Peace" became a greeting (substituting for "hello" and "goodbye" in the Hebrew language of the mid 20th century although it is not such in biblical Hebrew). Whenever, there is any kind of crisis or conflict in the region, all of the newspapers start to scream "peace." And so the war has continued for over 50 years.

The way to bring real peace in the Mid-East is for the world media to recognize the truth that every nation has the right to fight in its own self defense In the words of Patrick Henry, "Gentlemen may cry 'peace, peace' but there is no peace." That has been the case in the Mid-East since 1948, and that is why the war started in that year continues to this day.

[TracyCoxx]

Well Tracy, I am not a historian but my understanding of Israel is that Arabs and Jews lived there for centuries before WWII in relative harmony. After the war the Zionists wanted there own country (fed up with predjudice) and they wanted their homeland Israel. Britan controlled Israel and did not want a Jewish state. They knew it would cause trouble. With US encouragement the British pulled out and the Zionists took over and pushed out the Palestinians and created a Jewish dominated state. Source one of US hatred.

This is absurd. Yes Americans supported Zionism, but what claim do the Arabs have to this land? Especially after reading what Angry Postman posted. Granted, his posting seems to be politically slanted, but the claims in the article seem to have the facts on their side.

Source two, Iran created a socialist state that thumbed their nose at the US and heaven forbid, developed relations with Russia. We found that intolerable, created a coup and installed the Shaw as a "monarch". The Iranians finally got fed up and installed a radical Islamic state which further fostered hatred of the US to strengthen their power.I can see them getting perturbed at this.

Source three, years ago we cut a deal with Ibn Saud, leader of a tribe in Saudi Arabia to set him and his family up as permanent leaders of Arabia in exchange for their oil (Aramco). Arab religious leaders deeply resent the control of Arabia by the US and teach Arab male youths to hate the US (Whabinism an extreme form of Islam).Yes we negotiated an oil deal with the leadership in Saudi Arabia. You can say 'cut a deal' like it was some shady back-room deal but there's nothing really unusual about how that was done. And they may have been a "tribe" of Saudi Arabia, but apparently a tribe with significant political power otherwise the deal would have fallen through. Either way, any tribe has the right to accumulate enough power to become the ruling government. How many times in the history of the world has a 'tribe' risen to power?

This is just like the african americans. They blame us and only us for slavery. Sure we had our part of the blame, but so did Britain, and certainly their own people back in Africa who gathered them up to sell to us. You'll NEVER see them being blamed though. So if the people of Saudi Arabia have a gripe, they should take it up with the royal family there first.

Source four, British imperialism thoroughly fucked up the Middle East by arbitrarily dividing it up into militarily controllable states that did not consider tribal and ethnic differences in the area. Consequently, there has been constant turmoil there and we inherited it from the British.No, the British divided up Arabia into countries all on their own, without out our help.

Source five, our firm support of Israel at the expense of the rights and concerns of Arabic peoples in the region.Probably because the Arabs have been acting like a bunch of barbarians, so we rightly come down on the side of the more civil Jews. I mean, honestly, what's up with 6 Arab countries attacking Israel? I think it's funny as shit that they got their asses handed to them in 6 days :lol: As a consequence they lost territory. That's how wars work.

The Arabs used to be very intelligent people. But civilizations have their ups and downs. I think now they are in Dark Ages like the western civilization once was. There isn't much scientific advancement there now, or works of art or literature. And religion has lobotomized the population.

I am amazed that Israel hasn't erased Hezbolah after they break cease fire after cease fire. Why should the Israelis tolerate rockets falling on their cities and suicide bombers? I say give Hezbolah what it hungers for. Treat them like barbaric klingons who wish to die in battle and oblige them.

And if that doesn't solve it, maybe it's time to irradiate the entire region so that it becomes uninhabitable for the next 50,000 years until the whole dispute is forgotten. The world is tired of their temper tantrums.

But anyway... Happy New Year to you, Postman and Jen too!! :coupling:

[randolph]

Tracy
No, the British divided up Arabia into countries all on their own, without out our help.

True enough, but we eagerly took over the Middle East imperialism from Briton. Its the oil you know. Now we are the ones to deal with the situation. We could save a lot of American lives if we cut back on oil consumption and let the Arabs kill each other off. The Arabs potentially hate each other more than us, if we would just leave them alone.

Driving 60mph instead of 80mph can save 20% on gas consumption. The price would go down and the Arabs can go to hell.

Bumper stickers
"Enrich the Arabs drive 80mph"
"Its Ok to drive 60mph"
"Relax 60 mph is OK"
"Fuck the Arabs stay home"

[jimnaseum]

I knew the Iraqi war was doomed when I found out Halliburton was charging our own Military forces $5.00/gallon for gas. We could has driven to Iran and gotten it for 25 cents a gallon.

There is no Security. Only Opportunity. -McArthur

[The Conquistador]

Hey randolph! I like the last bumper sticker! :)

[TracyCoxx]

True enough, but we eagerly took over the Middle East imperialism from Briton. Its the oil you know. Now we are the ones to deal with the situation. We could save a lot of American lives if we cut back on oil consumption and let the Arabs kill each other off. The Arabs potentially hate each other more than us, if we would just leave them alone.I agree. It would be great if we could get out of there and let them implode. But if they're pissed at us for engaging in business with their leaders they need to take it up with their leadership first.

Driving 60mph instead of 80mph can save 20% on gas consumption. The price would go down and the Arabs can go to hell.I doubt it would save that much on gas consumption. I was driving 90-100mph for long stretches in New Mexico and increased my gas mileage by about 25% over my usual stop/start driving habit in town. If you want to increase gas mileage get rid of all those unnecessary stop signs & stop lights.


Bumper stickers
"Enrich the Arabs drive 80mph"
"Its Ok to drive 60mph"
"Relax 60 mph is OK"

Ok, now we really have some areas of disagreement! 60 mph? That's crazy. I can't drive 55, and 60 isn't much better.

[TracyCoxx]

Good bye and good riddance to Chris Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Gov Bill Ritter (D-CO). Don't let the door hit your butts on the way out.

[randolph]

I agree. It would be great if we could get out of there and let them implode. But if they're pissed at us for engaging in business with their leaders they need to take it up with their leadership first.

I doubt it would save that much on gas consumption. I was driving 90-100mph for long stretches in New Mexico and increased my gas mileage by about 25% over my usual stop/start driving habit in town. If you want to increase gas mileage get rid of all those unnecessary stop signs & stop lights.

Ok, now we really have some areas of disagreement! 60 mph? That's crazy. I can't drive 55, and 60 isn't much better.

Drag racing from stop lights is hard on gas mileage, I know from experience!

Oh! So you want to eliminate stop signs and lights and drive 90mph through town. The problem with that would be all the funeral processions clogging the streets!:lol:

Hey, I like your Mustang, I had one of the first ones back in 1964. The engine was crap but it got a lot of attention.:yes:

By the way, I just bought an electric bike. I love it. It goes up hills great and cruises at 20mph without pedaling!
Ill pull over if I see you coming.;)

[TracyCoxx]

Why is Al Asiri, the so called Underwear bomber who tried to bring down a plane on xmas being given a civilian trial? He is not a US citizen. And the indictment mentions nothing about terrorism or even Al Qaeda even though it's known Al Asiri was with Al Qaeda. Why?

The administration's response to this attempted bombing has been abysmal. First they allow a person who is actually on a terror watch list onto a plane, then we get lucky and subdue him, and Napalitano says the system works. What did National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter do when he heard of the news? Resumed his ski trip.

We are now told Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane. This should be interesting. So BO has 2 strikes before he's been in office even a year. The Ft Hood terrorist attack, and the attempted xmas jet bombing. Al Qaeda is certainly sensing weakness and are circling, testing their prey, and probing for weaknesses.

Then there was the CIA attack in Afghanistan on December 30th. Well BO has them investigating climate change now. Yes I'm serious. Instead of letting them do what they've done so well during most of Bush's terms, they're now investigating climate change.

The question the BO administration wants to know: If you ignore terrorists, will they go away?

The question I want to know: Why isn't Al Asiri being tried as an enemy combatant rather than as an American citizen, which he clearly is not?

[randolph]

Hey, come on Tracy, blaming Obama for these security screw ups is ridiculous. We have had these problems in the last few administrations. It is the bureaucracy that is the problem. I have been to Washington and seen the incompetence and self centered administrators wallowing in politics. We spend billions on the CIA and they get conned by a Jordanian the same way Bush/CIA got conned by an Iraqi. What we need is a lean and mean security division that has its act together. Since Obama is releasing the report to the public, it sounds like he means business to get these jerks shaped up.:censored:

[jdawg]

I agree with Randolph, this is a Washington problem not an Obama problem. Agencies don't talk to each which creates problems with intelligence. It sounds like we had a lot of good info on the dude and he still got onto a plane with a failed attempt at murder.

I'm kinda worried about the Yemen situation. This place is hot, but do we open up yet another front? I'd suggest not, but anyhing is possible.

Randolph was also pretty spot on with the reasons why they hate us. I believe Al Qaeda put out a document or something stating reasons why they attacked. I wish I could remember the book or website I read it from as its stuff everybody should read.


I disagree with the comment Tracy made about how Al Qaeda should realize they made a mistake with 9/11. If anyhing they are pleased with the results. They got a weakened United States which had to be a goal.

[randolph]

I agree with Randolph, this is a Washington problem not an Obama problem. Agencies don't talk to each which creates problems with intelligence. It sounds like we had a lot of good info on the dude and he still got onto a plane with a failed attempt at murder.

I'm kinda worried about the Yemen situation. This place is hot, but do we open up yet another front? I'd suggest not, but anyhing is possible.

Randolph was also pretty spot on with the reasons why they hate us. I believe Al Qaeda put out a document or something stating reasons why they attacked. I wish I could remember the book or website I read it from as its stuff everybody should read.


I disagree with the comment Tracy made about how Al Qaeda should realize they made a mistake with 9/11. If anyhing they are pleased with the results. They got a weakened United States which had to be a goal.

Yes, Bin Laden's stated goal is to weaken the US from the inside by draining its resources. He has an unlimited supply of suicide bombers that are far cheaper than drones, soldiers and vast amounts of military equipment.

[jimnaseum]

The question I want to know: Why isn't Al Asiri being tried as an enemy combatant rather than as an American citizen, which he clearly is not?

Because the crime occured by an individual on American Soil.

What I want to know is if every criminal is given a lawyer, wht isn't every ill person given a doctor?

[ila]

Hey, come on Tracy, blaming Obama for these security screw ups is ridiculous. We have had these problems in the last few administrations. It is the bureaucracy that is the problem. I have been to Washington and seen the incompetence and self centered administrators wallowing in politics. We spend billions on the CIA and they get conned by a Jordanian the same way Bush/CIA got conned by an Iraqi. What we need is a lean and mean security division that has its act together. Since Obama is releasing the report to the public, it sounds like he means business to get these jerks shaped up.:censored:

So Obama is not to blame for current security screwups, but Bush is to blame for previous security screwups? Do I have this right, randolph? After all that is what you just posted in the quote.

[transjen]

Ok, now we really have some areas of disagreement! 60 mph? That's crazy. I can't drive 55, and 60 isn't much better.


Nice car, I hate to say it but lools like we agree on something else
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

So Obama is not to blame for current security screwups, but Bush is to blame for previous security screwups? Do I have this right, randolph? After all that is what you just posted in the quote.

OK, I guess I was not clear. Bush/Cheney "wanted" to believe Iraqi informers in order to justify invading Iraq. Also, Cheney was intimately involved with the Iraqi shenanigans. Also, Bush/Cheney avoided getting serious about Bin Laden because having him alive justified their continued "anti terrorist program" in Afghanistan. Certainly, as head of state, Obama is ultimately responsible for what goes on in his administration. I just think the two situations are very different. I think Obama is serious about getting Bin Laden and resolving the Afghanistan mess he inherited from Bush/Cheney. I don't think any president since FDR has the challenges Obama has. How to clean up the Middle East mess, the financial mess, the Palestine mess, the Iran problem, the N. Korea problem, the unemployment problem. All of these issues were escaberated by the Bush/Cheney administration.
As a new president I wish him well, for all of us sake. He needs all the help he can get. He doesn't need any more screwups in his administrations anti-terrorist efforts, that's for sure. :frown:

[randolph]

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

[TracyCoxx]

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

"Who benefits politically" seems to imply some kind of sneaky underhanded thing. Why does it benefit republicans? For no other reason other than because they handled the problem. They didn't ignore the problem and they went on the offensive. The Bush administration also kept terrorism out of America from 9/11/01 on to the end of his terms. That's no small feat, as BO is finding out. He's already got the Fort Hood attack and the nearly successful xmas jet bombing under his belt.

BTW, why is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka Underwear Bomber, not being tried as an enemy combatant? He's not a US citizen. In his indictment there's no mention of terrorism or Al Qaeda even though we know that he is a part of Al Qaeda and he was caught with a bomb in is pants on a jet.

BO today claimed full responsibility for the security failings. Great. Let the heads start rolling. National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter was on a ski trip when the xmas bomber incident occurred. What did he do when he heard the news? Continued with his ski trip. Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano says the system works. She's turning that department into a joke. But BO says he's not firing anyone.

Plus all the other stuff like inflating the deficit by over $2 trillion, pushing for national health care that no one but the far left wants.

I'm seeing fewer and fewer people on here defending him. Let's just call it like it is. Can we all agree that BO is a failure?

[TracyCoxx]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6068237.shtml

An aggregate of 21 Gallup and USA Today/ Gallup polls from 2009 show that 40 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, while 36 percent identify as moderate and 21 percent identify as liberal. In 2008, by contrast, moderates matched conservatives at 37 percent while 22 percent called themselves liberal.

So let me get this straight. National Health care is a liberal plan. So why is a representative government such as ours going full speed ahead for this plan when only 21% of the country is liberal?

They know they're doing something terribly wrong because they're putting this bill together behind closed doors. Here is Obama lying to us 8 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw

http://politiclolz.com/files/2009/09/20090909-You-Lie.jpg

[randolph]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6068237.shtml



So let me get this straight. National Health care is a liberal plan. So why is a representative government such as ours going full speed ahead for this plan when only 21% of the country is liberal?

They know they're doing something terribly wrong because they're putting this bill together behind closed doors. Here is Obama lying to us 8 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw

http://politiclolz.com/files/2009/09/20090909-You-Lie.jpg

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right? The democratic majority was charged with coming up with a plan the people want. Instead, they came up with a plan the drug and insurance companies want. So the voters are frustrated and pissed off with good reason. It looks like we actually have a plutocracy rather than a democracy, greed rules!:censored:

[randolph]

* The Wall Street Journal www.wsj.com

* OPINION: DECLARATIONS
* JANUARY 7, 2010, 6:33 P.M. ET

The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?

*
By PEGGY NOONAN


Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."

What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008?expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009?more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line?and didn't notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.


This is an excellent article, well worth reading the rest of it.

[randolph]

OK, here's an answer to Peggy Noonan.
January 8, 2010, 12:11 pm
One health care reform, indivisible

Jonathan Chait reads Peggy Noonan, so I don?t have to:(Paul Krugman)

The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that?and the victory of it?last winter.

Instead, they were greedy for glory.

Chait explains why this is nonsense. But let me explain at fuller length, because this is one of the great misunderstood keys to the whole health care debate.

Start with the proposition that we don?t want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions ? which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to.

So why not just impose community rating ? no discrimination based on medical history?

Well, the answer, backed up by lots of real-world experience, is that this leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.

So you have to back community rating up with an individual mandate: people must be required to purchase insurance even if they don?t currently think they need it.

But what if they can?t afford insurance? Well, you have to have subsidies that cover part of premiums for lower-income Americans.

In short, you end up with the health care bill that?s about to get enacted. There?s hardly anything arbitrary about the structure: once the decision was made to rely on private insurers rather than a single-payer system ? and look, single-payer wasn?t going to happen ? it had to be more or less what we?re getting. It wasn?t about ideology, or greediness, it was about making the thing work.

It's complicated, isn't it?

[The Conquistador]

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right?

Wrong. We are a republic, not a democracy. Totally big difference there.

Main Entry: de?moc?ra?cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈm?-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de?moc?ra?cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Democracy=majority rule

Main Entry: re?pub?lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French r?publique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia


Read the part in italics. "Governing according to law". Democracy is a system based on the wants of the collective. If enough people get pissed off or want something for some reason, it becomes law no matter how irrational it may be. This is why there is no mention of the word "democracy" anywhere in the US Constitution.

The word "republic" is mentioned because it denotes a system governed by a predetermined set of laws, in our case, The US Constitution. The Constitution is a construct and all the laws and powers of the government that is beholden to it must fit within the construct.

A government mandate of "universal healthcare" is inherently unconstitutional because it does not fall within what the powers of the government are entitled to do according to the United States Constitution.

Some will try to use this quote from the Preamble to justify "UH": promote the general Welfare,

and they will be wrong. Why you ask? Let's ask what some of the guys who WROTE the Constitution had to say about the "General Welfare" clause:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Healthcare is an individual need and thus must be looked after by the individual himself, not by a government entity.

[jimnaseum]

I remember during Iraq War II I would hear Tony Blair say something, and it would sound beautiful, then I would hear Bush II say the EXACT SAME THING and it would sound like horseshit!!! A reasonable person might say I was guilty of being unfairly prejudiced against Bush, until a reasonable person figured out Bush was full of shit!!! While he read his prepared speeches, written by highly paid academic speechwriters, truckloads of cash ran nightly from the pockets of hard working Americans straight to the vaults of the Military Industrial Complex. So while Bush and Cheney were definately HORRID leaders, they sure were smooth businessmen!!!
Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word. You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!

[TracyCoxx]

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right? The democratic majority was charged with coming up with a plan the people want. Instead, they came up with a plan the drug and insurance companies want. So the voters are frustrated and pissed off with good reason. It looks like we actually have a plutocracy rather than a democracy, greed rules!:censored:

As Postman says, we're a republic, not a democracy. At least we're supposed to be. Our democratic representatives, which constitute a majority, are failing at representing us.

In the 2008 election the people did not vote for health care. There was a big mindless push for "change" where no one (especially the media) was asking what kind of change BO was talking about. The election was going McCain's way, until the financial problems showed up, and BO made it work for him.

The people voted for what they thought would fix the economy, and for what they thought would create more jobs. The administration insults the American people by passing enormous spending bills that will do neither, and only dumps obscene amounts of money into their pet projects. Then they concentrate all their efforts on health care, which no one was clamoring for.

[TracyCoxx]

Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word.Except you generally can't trust anything BO says. This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw
is only the most obvious.

You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!
Niiiiice. But wait, he just printed over $2 trillion of money we don't have. Aren't we going to have to deal with that? Usually the feds have to raise interest rates to get that money back so they can destroy it. They haven't yet because they're trying to get the economy going, but make no mistake, they will have to. Those trucks of money will be going from people who work for a living to the US treasury and into the fire.

[jimnaseum]

No, YOU can't trust anything BO says, I can.
As for the money that we don't have, relax, because the reality is it's going to take years to recoup what Bush blew, no matter who's in charge, (even Sarah Palin). The damage has been DONE. Obama's never going to tell you that because the childlike American voters don't want to hear it. EVERYBODY is going to have to pay for Bush. Party's over. My savings are earning 1.2% interest!!!!!!

[randolph]

My goodness! When I signed up for this tranny porn site, I had no idea I would be getting lessons in civics. Yes, there is no question the country has strayed away from the concepts of the founding fathers. But keep in mind the country in 1790 was very different from today. Boston had 18,000 population, Philadelphia 28,000 and New York 33,000. By today's standards they would be considered small towns. The rest of the country consisted mainly of self sufficient farmers. Very few people had "jobs" as we now know it. The concerns of the designers of the Constitution were very real, they wanted a small central government. My how times have changed, we are no longer an agrarian country of self sufficient farmers, we are citified and most people have "jobs", that is, we are beholden to a corporate entities, which did not exist in their present form in 1790. By design, corporations are only beholden to their stockholders, they have no legal responsibilities to their workers or the public or the environment. Consequently, it has been necessary for the government to enact laws to protect the workers and the environment that were not anticipated by the founding fathers. For the most part, government protection of workers from exploitation by corporations has been moderately successful. Unfortunately corruption and greed continue to put the worker at a disadvantage in the struggle for a decent standard of living.

[TracyCoxx]

No, YOU can't trust anything BO says, I can.

Precampaign:
The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that.
Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom deal with Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn't be allowed to negotiate drug prices. Imagine that.

He pledged to close Guantanamo Bay within one year. Thankfully this probably won't be kept... due to reality.

When you walk into my administration, you will not be able to work on regulations or contracts directly related to your former employer for two years.This was broken right at the beginning with the nomination of William Lynn as deputy defense secretary. 6 months earlier Lynn was a defense lobbyist for Raytheon Co., where he advocated for a range of military programs.

When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it. ... But actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.Huge lie. His first order of business was to increase the national debt another $2.7 trillion, and he's striving to go further. Plus the new programs he's spending money on are continuing programs that will continue to raise the debt each and every year.

I can't tell you how many times his call for openness has been squelched by himself.

And more... but hey, whatever floats your boat.

As for the money that we don't have, relax, because the reality is it's going to take years to recoup what Bush blew
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit (republican bums thrown out)
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit (democratic bums granted a super majority)

Obama with democrat congress in one month: $2.7 Trillion deficit

no matter who's in charge, (even Sarah Palin). The damage has been DONE. Obama's never going to tell you that because the childlike American voters don't want to hear it. EVERYBODY is going to have to pay for Bush. Party's over. My savings are earning 1.2% interest!!!!!!Tell me what, specifically, Bush did that you're going to have to pay back? And keep BO's one month $2.7 trillion spending spree in mind as you do so, which was 2.5 times what Bush & congress overspent during his 8 years.

[jimnaseum]

Hey, if people can argue and steal, amongst themselves, that's just about par for the last three thousand years. The U. S. owes it's world dominance primarily to the invention of the Atom Bomb, followed by a world class standard of living, and we're losing ground in both those areas.

Tracy Darling, fly over to Germany for a couple weeks (if you can afford it) The Seniors there get two free weeks in Health Spas. The minimum wage is like twenty bucks an hour or something. The bread and the beer put the US to shame! The cabs are Mercedes. When you get back to the US you'll see things with new eyes.

During WWII, we spent ONE THIRD of our gross national product on the development of the Atom Bomb. ONE THIRD! While at War! We should do the same thing again in the development of a car that runs on steam or corn or atoms. The only invention Wall St has come up with is a way to make a one dollar loaf of bread cost two dollars.

China is becoming more American than we are now. And with an extra billion people, that ain't good. No matter how you spin it.


What are we going to have to pay back from the Bush years? How about that trillion we still owe China so we wouldn't have to raise taxes! How about all the infrastructure that was completely ignored while Bush drove this economy into the tank! Who is going to save us, Rush Limbaugh? Haw haw haw. Fox news couldn't save itself without Homer Simpson.