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

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.

Politics
 

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

to the angrypostman
 

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

Hmo !?
 

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 ...

HMOs
 

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:

Correction !
 

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?

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

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:

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.

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

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

DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER gas alert gas alert


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

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

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.

All i know is that every time my boyfriend eats one of those he farts like there's no tommorow


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

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...

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

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."

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.

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..._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:

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.

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.

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?

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.co...y-profits.html

*See Profitability Ratios picture below*





Now compare ins. company profits with their archnemesis COCA-COLA!
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/js...ios.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...

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

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.

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.

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.

That would be Jen's World. She's very happy there.

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:

Crock News
 

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

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

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

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'.

News?
 

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:

Obamas
 

Nice family!:yes:

Nonviolence
 

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

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:

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.

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

Beck
 

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:

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.

"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.:(

Climate
 

"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:

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.

" 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Hey Angry
 

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?

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

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:

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.

Kalifornika
 

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.

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

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

"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:

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:

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

Holy shit!
 

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.

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/h...ia/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:

Obama's Nobel Prize
 

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!

:respect:great story:respect:
Send in the 10th Mountain Kodiak Division supproted by the Independent Grizzly Brigade.

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.

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.

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

Great Story from Angry Postman
 

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:

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

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. ;)

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!)

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:

MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan
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:

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

If a TV show were made about Obama...
 

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
* Universal Health Care
* The portrayal of the swooning media that Obama wants to control by denying access to critical reporters
* Community organizing
* Supporters who are obsessed and have unquestioning devotion
* Remarks like "Embracing change is never easy"
* Well funded civilian force
* Goal of one-world government
* Laughable attempts at a 'bi-partisan' solution
* And of course the gun-toting religious protesters


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.

Lizard man
 

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

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.

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

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:

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-con...ney-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.

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:

I just read this, interesting.
 

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.

Ammunition will be the new currency...

Health Care
 

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:

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.;)