You know it never ceases to amaze me that "informed" Americans always blame the economic state of the nation (taxes and spending) on the current executive branch. Congress holds the spending and collecting power not the President. If we look at the economic gains during the end of the Clinton administration we see we had a Congress that was under the majority control of the Republicans and if we look at the decline of the economy, which happened in the last 3 1/2 years not 7 we see a Democrat majority in Congress. So put the blame where it belongs and remember it at the voting booth! On another note during periods of increased tax levels-i.e. Clinton years the personal income tax was a great deal higher and the Federal Government actually took in less in total taxes because everyone made less because of decreased investment. However, during the last 7 years, and during Reagan, and Kennedy admins. the gov't took in more total revenue at a lower tax rate because there was more investment in the economy and more people made more money! Using the war expenditure as an example of out of control spending is ridiculuos. It makes up a very small percentage of actual spending (somewhere around 2%-7%). Most of the Federal budget(68%-75%) is in the domestic social programs that were instituted in the mid 60's and grossly expanded in the 70's and left unreformed since then. Once again who instituted these out of control and failed programs and policies "liberal" progressive Democrats. These are the cold hard facts whether liberals want to face up to them or not!
THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned
Started by AstroMart, 04/07/2018 10:51PM
Posted 08/01/2008 04:08AM
#20
Posted 08/01/2008 12:36PM
#21
Boy, I couldn't have said it better myself! Kennedy, a Democrat, didn't believe in the "progressive". That was how the Democratic party was. Now it is not. It's a shame how so many people forget history, and so many are not even taught it any more. Such is the way of the "Progressives", to "dumb down" the people so *they* look smart, and then have the audacity to tell you "you need to be educated". And it's working! I get told that a lot! When I reply with a fact, they change the subject and get angry that I would even "dare" to question them! Fascism at it's best..
Jeff
Jeff
john marks said:
You know it never ceases to amaze me that "informed" Americans always blame the economic state of the nation (taxes and spending) on the current executive branch. Congress holds the spending and collecting power not the President. If we look at the economic gains during the end of the Clinton administration we see we had a Congress that was under the majority control of the Republicans and if we look at the decline of the economy, which happened in the last 3 1/2 years not 7 we see a Democrat majority in Congress. So put the blame where it belongs and remember it at the voting booth! On another note during periods of increased tax levels-i.e. Clinton years the personal income tax was a great deal higher and the Federal Government actually took in less in total taxes because everyone made less because of decreased investment. However, during the last 7 years, and during Reagan, and Kennedy admins. the gov't took in more total revenue at a lower tax rate because there was more investment in the economy and more people made more money! Using the war expenditure as an example of out of control spending is ridiculuos. It makes up a very small percentage of actual spending (somewhere around 2%-7%). Most of the Federal budget(68%-75%) is in the domestic social programs that were instituted in the mid 60's and grossly expanded in the 70's and left unreformed since then. Once again who instituted these out of control and failed programs and policies "liberal" progressive Democrats. These are the cold hard facts whether liberals want to face up to them or not!
Posted 08/01/2008 01:00PM
#22
Well, if that was happening, why are we talking about health insurance?
Because someone has made it out to be some sort of "crisis" that doesn't exist! "They" say there are children dying on the streets because of it. Not in *this* country! Show me one.
Socialized health care doesn't mean nobody pays and it is free.
Gee, thank you for "educating" me on that.
In the case of socialism, you keep confusing it...
I think you are confusing "social activities" with a "Socialistic" type of government that we are heading toward. The "progressive state" we are experiencing is in deed taking away more and more of out liberties.
In this country, we really are the government.
We are barely clinging to that only by virtue that we can vote. When is the last time Congress legislated anything that truly helped the people as a whole? Bailing out large companies on the taxpayers backs, giving a very few assistance in keeping their million-dollar homes, and a few that can't keep their second home, while the rest of us struggle to keep ours. Taxes are levied unfairly, and distributed unevenly. Look at Seattle, they just taxed plastic forks & spoons, and grocery bags! And to top it off, they were leaning toward a ban and fines if you posess a plastic spoon! Where do you not see the "socialistic" leanings, and dictator-like governmemt? There is more, I don't have the time to list them all. But who "voted" on that? It certainly was NOT the *people* of Seattle!
And thanks for the "snippet" history lesson. But all that, as real as it is, is about to be a dream of what we once were. All those who fought and died, all those who willingly sacrificed their lives, all did it for FREEDOM. You have the right to CHOOSE to help those in need, and I have the RIGHT to not be forced into doing so. I will honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for me to even be here. And I will continue to help those I am capable of, by choice.
Because someone has made it out to be some sort of "crisis" that doesn't exist! "They" say there are children dying on the streets because of it. Not in *this* country! Show me one.
Socialized health care doesn't mean nobody pays and it is free.
Gee, thank you for "educating" me on that.
In the case of socialism, you keep confusing it...
I think you are confusing "social activities" with a "Socialistic" type of government that we are heading toward. The "progressive state" we are experiencing is in deed taking away more and more of out liberties.
In this country, we really are the government.
We are barely clinging to that only by virtue that we can vote. When is the last time Congress legislated anything that truly helped the people as a whole? Bailing out large companies on the taxpayers backs, giving a very few assistance in keeping their million-dollar homes, and a few that can't keep their second home, while the rest of us struggle to keep ours. Taxes are levied unfairly, and distributed unevenly. Look at Seattle, they just taxed plastic forks & spoons, and grocery bags! And to top it off, they were leaning toward a ban and fines if you posess a plastic spoon! Where do you not see the "socialistic" leanings, and dictator-like governmemt? There is more, I don't have the time to list them all. But who "voted" on that? It certainly was NOT the *people* of Seattle!
And thanks for the "snippet" history lesson. But all that, as real as it is, is about to be a dream of what we once were. All those who fought and died, all those who willingly sacrificed their lives, all did it for FREEDOM. You have the right to CHOOSE to help those in need, and I have the RIGHT to not be forced into doing so. I will honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for me to even be here. And I will continue to help those I am capable of, by choice.
Posted 08/01/2008 01:49PM
#23
What do I think is going to happen when the "socialized medicine" becomes a reality for *everyone*? A lot of people will stop having their lives devastated, or even ended, by a lack of access to health care. It won't be perfect, and no doubt there will be instances of abuse. I'm pretty sure the abuse will be better than the abuse which is now heaped upon millions of us by our current system. And I don't believe it will make those lazy bums you rail against any lazier, or encourage anyone to stop working just because now they can see a doctor if they need to.
I didn't say anyone was entitled to your money, or mine. I say erecting a public health care system is a rational and ethical choice that is made by civilized people to reduce the misery of their fellows, even the lazy ones. Laziness is not a capital offense.
You say you are willing to help the unfortunate; fine. Lots of conservatives make similar claims. Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.
I don't see this as representing any kind of loss of freedom. You, for example, would not be required to take advantage of this kind of system. If you got sick but found the new universal system too unresponsive or ethically unacceptable, you would be free to ignore it. If you were rich, you could certainly still hire any boutique physicians you chose. You would still be required to pay taxes, of course. But you do that already, or at least you do if your income is sufficient.
You seem to be implying that the only way a person can demonstrate they are worthy to live is by dedicating their lives to making lots of money. In your world, that's the only valid path to survival. If you don't follow it, you can go crawl into a corner and die, or beggar yourself, should something happen to you. That seems like a curiously limited form of freedom to me. Pursue that one goal (although I admit you can be really imaginative in doing so), or be consigned to the margins of what passes for society, expendable and unregarded.
Germany: you cite problems with their system. First, no one has set forth Germany as the example to be emulated. If they have screwed things up, someone else can do better. What about Norway, France, Australia? No doubt you can also find imperfections in their systems. You will also, if you care to admit it, find millions of their citizens who are quite satisfied with what is available to them. Please do not pretend that the world is full of people yearning to enjoy the benefits of an American HMO. That's just nonsense. You say the guy who originated the Canadian system calls it a failure (can you cite him or that)? I wonder how many Canadians agree with him. Where do you suppose Canadians get their health care? Do they all stream south of their border to us? No. I suppose some do, those who are impatient or dissatisfied or feel some lack in what's available to them. Fine for them, if they can afford it. On the other hand, millions of Canadians can get care that doesn't upend their lives when, if they were US citizens, they could not. Somehow I think the balance winds up being in their favor.
Clearly our views in this matter do not overlap very much. But I don't think you'll have to worry about your preferred system being overturned. Any politician would have a tough time overcoming the money-sucking parasites of the insurance "industry", so you're in no immediate danger of being provided with health coverage. Whew!
I didn't say anyone was entitled to your money, or mine. I say erecting a public health care system is a rational and ethical choice that is made by civilized people to reduce the misery of their fellows, even the lazy ones. Laziness is not a capital offense.
You say you are willing to help the unfortunate; fine. Lots of conservatives make similar claims. Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.
I don't see this as representing any kind of loss of freedom. You, for example, would not be required to take advantage of this kind of system. If you got sick but found the new universal system too unresponsive or ethically unacceptable, you would be free to ignore it. If you were rich, you could certainly still hire any boutique physicians you chose. You would still be required to pay taxes, of course. But you do that already, or at least you do if your income is sufficient.
You seem to be implying that the only way a person can demonstrate they are worthy to live is by dedicating their lives to making lots of money. In your world, that's the only valid path to survival. If you don't follow it, you can go crawl into a corner and die, or beggar yourself, should something happen to you. That seems like a curiously limited form of freedom to me. Pursue that one goal (although I admit you can be really imaginative in doing so), or be consigned to the margins of what passes for society, expendable and unregarded.
Germany: you cite problems with their system. First, no one has set forth Germany as the example to be emulated. If they have screwed things up, someone else can do better. What about Norway, France, Australia? No doubt you can also find imperfections in their systems. You will also, if you care to admit it, find millions of their citizens who are quite satisfied with what is available to them. Please do not pretend that the world is full of people yearning to enjoy the benefits of an American HMO. That's just nonsense. You say the guy who originated the Canadian system calls it a failure (can you cite him or that)? I wonder how many Canadians agree with him. Where do you suppose Canadians get their health care? Do they all stream south of their border to us? No. I suppose some do, those who are impatient or dissatisfied or feel some lack in what's available to them. Fine for them, if they can afford it. On the other hand, millions of Canadians can get care that doesn't upend their lives when, if they were US citizens, they could not. Somehow I think the balance winds up being in their favor.
Clearly our views in this matter do not overlap very much. But I don't think you'll have to worry about your preferred system being overturned. Any politician would have a tough time overcoming the money-sucking parasites of the insurance "industry", so you're in no immediate danger of being provided with health coverage. Whew!
Joe Bergeron
Moderator, Astro-Physics Forum
Posted 08/01/2008 03:30PM
#24
I don't view a basic right to life issue like food or health care as something civilized people can withhold from their fellow citizens. Are we a nation or not?
I believe you are confusing "rights" with "entitlements". Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anyone has the "right" to anything other than Life, Liberty, and the *persuit* of happiness.
And I don't see anyone, anywhere in the U.S. "withholding" anything from anyone, anywhere. Where does that concept come from? Have you seen anyone being held hostage for a sandwich? Are people starving because they have been denied access to a grocery store? I just don't understand where you get the idea that, we as a nation, *have* to give anything to anyone. We do it because we *want* to! We do it because we *care* about it! I don't give anything to anyone that refuses to get off their lazy duff. I will give it to someone that *cannot* get it themselves.
This attitude that everyone is "entitled" to be *given* something to because *you* want to give them something is nothing more that a blanket, a patch on the real problems. Go for it! It's *your choice*. The key word is *CHOICE*. If your thinking is to FORCE me to give anything to someone of *your choice*, then your way of thinking is flawed, in *my* opinion. Do what you want, it's your right, so long as it doesn't interfere with *my* right to not be affected by your actions. Simple, it's a concept of freedom.
I believe you are confusing "rights" with "entitlements". Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anyone has the "right" to anything other than Life, Liberty, and the *persuit* of happiness.
And I don't see anyone, anywhere in the U.S. "withholding" anything from anyone, anywhere. Where does that concept come from? Have you seen anyone being held hostage for a sandwich? Are people starving because they have been denied access to a grocery store? I just don't understand where you get the idea that, we as a nation, *have* to give anything to anyone. We do it because we *want* to! We do it because we *care* about it! I don't give anything to anyone that refuses to get off their lazy duff. I will give it to someone that *cannot* get it themselves.
This attitude that everyone is "entitled" to be *given* something to because *you* want to give them something is nothing more that a blanket, a patch on the real problems. Go for it! It's *your choice*. The key word is *CHOICE*. If your thinking is to FORCE me to give anything to someone of *your choice*, then your way of thinking is flawed, in *my* opinion. Do what you want, it's your right, so long as it doesn't interfere with *my* right to not be affected by your actions. Simple, it's a concept of freedom.
Posted 08/02/2008 07:28PM
#25
-How about the anti-scientific halting of embryonic research to relieve human suffering?
Um, you would rather kill unborn children? Besides, it was the Government *funding* that was halted. Since then, there have been breakthroughs that do not require the murdering of children. That research was accomplished in the private sector.
-How about his lies about global warming even when his own appointed NASA Administrator told -him it was unequivocally true?
Nobody denies the temperatures have risen on a global scale. What the argument seems to be is the cause of it, and whether raising taxes is the cure. We're still, at the edge, of coming out of the last ice age. Temperatures will continue to change. Sometimes up, and sometimes down. It's the nature of things. Solar cycles, extra-terrestrial impacts, and volcanic activity are the main causes of temperature fluctuations. If you think that mankind is that powerful to overwelm nature (aside from Nuclear explosions), then I think you need to a lesson in humility. I'm not about to touch that. Nature will rebound, it always has. This planet has survived cataclysmic events that mankind could never imagine causing in this day and age. And guess what, Earth is still here.
-How about the complete politicization of the Justice Department on a scale not seen since -the Reconstruction Republicans?
You've lost me here. In case you have forgotten, CONGRESS has to approve any justices. CONGRESS is the body of elected "representatives" that control who is appointed. NOT the President, he only makes what boils down to "recommendations". Granted, the JP does seem to have become political, but that has happened way before George HW Bush even. That process started way back in the 1960's, and probably before. So don't try and hang yet another fallacy on the current Bush Administration. Bill Clinton did his share of politicizing the JP as well.
-How about the present suffering of so many sectors of the economy except his own -oligarchic oil industry?
You act as if Bush "owns" the oil industry? If you were to actually pull you head out of your (), you would see than *many* "big companies" make MORE profits than the oil industry! Have you looked at the phone companies? Sugar companies? Hell, look at the price of bottled water! Just how much per gallon is water? Nobody seems to care that any company, other than oil, rapes you blind in profits! But oil is the target simply because GB is from Texas, and oil is pounded into everyone's head as being some sort of "evil entity".
I don't like the price of oil any more than you do. But when the entire *REST OF THE WORLD* is buying up the crude oil, and your very own beloved LIBERALS refuse to let the oil companies drill for their own, you will have high prices. It's Supply and Demand!
Now, just look at what just the *threat* that we are going to drill for our *own* oil has done! The prices have DROPPED! The futures market anticipates the supply will rise, which in turn will lower the worth of those futures. So guess what? They aren't bidding so high on their oil! DUH!
-How about extraditing that innocent Canadian Doctor to Syria where he could be tortured?
What are you talking about?
-How about wasting huge sums of federal dollars pushing abstinence-only based education -programs for high school kids to the consequent misery of higher teen pregnancy rates?
Huh?
-Hmm. What is there to like about the man? Well, he did at least try to do the right thing -on immigration, though his own fascist/racist party shot that down. I suppose, before he's -lead away in handcuffs, that can be his legacy.
Why are you so full of hatred? Where to you get "fascist/racist party"??? Do you even know the meaning of what you say? Or are you just repeating what you have been spoon-fed?
Is everyone that is a "Republican" a "fascist/racist"??? Or should I ask, Is everyone that is *not* a "Liberal" a "fascist/racist"??
Talking to you is like talking to a wind-up doll. You repeat the same quotations over and over. You never show, or produce your own findings, just repeat others'.
Um, you would rather kill unborn children? Besides, it was the Government *funding* that was halted. Since then, there have been breakthroughs that do not require the murdering of children. That research was accomplished in the private sector.
-How about his lies about global warming even when his own appointed NASA Administrator told -him it was unequivocally true?
Nobody denies the temperatures have risen on a global scale. What the argument seems to be is the cause of it, and whether raising taxes is the cure. We're still, at the edge, of coming out of the last ice age. Temperatures will continue to change. Sometimes up, and sometimes down. It's the nature of things. Solar cycles, extra-terrestrial impacts, and volcanic activity are the main causes of temperature fluctuations. If you think that mankind is that powerful to overwelm nature (aside from Nuclear explosions), then I think you need to a lesson in humility. I'm not about to touch that. Nature will rebound, it always has. This planet has survived cataclysmic events that mankind could never imagine causing in this day and age. And guess what, Earth is still here.
-How about the complete politicization of the Justice Department on a scale not seen since -the Reconstruction Republicans?
You've lost me here. In case you have forgotten, CONGRESS has to approve any justices. CONGRESS is the body of elected "representatives" that control who is appointed. NOT the President, he only makes what boils down to "recommendations". Granted, the JP does seem to have become political, but that has happened way before George HW Bush even. That process started way back in the 1960's, and probably before. So don't try and hang yet another fallacy on the current Bush Administration. Bill Clinton did his share of politicizing the JP as well.
-How about the present suffering of so many sectors of the economy except his own -oligarchic oil industry?
You act as if Bush "owns" the oil industry? If you were to actually pull you head out of your (), you would see than *many* "big companies" make MORE profits than the oil industry! Have you looked at the phone companies? Sugar companies? Hell, look at the price of bottled water! Just how much per gallon is water? Nobody seems to care that any company, other than oil, rapes you blind in profits! But oil is the target simply because GB is from Texas, and oil is pounded into everyone's head as being some sort of "evil entity".
I don't like the price of oil any more than you do. But when the entire *REST OF THE WORLD* is buying up the crude oil, and your very own beloved LIBERALS refuse to let the oil companies drill for their own, you will have high prices. It's Supply and Demand!
Now, just look at what just the *threat* that we are going to drill for our *own* oil has done! The prices have DROPPED! The futures market anticipates the supply will rise, which in turn will lower the worth of those futures. So guess what? They aren't bidding so high on their oil! DUH!
-How about extraditing that innocent Canadian Doctor to Syria where he could be tortured?
What are you talking about?
-How about wasting huge sums of federal dollars pushing abstinence-only based education -programs for high school kids to the consequent misery of higher teen pregnancy rates?
Huh?
-Hmm. What is there to like about the man? Well, he did at least try to do the right thing -on immigration, though his own fascist/racist party shot that down. I suppose, before he's -lead away in handcuffs, that can be his legacy.
Why are you so full of hatred? Where to you get "fascist/racist party"??? Do you even know the meaning of what you say? Or are you just repeating what you have been spoon-fed?
Is everyone that is a "Republican" a "fascist/racist"??? Or should I ask, Is everyone that is *not* a "Liberal" a "fascist/racist"??
Talking to you is like talking to a wind-up doll. You repeat the same quotations over and over. You never show, or produce your own findings, just repeat others'.
Posted 08/02/2008 08:03PM
#26
-Come on, let's keep it real. When people disagreed with the fascists, they did not get -angry or change the subject. They had their guys beat them to a bloody pulp. Later, when -they got power, people who disagreed with them simply disappeared into camps. We do not -have fascism here.
It is real. I've seen the rage in some peoples' eyes. I've seen them clinch their fists when confronted with another opinion. So, yeah, it is alive and well. If it weren't for fear of being sued for doing violent acts, they would have started swinging. Just because beating someone's head to a pulp doesn't happen often, doesn't mean the fascist attitude doesn't exist among some people.
Being told you are stupid, being ridiculed, being condemned in social settings, being told you are a fascist (in the wrong meaning of the word) and other names, being chopped to pieces verbally in public areas where harm is being done, is fascism. It's just not being done by a governing body.
So what do you think is going on when these extremists get people to HATE someone else. Aren't "those people" the same as what you call "their guys"? I see no difference other there being little actual "physical" harm, yet..
It is real. I've seen the rage in some peoples' eyes. I've seen them clinch their fists when confronted with another opinion. So, yeah, it is alive and well. If it weren't for fear of being sued for doing violent acts, they would have started swinging. Just because beating someone's head to a pulp doesn't happen often, doesn't mean the fascist attitude doesn't exist among some people.
Being told you are stupid, being ridiculed, being condemned in social settings, being told you are a fascist (in the wrong meaning of the word) and other names, being chopped to pieces verbally in public areas where harm is being done, is fascism. It's just not being done by a governing body.
So what do you think is going on when these extremists get people to HATE someone else. Aren't "those people" the same as what you call "their guys"? I see no difference other there being little actual "physical" harm, yet..
Posted 08/02/2008 09:16PM
#27
-I didn't say anyone was entitled to your money, or mine. I say erecting a public health care -system is a rational and ethical choice that is made by civilized people to reduce the -misery of their fellows,
So, erecting a "public" system, does indeed give entitlement to *our* money. Where do you think the money comes from?
-even the lazy ones. Laziness is not a capital offense.
No, but if you want to talk about the causes of the shortcomings of available funding to have any sort of "public outreach", you must encompass *all* that tends to suck the money, and put it where it is wasted, and unneeded. If we were to eliminate the leeches, including those in government, that siphon off funds, there would be more than enough to go around for those truly in need. Personal responsibility goes a long way. Taking the benefits just because you can, or feel "entitled", is completely different that *accepting* help when you *need* it. I've, in the past, been able to qualify for different types of "assistance". I refused to accept it because I know there are others than needed it more than I. I found a way to buy heating fuels, I found a way to scrape up money to pay electric bills, I found a way to put food in my mouth. So yeah, I have a problem with "lazy" people who refuse to lift a finger because they have been told they are "entitled", and believe it!
-You say you are willing to help the unfortunate; fine. Lots of conservatives make similar -claims.
Conservatives? Claims? So in other words, I, as a "conservative" (in your eyes)just lie and say I'll, or have helped, others? That's on the edge of being an insult.
-Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road -with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which -individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know -where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.
If anybody has been outright *refused* medical treatment and care from a *publicly* funded hospital, you let me know. I'll stand right beside you on that one! ALL "publicly funded" hospitals are required to treat *anyone* who comes into their emergency rooms regardless of who, what, and "how much". Here in Pennsylvania, there is nobody, I mean NOBODY, that is ever refused treatment by a publicly funded medical facility. Have you ever heard of St. Jude's Childrens's Hospital? It is entirely funded by donations! And NO child is ever turned away, Period! I even donate to them with my meager wages! Why? Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims". I do it by choice, not because some bureaucrat takes my money (calls it taxes) and gives "part" of it where "they" feel it should go. I know where, and how to spend *my* money, thank you.
-You seem to be implying that the only way a person can demonstrate they are worthy to live -is by dedicating their lives to making lots of money.
Quite the opposite, Joe. But having lots of wealth to spread around doesn't hurt..
-In your world, that's the only valid path to survival. If you don't follow it, you can go -crawl into a corner and die, or beggar yourself, should something happen to you. That -seems like a curiously limited form of freedom to me.
I really don't see how you have come to that conclusion. Oh, that's right, "conservatives" are stupid and narrow-minded.. Sorry, I forgot what I was supposed to be..
-Germany: you cite problems with their system. First, no one has set forth Germany as the -example to be emulated.
Um, it is a current form of "socialized Medicine" is it not? Aren't the very same ideals being implemented there to be implemented here?
-If they have screwed things up, someone else can do better.
Everyone that feels they are smarter, will say that. But then the reality sets in, the realization of their mistakes are always blamed on some "unforseen complication". Since all have failed in one way or another, and every one of them were thought to have been "smarter", I just don't have any confidence in anyone actually succeeding in doing so without dire consequences.
-You say the guy who originated the Canadian system calls it a failure (can you cite him or -that)? I wonder how many Canadians agree with him.
Come on Joe, I actually thought you were smarter than that. Do I have to hold your hand and spoon-feed that publicly, and widely available information to you? How about *you* NOT take *my* word for it, and actually go and find out for *yourself*. I'm not going to hand feed you anything, but I will give you a clue.. Claude Castonguay
And how about something that recently came out of the U.K.? Now this is going to cause some people their lives.. A quote from a U.K. newspaper;
The U.K. is restricting access to the use of drugs it knows it will work because the U.K. can't pay for them. ... "Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K., the government has determined that a drug is too expensive to cover."
So, in the U.K., it would seem that the one thing that will save your life is being withheld from the people. And since there is virtually no "privatized" medicine, you're just stuck with the reality that those whom forced the "system" down tour throat, are abandoning you in your time of need. A "reason" that the system was created "So all will be able to get the care they desperately need".
-Please do not pretend that the world is full of people yearning to enjoy the benefits of -an American HMO. That's just nonsense.
Um, they come here all the time seeking, what is regarded as, the best medical treatment available. They come here because they CANNOT get it in their own countries. It has nothing to do with some "insurance plan". It has to do with availability, and quality of the services. And that is because it is PRIVATE medicine. It is *not* "Government run".
-Clearly our views in this matter do not overlap very much.
Obviously. But does that make either one of us "wrong"? No, it makes us just plain, and simply, different of opinion. We live our lives in different parts of the country, and see our lives, each in a different way. THAT is what makes America so great. The diversity of it's people is what is so great. Tearing that down, and making everyone "the same", is akin to being drone bees in a hive. You can never grow, or better yourself. You can never rise above and be recognized, you're just one of the "taxpayers"..
So, erecting a "public" system, does indeed give entitlement to *our* money. Where do you think the money comes from?
-even the lazy ones. Laziness is not a capital offense.
No, but if you want to talk about the causes of the shortcomings of available funding to have any sort of "public outreach", you must encompass *all* that tends to suck the money, and put it where it is wasted, and unneeded. If we were to eliminate the leeches, including those in government, that siphon off funds, there would be more than enough to go around for those truly in need. Personal responsibility goes a long way. Taking the benefits just because you can, or feel "entitled", is completely different that *accepting* help when you *need* it. I've, in the past, been able to qualify for different types of "assistance". I refused to accept it because I know there are others than needed it more than I. I found a way to buy heating fuels, I found a way to scrape up money to pay electric bills, I found a way to put food in my mouth. So yeah, I have a problem with "lazy" people who refuse to lift a finger because they have been told they are "entitled", and believe it!
-You say you are willing to help the unfortunate; fine. Lots of conservatives make similar -claims.
Conservatives? Claims? So in other words, I, as a "conservative" (in your eyes)just lie and say I'll, or have helped, others? That's on the edge of being an insult.
-Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road -with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which -individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know -where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.
If anybody has been outright *refused* medical treatment and care from a *publicly* funded hospital, you let me know. I'll stand right beside you on that one! ALL "publicly funded" hospitals are required to treat *anyone* who comes into their emergency rooms regardless of who, what, and "how much". Here in Pennsylvania, there is nobody, I mean NOBODY, that is ever refused treatment by a publicly funded medical facility. Have you ever heard of St. Jude's Childrens's Hospital? It is entirely funded by donations! And NO child is ever turned away, Period! I even donate to them with my meager wages! Why? Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims". I do it by choice, not because some bureaucrat takes my money (calls it taxes) and gives "part" of it where "they" feel it should go. I know where, and how to spend *my* money, thank you.
-You seem to be implying that the only way a person can demonstrate they are worthy to live -is by dedicating their lives to making lots of money.
Quite the opposite, Joe. But having lots of wealth to spread around doesn't hurt..
-In your world, that's the only valid path to survival. If you don't follow it, you can go -crawl into a corner and die, or beggar yourself, should something happen to you. That -seems like a curiously limited form of freedom to me.
I really don't see how you have come to that conclusion. Oh, that's right, "conservatives" are stupid and narrow-minded.. Sorry, I forgot what I was supposed to be..
-Germany: you cite problems with their system. First, no one has set forth Germany as the -example to be emulated.
Um, it is a current form of "socialized Medicine" is it not? Aren't the very same ideals being implemented there to be implemented here?
-If they have screwed things up, someone else can do better.
Everyone that feels they are smarter, will say that. But then the reality sets in, the realization of their mistakes are always blamed on some "unforseen complication". Since all have failed in one way or another, and every one of them were thought to have been "smarter", I just don't have any confidence in anyone actually succeeding in doing so without dire consequences.
-You say the guy who originated the Canadian system calls it a failure (can you cite him or -that)? I wonder how many Canadians agree with him.
Come on Joe, I actually thought you were smarter than that. Do I have to hold your hand and spoon-feed that publicly, and widely available information to you? How about *you* NOT take *my* word for it, and actually go and find out for *yourself*. I'm not going to hand feed you anything, but I will give you a clue.. Claude Castonguay
And how about something that recently came out of the U.K.? Now this is going to cause some people their lives.. A quote from a U.K. newspaper;
The U.K. is restricting access to the use of drugs it knows it will work because the U.K. can't pay for them. ... "Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K., the government has determined that a drug is too expensive to cover."
So, in the U.K., it would seem that the one thing that will save your life is being withheld from the people. And since there is virtually no "privatized" medicine, you're just stuck with the reality that those whom forced the "system" down tour throat, are abandoning you in your time of need. A "reason" that the system was created "So all will be able to get the care they desperately need".
-Please do not pretend that the world is full of people yearning to enjoy the benefits of -an American HMO. That's just nonsense.
Um, they come here all the time seeking, what is regarded as, the best medical treatment available. They come here because they CANNOT get it in their own countries. It has nothing to do with some "insurance plan". It has to do with availability, and quality of the services. And that is because it is PRIVATE medicine. It is *not* "Government run".
-Clearly our views in this matter do not overlap very much.
Obviously. But does that make either one of us "wrong"? No, it makes us just plain, and simply, different of opinion. We live our lives in different parts of the country, and see our lives, each in a different way. THAT is what makes America so great. The diversity of it's people is what is so great. Tearing that down, and making everyone "the same", is akin to being drone bees in a hive. You can never grow, or better yourself. You can never rise above and be recognized, you're just one of the "taxpayers"..
Posted 08/02/2008 09:32PM
#28
You're kidding me, right? Wikipedia is a totally unreliable source of any information. It can, and has been, edited and changed by *anyone*. How about you get out an actual DICTIONARY and READ the definition of fascism.
-Fascism is a right wing movement.
Wrong! Fascism was a UNION movement created by Mussolini.
Try and actual FACTUAL Dictionary definition, and NOT a politicized one. How about trying Merriam-Webster
fas·cism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
— fas·cist Listen to the pronunciation of fascist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic Listen to the pronunciation of fascistic \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of fascistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized
-Fascism is a right wing movement.
Wrong! Fascism was a UNION movement created by Mussolini.
Try and actual FACTUAL Dictionary definition, and NOT a politicized one. How about trying Merriam-Webster
fas·cism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
— fas·cist Listen to the pronunciation of fascist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic Listen to the pronunciation of fascistic \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of fascistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized
Richard Wright said:
Jeff,
You have a friend on the web you haven't met, but I expect will become a welcome addition to your life as it allows you to get in-depth information on any concept you feel curious about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Read about what fascism actually is. I expect you will adjust your commentary accordingly.
Some key points:
Fascism is a right wing movement.
Key concepts:
Goal is a "Return to wholesome virtues" of an idealized past
Retrenching of cultural values/ Purification of the people/ nation
Authoritarian control of the populace
Intolerance for new ideas, science, and intellectualism.
So, by definition, the left wing does not contain fascists, no matter how extreme they are. The dangerous extreme on the left end is communism, and as everyone knows, the fascists and communists, despite having outward similarities such as a common quest for absolute power and intolerance of dissent, view each other as mortal enemies.
So, to notice someone is becoming upset in a discussion invites three observations, which hopefully can be constructive:
(1) Disagreement is the start of new good ideas. A situation where no one is disagreeing, or people are pressured into keeping their dissent silent is a recipe for catastrophe. A skeptical audience forces people to think through what they themselves have thought was true and perhaps change their views for the better.
(2) Ceasing to listen and getting mad isn't going to help. Alternatively, if someone else seems to be getting upset in a discussion, it's a good idea to figure out why. But a lot of what makes people mad is what they would like to argue has just been shown to be provably untrue. Personally, I've long since lost count of the things I would like to be true but aren't, so I've had to acknowledge the truth and let them die.
(3) Taking a point beyond the actual facts of the moment isn't constructive. Saying someone's words are no different than having an armed revolt is obviously not true, and is just inflammatory language. On what we are talking about here, there is no civil war going on- but there are a lot of idiots on TV talking about it as if it were. Then again, when if you tune in to an NFL game you'll get to see repeated incidents of two lines of 350 lb. men take two steps and thump into each other and stop and hear the commentator describe it like it was a WWII tank battle. But in reality, two groups of guys just thumped into each other and followed it up with a bear hug.Jeffrey Counsil said:
-Come on, let's keep it real. When people disagreed with the fascists, they did not get -angry or change the subject. They had their guys beat them to a bloody pulp. Later, when -they got power, people who disagreed with them simply disappeared into camps. We do not -have fascism here.
It is real. I've seen the rage in some peoples' eyes. I've seen them clinch their fists when confronted with another opinion. So, yeah, it is alive and well. If it weren't for fear of being sued for doing violent acts, they would have started swinging. Just because beating someone's head to a pulp doesn't happen often, doesn't mean the fascist attitude doesn't exist among some people.
Being told you are stupid, being ridiculed, being condemned in social settings, being told you are a fascist (in the wrong meaning of the word) and other names, being chopped to pieces verbally in public areas where harm is being done, is fascism. It's just not being done by a governing body.
So what do you think is going on when these extremists get people to HATE someone else. Aren't "those people" the same as what you call "their guys"? I see no difference other there being little actual "physical" harm, yet..
Funding Member
