The Republican leadership is obviously not interested in negotiating. They are not interested in compromise; they are not interested in finding solutions in the best interests of the majority; they are literally belligerent, obnoxious, stubborn and even arrogant in irresponsibly seeking to block/obstruct everything/anything while offering only bazaar, exaggerated and emotional appeals to discredit, while aggressively trying to manipulate public opinion and justify returning to 'more of the same', the same that cost us so much over the last eight years. It really isn't about conservative or liberal as that is just hyped up for effect. Our representatives, regardless of political party, are suppose to honestly and conscientiously negotiate and come to compromises in the best interests of the people, without selling out to the Special Interests who strongly support them. We really need not to forget the Republicans' concentrated focus and total commitment when strongly supporting Bush-Cheney and recognize that it just hasn???t changed. Special Interests are still their task-masters. What we should be doing is concentrating on giving them the message that they really do need to change! Otherwise ... very possibly 'more of the same' is the likely result. Personally, even as an ex-long-term Republican now Independent, I am disgusted and offended that they seek to sway us with their insulting subterfuge and that they literally just take us for granted. We need a strong Republican Party that sincerely strives to serve the American people and not only the powerful, influential and wealthy few. To see them regain that focus we must reject what they have become. We surely need fine-tuning of the current proposals but even more, we need conscience driven representatives that can sincerely put the people's interests first.
The Road to Health-Care Reform
Why making laws takes so darn long.
Oct 23, 2009
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 11/04/2009 3:41:37 PM
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 3:53:23 PM
Amen to that. There is no doubt the GOP puts its poltical agenda far and above the interests of this country.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/04/2009 6:48:40 PM
Rob,
Why do all you liberals have trouble counting? Obama has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a 70 vote majority in the House. The republicans do not have enough votes to even change the menu in the Capital cafeteria.
So why all the whining about the lack of republican cooperation? Is it that the dems are looking to share the blame for their wild schemes on health care, energy and huge deficits. You people have one year left to do your worst. November 2010 will see the end of the Obama era.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/04/2009 8:11:17 PM
Hear, hear! That fat lady started warming up lastnight in New Jersey and Virginia. That pendulum is going to hit real hard when it swings back this time. People have looked into the democrat's version of the future and said, no thank you!!!!
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/04/2009 8:15:23 PM
gregcovert:Hear, hear! That fat lady started warming up lastnight in New Jersey and Virginia. That pendulum is going to hit real hard when it swings back this time. People have looked into the democrat's version of the future and said, no thank you!!!!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We shouldn't gloat, Greg. We should be gracious winners and tip our hats to the losers.
The hell with it! Let's gloat.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 11:29:10 PM
Don't rush with gloat, Don. There was one "misstep" when heavy Republican district elected a Democrat, because such old guards as Palin (I hoped never hear this name again) embraced a right wing conservative. It is a good lesson for GOP leadership, moderates rule.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 7:46:42 AM
bighappy:Don't rush with gloat, Don. There was one "misstep" when heavy Republican district elected a Democrat, because such old guards as Palin (I hoped never hear this name again) embraced a right wing conservative. It is a good lesson for GOP leadership, moderates rule.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The republican establishment invested a million dollars in that "moderates" campaign. They ran ads against the conservative candidate. The turncoat "moderate" dropped out of the race and endorsed the democrat. And Hoffman, with just one line on the ballot garnered 46% of the vote. Republican "moderates" are democrats in disguise. Scozzafava proved it.
In political races republican "moderates" lose. Why vote for democrat lite when you can have the original.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 1:32:23 AM
Don, hear I disagree with you.
GOP voters made it clear - they didn't want conservatives this time, give them a break. There will be times when voters "forgive" right-wing Republicans, but for now, as I said, the moderates rule.
I despise, like you, GOP traitors, but on the first place GOP leaders did very bad job selecting candidates for primaries, another good lesson.
And if moderate Republicans, like Rudy or Mitt, are Democrats, then Palin is British queen.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 6:33:26 AM
bighappy,
You are so misreading the election results. The grass roots movements sweeping the country are not looking for a version of democrat lite. They want a change from the policies of a democrat huge bigger government or a republican smaller bigger government. They want smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes and less government interference in the market place.
Conservatives are no longer going to go along to get along. Republican "moderates" have been selling us a bill of goods for years. They talk a good fight and then betray every principle that conservatives stand for. No more democrat lite. "A choice not an echo."
Sarah may not be a Queen, but she will be a kingmaker in 2010. There will be no one like Sarah in drawing a crowd and raising money.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 11:53:57 AM
Definitions again: Democrat lite (like Rudy - in your words) = social liberal. Social conservatives require more and bigger government to control more of your moral lifestyle (these people used to very much populate the religious southern democrat party (and were thus called conservatives).
Bighappy - what Don wants is for evangelist morals to be dictated through legislation and more government on the US citizens. That is what the GOP brings us today. They will have no less, or risk losing vast sums of financial support from the corporate evangelist voting block.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 3:58:13 PM
Rob,
You are making assumptions which are not based on anything that I have posted. I think that you are feeling the pressure of my arguments so you are flailing away in desperation to try to counter them.
No one that I know defines democrat lite as social liberal. Democrat lite simply means expanding big government at a slower pace than Democrat original. That's not good enough. The growth of government must be reversed
As for social issues, I am quite content to leave them to the people of the several states to decide. The feds should have no role at all. I have confidence that the American people in their wisdom will make the correct decision on social issues.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/06/2009 4:21:44 PM
"As for social issues, I am quite content to leave them to the people of the several states to decide."
Yeah! Don't need no stinkin' Constitution!
Separate but equal! The states should decide who goes to which schools! Who sits where in buses!
The states should decide who gets to vote!
There ain't no Constitutional protections to women in deciding on abortions! I trust the states!
If 'we' consider it a 'social issue', the Supreme Court and Congress should have nothing to say about it!
The states should decide what 'equal protecition' means, whether we should discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, age ... Those are all 'social issues'!
I trust them states! They've gotten it right all along, right?!-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 7:07:18 PM
Hi 40YR,
I had thought that you had been banned again. Glad to see you are still here.
I give to you the 10th Amendment to the Constitution;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you have a problem with the Constitution, 40YR?
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/06/2009 7:32:00 PM
No, banned paulejb, I like the Constitution. For example, I'm against cruel and unusual punishment like Chinese Water Torture, and I don't try to justify it 'BECAUSE THEY GOUGE OUT EYEBALLS!"
I just smirk when you so paulejb typically spout that all 'social issues' should be determined by the states ... in disregard of the Constitution ... And you trust the wisdom of the folks in those states to get it right ... you know, like when all you rightwingnuts ought to be free from federal interference with their denial of basic Constitutional rights to black people for example ... 'states rights' ... was the unConstitutional postition then ...
It's the Constitution and enforcement of it that protects all citizens from denial of entitlements of citizenship by those who want everything despicable they want to do left to " the several states".-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 7:46:03 PM
40YR,
If you like the Constitution than you should try reading it. It will be enlightening for you.
You "smirk!" I am surprised you admit it. I always suspected that you were a little smarmy.
I also suspect that you do not have a clear understanding of the Constitution. I quoted the 10th Amendment for you, but it seems to have gone over your head.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/06/2009 9:57:09 PM
No, paulejb ... I simply pointed out how repetitively weak was your post that 'social issues' should be decided by "the several states" ... and your abiding faith that they would certainly make the right decisions about who has Constitutional rights and what they are ... as they so often have in the past ...
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 4:41:35 AM
40Year.R:No, paulejb ... I simply pointed out how repetitively weak was your post that 'social issues' should be decided by "the several states" ... and your abiding faith that they would certainly make the right decisions about who has Constitutional rights and what they are ... as they so often have in the past ...----------------------------------------------
Your argument is not with me, 40YR. It is with the founders. They specifically granted unenumerated powers to the States or the people. Do you cavil with that?
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/10/2009 11:41:10 PM
I am not the one who has the argument with the Constitition, paulejb. It was your inane declaration that 'social issues', (contrary to the express language of the Constitution you later cite to once again seek to change the subject away from your own inane, unsupportable and again unsupported post) should be left to the 'several states'; and your declared trust in the decisions of the states, so often proven wrong. That is where you made yet another mistake. You blow, then you change the subject, or try.
Only the ignorant and sycphant would want to join in on your always refuted pronunciations.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/11/2009 11:33:17 AM
Perhaps you should try reading the Constitution, 40YR. I recommend to you the 10th Amendment.
"...so often proven wrong." Oh? That is an interesting accusation to make with absolutely no back up. Do you just invent these charges, 40YR?
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/11/2009 12:22:40 PM
Yes, he does. He has been doing it so long now, that he doesn't even notice that he is doing it. I just wish old Fishermen 40 wasn't so windy.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/11/2009 12:42:30 PM
gregcovert:Yes, he does. He has been doing it so long now, that he doesn't even notice that he is doing it. I just wish old Fishermen 40 wasn't so windy.--------------------------------------------------
40YR does not seem to be himself since Lolita1989 dumped him and Repubnomas started to stalk him. He is still windy but it is all just babble. He does not seem to be able to focus. It is sad.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/11/2009 1:09:34 PM
Don, hypnosis gone bad? Keep your eye on the ball, 40, you are getting sleepy:)
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/11/2009 6:01:58 PM
And, hey, if you two guys keep stroking each other enough, maybe no one will notice that paulejb says the Constitution provides that (whatever you guys call) "social issues" are to be decided by "the several states".
What was that word? Oh yeah: sycophant.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/11/2009 6:36:54 PM
40Year.R:And, hey, if you two guys keep stroking each other enough, maybe no one will notice that paulejb says the Constitution provides that (whatever you guys call) "social issues" are to be decided by "the several states".What was that word? Oh yeah: sycophant.------------------------------------------------------------------
Who? Where? Are you the only one to see him? Is it like an Elvis sighting?
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/11/2009 7:47:53 PM
paulejb denying who he is does wonders for his credibility
see how 'clever' I am, mommy ... mommy?-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/12/2009 1:18:17 PM
40Year.R:paulejb denying who he is does wonders for his credibilitysee how 'clever' I am, mommy ... mommy?-----------------------------------------------------
Are you seeing paulejb everywhere you look? Does he haunt your dreams? Do you fear that he will return to bedevil you? I pity you, 40YR.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/12/2009 2:59:21 PM
Hey everyone: 'donald' wants you to accept him as the superior of everyone and the leading authority on all subjects. He just doesn't know who paulejb is ...
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/12/2009 6:54:55 PM
40Year.R:Hey everyone: 'donald' wants you to accept him as the superior of everyone and the leading authority on all subjects. He just doesn't know who paulejb is ...---------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly, 40YR. Of course I know who paulejb is, he is your nemesis. You and the other low lives here live in fear of him. He is a legend.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/12/2009 10:42:18 PM
Well ok, let's recycle. O Lord, please give me paule for a nemesis. He's so easy.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/12/2009 11:00:41 PM
40Year.R:Well ok, let's recycle. O Lord, please give me paule for a nemesis. He's so easy.-----------------------------------------------------
If he was so easy, why are you no longer claiming to be 1. a republican 2. a lawyer 3. a doctor, 4. a mortgage broker 5. a bank officer or 6. a Lothario? It would seem like paulejb subdued your enthusiastic imagination quite a bit. It would seem he exposed all your little fantasies for the whole Newsweek audience to see. I'll bet you miss him a lot.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/13/2009 3:33:56 AM
Since you claim to know so much about this paule, you certainly also know how easy you are
everybody does-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/14/2009 6:26:00 PM
40Year.R:Since you claim to know so much about this paule, you certainly also know how easy you areeverybody does------------------------------------------------------------
Paulejb was a legend. He smoked you so many times you could be a cured ham. He owned you like the Yankees own the majors. He would hit you so hard that your mother felt it. He rang your bell so many times that you could be a church steeple. He walked all over you like you were a door mat. He cleaned your clock so often that Greenwich Mean Time is based on you. He cooled your jets so that you could never get off the ground.
If your encounters with him were a boxing match the referee would have called a TKO on you in the first minute of the first round. If they were a chess match you would have been checkmated in 4 moves. If it were water polo you would have drowned. If it were football the score would have been paulejb 408 to 40YR's 0.
In short, you are a thousand time loser and you never once laid a glove on the legend.
And that my friends is the story of paulejb and 40YearR.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 02/20/2010 8:14:58 PM
Don, The story of paulejb and 40YearReprobate is of a one-sided affair with 40 constantly running full speed ahead into paulejb's fist.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 02/20/2010 10:21:45 PM
gregcovert:Don, The story of paulejb and 40YearReprobate is of a one-sided affair with 40 constantly running full speed ahead into paulejb's fist.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey, thanks for bringing up that blast from the past. I had forgotten all about it. I am proud of that one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: issadikk @ 11/11/2009 8:13:37 PM
Denying. You bastard! Do you deny that you are using another of your screen names to harass Pia? And now you have picked a major fight with someone else. Big problem there.
For your own health and welfare, I have warned you to stay away since there are so many people who hate you and are looking for revenge. If somebody accidentally dropped your ID in conversation, well, that could get ugly for you, loser. Things are not always as they seem.
One more outburst from you about Pia and it may just be time for a wienie roast.
And leave paulejb out of it. He is not here anymore. Got that?
Please don't waste time acting tough. No kred, zzzilch.
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/11/2009 10:35:13 PM
I've never used any name other than 40YearR and 40YearR. I don't hide behind fake names, morphs of izageek or otherwise, like you. The only part of your name you got right in this fake name of yours is 'dikk', while you race harassed izageek and at all other times.
Here's a typical one of yours, hero:
Posted By: issadikk @ 09/07/2009 9:58:36 PM
Are you not in hiding.izageek?
What is your name? No hiding, please.
You are known for bravery.courage.intelligence.sophistication.manhood.studhood.
So be a man. Tell us your name.izageek.
Tell us what you want.izageek.
Tell 40 what you have never told him before.izageek.
The letters.izageek.
The phone calls.izageek.
Why are you hiding.izageek?
You should not play the hypocrite.izageek.
You whine so loudly that I, issadikk, am hiding behind a "fake name."
And you.izageek?
You call me "chickensh*t.izageek.
You are not chickensh*t, are you. izageek?
Someone called you a c*cksucker here. Very cruel. Who was that? A woman? A phantom? One of your friend's friends?
Was it someone who knows something you are hiding from your dearest friend, 40. izageek?
Tell him now.
You are not a CS. Nor or are you a CS. Prove it now.izageek.
Tell him about the letters.
The phone calls.
Now.
izageek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213173/CommentSuccess/true#CommentBox
-
-
-
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/11/2009 8:24:43 PM
40, you still singing that "I'm a republican big government guy" tune. You have something backwards, 40. Well, if I was you (and I'm damn glad I'm not), I'd go fishing and do what you do with them. Be nice to the Sturgeons.
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/11/2009 6:34:57 PM
gregcovert:Don, hypnosis gone bad? Keep your eye on the ball, 40, you are getting sleepy:)---------------------------------------------------------
I think that Repubnomas used VooDoo on him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/06/2009 7:28:27 PM
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 4:28:17 PM
donald - come on dude. "pressure of your arguments?" Maybe I have felt pressure from arguments in the past at some time. But I never have from yours...not an insult...just the way I perceive your method of engagement...and why I continue to do "back and forths" on these posts with you. No don - no pressure. I'd probably feel worse, if you didn't reply.
Growth of government was extremely expanded during the last administration. Would you then call Bush/Cheney democratic lite? Let me provide you with some data for my statement: $1 trillion expansion of Medicare, Expansion of legislation, creation of a whole new department (homeland security), bank bailouts within the span of 6 months closing on $1 trillion. That's not Demo lite...no, probably not. By your definition...that is Dem dark. Right?
If you agree with me on state's rights for social issues, I wonder how you find yourself siding with the likes of Sarah Palin, who is 100% funded and supported by those who think absolutely to the contrary of that.
Your version of the GOP base, is anything BUT letting people make up their own minds. There is no evidence whatsoever that the GOP will leave social matter up to the states, nor that it will separate itself from the heavily financed influence of the evagelist right movement towards moral socialization.
No pressure don. Trust me on this one thing. I enjoy the engagement.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 6:56:45 PM
Rob,
You seem not to be able to respond without making wild assumptions. I do not mind that you dispute what I write, but I find it irritating that you create your own straw men in order to knock them down.
The Bush administration was in many ways Democrat lite.
You have no idea what Sarah Palin would do on social issues. My advice, buy her book.
You are wrong about social issues. The states which have ballot initiatives will be the battle ground on issues of abortion and gay marriage. I give you Proposition 8 in California and Proposition 1 in Maine. Not exactly red states with a large evangelical presence.
I too enjoy the jousting, Rob. You are a formidable opponent.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:26:53 PM
don -
You must know as well as anyone, if you want to know about someone, you certainly don't ask them...they're always going to be their biggest superhero.
And no, I haven't made any wild assumptions. I am working logical connections. Republican Party money (the further to the right you go) consistently through history has been in large amounts from what we all now know as the "Christian Right". So much so that I can remember vividly Ralph Reed (Moral Majority Leader) campaigning actively for the GOP. This represents a huge voting block of right leaning evangelists. And this is to the tune of people from the Jimmy Swaggart school of money making. Big money - and subsequently, big lobbying. They are not secretive about it either. They say their goals and why for example they were in such huge support for Bush in the beginning. But even he couldn't constitutionally pander to them to the extent they wanted. These guys literally believed Bush was the messiah. Bush himself has such a story of learning (as governor) how effective it was to take on their causes. Money kept coming in. Now - forget Palin's book. Throw it away. Read or watch testimonials from her friends, family, church and even herself. She stated she was only interested in whatever opportunities wil help her family. Her church and its history are very very influential with her and have been funding all her upward moves. If you already believe in conntections with pastor ideology to leaders (Wright to Obama) then it should be easy for you to see this same problem with Palin. There is no reason to believe that any upward movement would be completely influenced and paid by the religious right - who have a very specific agenda they push and ALL of thier people. It has never been different in the past. Why would it be now?
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 4:34:32 AM
Rob,
Explain California and Maine. Explain CBS poll showing that 41% favor abortion being generally available while 55% believe it should either be restricted or prohibited.
There are no problems with Sarah. She is the future.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 1:01:48 PM
Don -
Explain how that contradicts my post?
Your position on Sarah is sad. But it is simply an opinion....and yours to post.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 1:35:14 PM
Rob007:Don -
Explain how that contradicts my post?
Your position on Sarah is sad. But it is simply an opinion....and yours to post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You keep carrying on about the religious right. Neither Maine nor California is a hotbed of evangelicals. Most people would describe them as liberal States. Yet they defeated efforts to legalize same sex marriage. You have yet to explain that.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/08/2009 8:33:44 PM
Don, They have yet to explain NJ and Virginia, also. The two candidates where unapologetic conservatives and won. The left's extreme policies were grabbed by the collar and kick dead in the butt with a size 10. End of story.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 4:26:55 AM
gregcovert:Don, They have yet to explain NJ and Virginia, also. The two candidates where unapologetic conservatives and won. The left's extreme policies were grabbed by the collar and kick dead in the butt with a size 10. End of story.----------------------------------------------
It was not Obama's fault. The democrats were lousy candidates. They wouldn't listen to Obama's advice. It was only local issues. Obama was never in Va or NJ. Why are you bothering us, the president is a busy man.
Obama has no problem with shooting the wounded on his own side.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:36:02 PM
Greg,
I've already seen it explained on 2 other message boards from NW. What is the point? You're just going to say, "OK" and move on? Based on the exchanges here, it would be a waste of time. You're not looking to be convinced of anything. You just want affirmation that your ideology is a good one. You certainly cannot look to me for that one, I can assure you. Story continues.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/08/2009 8:59:01 PM
No, I don't need affirmation of my ideology because I disagree with both parties alot. However, Tuesday was a perfect example and as complete repudiation of Obama's agenda as you'll see. Story continues
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 10:48:47 PM
Yeah, Greg. You sure do seem to be in deep disagreement with the GOP. What is it with them? Someone change their hair style that you don't like? Because I've sure never seen any indication of anything but complete agreement with the GOP on your posts. As I told don - just make sure you don't start counting any unhatched eggs....or count on any unsold stock values. Story will always continue.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/08/2009 11:01:02 PM
Rob, I've said on here that I tend to agree with republican positions on certain issues more so than with democrats. That's about as honest as you get on NW. You know who I'm talking about. The poster who has a screen name and swears that they were republicans for a lot of years- 40 to be exact. I don't hide the fact that I tend to vote republican, not always. If a democrat comes along that believes in the 2nd amendment and is fiscal conservative, then I take a look at them. The republicans have created a mess. When have I said that they didn't? George spent a boatload of money. When have I defended his fiscal conservativism? I just think it's funny how the democrats have completely misread the wishes of the average American. They seem to almost want to hand the power back to the republicans. It is almost comical. Well, except for the two boatloads of money that they are spending.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 11:29:41 PM
Greg,
OK. I'll take that I haven't seen you post such hard right positions. I do, here on NW, seem to find though...those that bark on about "liberals" and use all the usual rhetoric, seem to be so hardline right - it's downright scary what some believe. Fiscal conservatism - had always been a traditional Republican position....but rare over the past 8 years, as you've implied. I used to listen to a guy named Charles Goyette, until he quit radio last year. Do you know of him? He is very much to this point (mostly libertarian)....and the GOP hated him during the Bush years, as he hammered the GOP for Iraq and their spending habits. They brought him onto Fox a couple of times to beat him up, but it never worked out that well for them. Check him out before judgement...you might agree with him. Yes - Obama has spent alot...alot. And the bailouts of car manufacturers a big, big mistake as was bailing out Banks without connecting money to loan incentives. I know a few small and medium business owners having major problems securing loans...and all these banks are recovering now because of gains on the stock market, not from doing business. But - at least you and I know that spending is a Democrat trait. So there should really be no surprises there....especially with a Democratic Congress that has a few far lefties (in that regard) and Obama doesn't seem tough enough to hold his own against extremists on either side.
Hey - weren't you supposed to be on your way back to Iraq? Are you there? Have you seen the new policy on Stop Loss Reimbursement? If you think you might have been affected - there's a pot of gold on that one (or so it seems)....
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:23:22 PM
Liberal states are extremely susceptible to the influences of the religious right as well. Take California's porposition 8, for example, paid in full and promoted fervently by the Mormons. The voting block few have shown extreme influence (money) in most of the "liberal" states at one time or another. This has been consistently true for the pro-"life" movement.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40Year.R @ 11/06/2009 4:21:08 PM
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 9:23:09 PM
"evangelist morals" - poor Don, he is still trying to understand what it means and how Rob connected him with "evangelists".
Don, admit, you said that Rudy was a communist, don't you remember it? It is so simple logic, I already got it from Rob - you said that moderate Republicans are close to Democrats, Rudy is not conservative therefore a Democrat, and because right-wing "evangelists" believe that all Democrats are devil reincarnations and therefore communists - Rudy is a communist.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:39:05 PM
Don't think you can get out of your Hitler = communist comment that easily.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/07/2009 9:39:46 PM
Only in your mad house.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 12:41:18 PM
Oh, B.Happy. You make this too easy. Again, here it is for all to see:
Post #1174781
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved."
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 3:21:20 PM
So, where did I mention "communist Hitler here, silly? "Communism" in this phrase means "hell on Earth", I already told you couple times if you can not remember, it is not in your encyclopedia.
Write it on your walls, Rob, "Real communism is hell on Earth", difference between nazis and communists is that the former know it and the latter believe it is what Marx (or Campanello, if I am not mistaken with the name) imagined.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:38:49 PM
No bighappy, the difference between communism and fascism is exactly as I defined it. Ayn Rand theories about size of government only fly with her flock, no me.
By the way - what alot of wiggling you've had to do to try and fix your words. If that is what you meant...your sentence certainly didn't help. Either way, you stated that Hitler would have instituted commuinism. Enough said. You can stop right there...because that is just as ridiculous as what I originally accused you of saying.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/09/2009 12:17:27 AM
Rob, why do you pretend to be so, let say, not smart, how many times do I have to repeat that word "communism" in all nowadays publications means hell on Earth, tightly associated with fascism? Even communists try not to mention this word any more, using "socialism" instead. In their program they never meant to build anything like this, but endgame is always the same. Of course Hitler would have been insulted if somebody said that he built communism, as well as communists are upset being accused of building true fascism, but in fact they build the same.
How difficult is to understand that by "communism" I always meant ultimate totalitarian regime, the same as fascism (you can print a lot of Mussolini BS from encyclopedia about corporatism etc., it does not change what fascism is)?
If even after that you keep insisting that I named Hitler communist or you and your liberal friends nazis - you are indeed, are ... not smart and it does not make sense to keep talking to you.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 10:52:03 AM
Bighappy-
1. I never questioned whether or not communism could be hell on earth. I don't understand why you even coment about that here.
2. No one but you, so far, has ever associated communism with fascism. I think only a follower of Ayn Rand would do so, because the only similarities are from her own ideas of big state vs. no state. She espoused a system that has never been seen in the history of civilization. But only she would think fascism the same as communism. It is a very simple, general and distorted mind that would do so.
3. Communism is a totalitarian regime, true. But not all totalitarian regimes are communist - by definition.
4. You can try your darndest to try to redefine fascism but the world will always know it as a movement of the extreme right certainly never equate it with communism. Every time you reply to me that it is communism, I will reply to you that it is not...until I breath my last breath I will do this...and after that there will be someone in my place... and someone after that. We will continue to pass on information so history WILL NOT be rewritten. It will be what it has always been. It will not be changed and terms will not be changed. A corporation is a definitive term. I will not debate the defnitions of english words. You are wrong, manipulative and your ideology is dangerous enought to create its own hell on earth.
5. You prove my point again...comparing two of the most obvious polar and complete opposites "liberal" and "nazi" together as if same. I WONDER WHY NO NEONAZIS TODAY EVER, EVER IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH ANY PARTY ON THE LEFT IN THIS WORLD? WHY WOULD THAT BE, IF THEY ARE SO LEFTIST A MOVEMENT....WHY?
6. No BigH - it does not make sense for you to keep talking to me. With every post you make, another jaw drops in wonderment of how you managed to get to phd. But as I said earlier, at least America didn't cause the disaster that is your mind. Blame it on Russia...and that's where Ayn Rand (another disaster) came from. Good riddance. Why in God's name did we import you?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 10:50:54 AM
Bighappy-
1. I never questioned whether or not communism could be hell on earth. I don't understand why you even coment about that here.
2. No one but you, so far, has ever associated communism with fascism. I think only a follower of Ayn Rand would do so, because the only similarities are from her own ideas of big state vs. no state. She espoused a system that has never been seen in the history of civilization. But only she would think fascism the same as communism. It is a very simple, general and distorted mind that would do so.
3. Communism is a totalitarian regime, true. But not all totalitarian regimes are communist - by definition.
4. You can try your darndest to try to redefine fascism but the world will always know it as a movement of the extreme right certainly never equate it with communism. Every time you reply to me that it is communism, I will reply to you that it is not...until I breath my last breath I will do this...and after that there will be someone in my place... and someone after that. We will continue to pass on information so history WILL NOT be rewritten. It will be what it has always been. It will not be changed and terms will not be changed. A corporation is a definitive term. I will not debate the defnitions of english words. You are wrong, manipulative and your ideology is dangerous enought to create its own hell on earth.
5. You prove my point again...comparing two of the most obvious polar and complete opposites "liberal" and "nazi" together as if same. I WONDER WHY NO NEONAZIS TODAY EVER, EVER IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH ANY PARTY ON THE LEFT IN THIS WORLD? WHY WOULD THAT BE, IF THEY ARE SO LEFTIST A MOVEMENT....WHY?
6. No BigH - it does not make sense for you to keep talking to me. With every post you make, another jaw drops in wonderment of how you managed to get to phd. But as I said earlier, at least America didn't cause the disaster that is your mind. Blame it on Russia...and that's where Ayn Rand (another disaster) came from. Good riddance. Why in God's name did we import you?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 8:13:49 PM
Don,
I don't mind if conservatives will be elected even I don't exactly agree with everything they say (probably because I am very unlikely get pregnant - I am not bothered much but these differences). The problem is, for a while they are not electable, thanks to Bush, and new GOP leaders are not so stupid not to understand it.
As for Palin the former Queen - in 2012 she will be completely forgotten (who is she without her Governor position?) and I hope not to hear her much in 2010, she is a poison, whoever invites her for help is doomed. The prove is before you - her loud support doomed a conservative in heavy GOP district with all the money available.
Vote for moderate Republicans, seek compromise within GOP, otherwise you may have 100 Democrats in Senate, they would not mind joining with marxists and even fascists.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 4:53:14 AM
bighappy,
Check the election results for 2009. The winning candidates were running on conservative principles of less spending and lower taxes.
Sarah will be with us for as long as she likes. My proof. Just the mention of her name sets liberals all atremble.
Her support brought a third party candidate with support in the 20% range to within 4% of gaining the seat.
Moderates will bring you nothing but heartbreak. They are never there on the important issues. If ObamaCare passes the Senate it will be because some "moderate" republican caves in to Obama's blandishments.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 1:31:22 PM
"less spending and lower taxes" - moderate Republicans also for it, whoever is not - they are Democrats, indeed, and would never pass GOP primaries in current situation.
As for Sara - sure she will try to stay forever, but I don't believe she is going to attract independents, the latest event proved it decisively. I hope she will not try to continue GOP "civil war" and from now on accept primaries results, or it would be the real civil war and Democrats will win.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 1:46:02 PM
bighappy,
Democrat lite does not win elections. Conservatives are for smaller government not a slower increase in the size of government.
Sarah is a phenomenon. She will have a place in national politics for as long as she wishes. Independents went for the conservative candidate 2-1 in Va. and N.J.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:25:57 PM
"Sarah is a phenomenon. She will have a place in national politics for as long as she wishes."
Leader worship. I can't think of a single politician I would say this about.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 4:22:40 AM
Rob007:"Sarah is a phenomenon. She will have a place in national politics for as long as she wishes."
Leader worship. I can't think of a single politician I would say this about.
----------------------------------------------
Really? And I thought you felt that way about Obama.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 10:55:21 AM
There's your problem. In that regard we are not the same. I have never felt that way about any leader in history. I would be embarrassed to make such a statement about a leader. Obama has many faults. So if you find me defending him, that ought to let you know how far you've taken your criticism.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 11:18:27 AM
Rob007:There's your problem. In that regard we are not the same. I have never felt that way about any leader in history. I would be embarrassed to make such a statement about a leader. Obama has many faults. So if you find me defending him, that ought to let you know how far you've taken your criticism.--------------------------------------------------------
That's funny, Rob! "Obama has many faults." And this is news to you? Where were you before last's years election? We were trying to warn you people, but you wouldn't listen.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 11:54:40 AM
THey were faults, but there were many, many more in the McCain Palin camp that had me checking real estate values in Canada. At least with Obama's faults, I remain in the US.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 2:03:44 PM
Rob007:THey were faults, but there were many, many more in the McCain Palin camp that had me checking real estate values in Canada. At least with Obama's faults, I remain in the US.--------------------------------------------------
Is that because you no longer have the resources to flee? If Obama gets his way no one will have the resources to flee.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 5:02:12 PM
No, don, it is not because of that. Nor do I even accept that proposal.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 5:08:28 PM
Rob007:No, don, it is not because of that. Nor do I even accept that proposal.---------------------------------------------------
That is what I like about you, Rob. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you stand by your guy. At least you do not head for the tall grass when things get hot.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 6:51:28 PM
evidence? Haven't seen any of that yet. You got some?
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 7:42:46 PM
Rob007:evidence? Haven't seen any of that yet. You got some?----------------------------------------------
I submit for your consideration:
1. 10.2% unemployment
2. A yearly deficit three times the size of George Bush's highest.
3. A projected additional $9 trillion added to the debt over the next 10 years.
4. A $800 billion dollar political slush fund disguised as "stimulus."
5. A cap and trade bill that Treasury reports will cost each household an additional $1761 per year.
6. A government seizure of the Health Care System.
7. A weak, feckless handling of the "necessary war" in Afghanistan.
8. Capitulation to the Iranian Mullahs on nuclear weapons.
9. A president who lets himself get rolled by Putin.
10. Numerous broken promises.
And all this in just 10 months.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/10/2009 11:42:53 AM
donald, Economic figures are not evidence of presidential failure - especially not after less than a year of president being in office - you would understand that if you understood economics. Bush deficit did not count the wars. Obama's does. What was the projected debt after Bush increased medicare by $1 trillion, added 700 billion to the debt for war, and bailed out banks to the tune of almost $1 trillion? What was the cost of creating a whole new department of governmnet?...anyone calculate that over 10 years? No- must be some transparency thing.,... why a president would give you a number to post on a message board. The last one wouldn't do that. Government already has seized the HC system...long ago, and Bush increased it immensly in the past without a peep from the GOP. Afghanistan policy has differed in no way from Bush. and the rest is unsupported opinion. This is not evidence don. It is a list of complaints the GOP spouts through its mouthpiece, Fox.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/10/2009 1:54:34 PM
Rob,
Why are you telling me this, Rob? I hold no brief for the big spending ways of Bush and the republicans. I blame them for giving us the disaster of the Obama administration. The trouble with Obama is that he picked up the big spending habit and tripled the deficit in his first year. He has us on the road to bankruptcy and he doesn't seem to be able to stop. He is determined to push through his big government schemes no matter the cost.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/10/2009 2:48:18 PM
don, Tripled the deficit? Sounds pretty high. Do you have any data to support that statement? Donald, you have consistently lambasted Obama in defense of the past administration in multiple responses. Therefore I had no reason to believe this was more of the same. In addition, since Palin represents change of course from Bush policies and you sounds as if you worship her, I am left with nothing else to conclude but your defense of GOP policies. McCain/Palin (where this argument came from) would not have been any better, especially with McCain's statement that he was not very strong in economics and stated the economic foundations were "strong" only a short while before the collapse that same year. In addiiton, he chose to us Phil Graham, who called speculators "whiners" about the "pre-collapse" economy. Not a good sign at all to vote in a leader who would be disconnected to very real problems. Yes, Obama spent alot...too much for me too. But not too much for an overreaction that would force me to redefine socialism or communism, nor to wish McCaine had won. Increased spending has shown historically to help us out of this type of economic condition...the data from the depression collaborates this. Whether it's the right type or even too much spending is another topic...and I certainly have seen no evidence nor data to make any such statement on these boards. Opinion columns don't cut it either. It would take a careful analysis and historical comparison. This is not the forum for that.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/11/2009 11:27:47 AM
C'mon Rob, can't you read? Bush's highest one year deficit was $459 billion, Obama's first year deficit is $1.4 trillion. Do I need to do the math for you?
Sarah Plain is my hero. She makes liberals climb the walls. No other republican terrifies them like she does. They tried everything to bring her down but she just keeps on tickin'.
Won't get any arguments from me about McCain. He was not my candidate and I have no responsibility for his lame election effort.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 5:09:32 PM
Rob007:No, don, it is not because of that. Nor do I even accept that proposal.---------------------------------------------------
That is what I like about you, Rob. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you stand by your guy. At least you do not head for the tall grass when things get hot.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 2:48:29 PM
"Independents went for the conservative candidate 2-1 in Va. and N.J" - but not in the NY district. Thanks God, "phenomenal" Sara did not try to "help" much in VA and NJ. "Democrats lite" will will elections for GOP in heavily Democratic districts, and we need them. They are still much better than so-named liberals (should be careful, or Rob would twist my words again) and vote with GOP when Republicans are in power. And again, most of moderate Republicans are not "Democrat lite", most of them are for smaller Government and lesser taxes, most of them disagree with you only on abortion and religious issues.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 1:03:36 PM
Mentioning her name also sets moderates (who might have otherwise voted Republican) atremble as well. Witness BigHappy's position as a perfect example. That was his point. You play to the base, you only get base votes. You want more votes? You have to play to moderates.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 1:39:26 PM
Rob007:Mentioning her name also sets moderates (who might have otherwise voted Republican) atremble as well. Witness BigHappy's position as a perfect example. That was his point. You play to the base, you only get base votes. You want more votes? You have to play to moderates.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Christie and McDonnell ran as unabashed conservatives and they both won the independent vote 2-1 over the two democrats. The turn around between 2008 and 2009 was 20% in NJ and 24% in Va. You want votes. Stick to your convictions.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:24:50 PM
You think that small example is sufficient to support such a huge assumption? I hope your party does too. Actually I don't. We still need a 2 party system.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 4:21:13 AM
Rob007:You think that small example is sufficient to support such a huge assumption? I hope your party does too. Actually I don't. We still need a 2 party system.---------------------------------------------------
I can see the hand writing on the wall, Rob. It is push back time for the voters. The ObamaMania of 2008 has not survived the reality of every day problems.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 10:53:52 AM
Sounds like nothing more than sour grapes.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 11:16:17 AM
Rob007:Sounds like nothing more than sour grapes.----------------------------------------------
That is really strange, Rob. That was my impression of the democrat response to last week's elections. Just read some of the liberal spin on these blogs.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 11:53:29 AM
donald -
I don't pretend to defend any side in that regard. Perhaps they did have sour grapes. Now you can add yourself to that one.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 2:00:55 PM
Rob007:donald -
I don't pretend to defend any side in that regard. Perhaps they did have sour grapes. Now you can add yourself to that one.
--------------------------------------------------------
Why? I am having a ball. I haven't had this much fun since Jimmy Carter had to beat off an attack from a "killer" rabbit. Obama reminds me of Jimmy "Malaise" Carter more every day.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 4:47:15 PM
sour grapes
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 5:05:36 PM
Rob007:sour grapes------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, have it your way, Rob. I will try to restrain myself from laughing at the Obama follies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 2:53:56 PM
Surprisingly, Rob, I agree with you on this issue.
Liberals are better organized on this issue, they learned well Lenin tactics to come to power as part of wide coalition and then kill allies (physically in Lenin case) one by one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/04/2009 8:22:39 PM
Definitely. Gloating is a good thing after listening to the trash on here last fall. I just hope the dem's seal their fate by talking about healthcare, instead of jobs. Obama just don't get it.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/04/2009 8:28:45 PM
gregcovert:Definitely. Gloating is a good thing after listening to the trash on here last fall. I just hope the dem's seal their fate by talking about healthcare, instead of jobs. Obama just don't get it.----------------------------------------------------------
Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That must be the republican message for the next 12 months. Let the democrats founder on their socialist schemes for government health care and energy taxes. Republicans must remind the voters that democrat programs will be job killers.
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 11/04/2009 8:45:49 PM
Exactly! Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, even he understood that "it's the economy stupid."
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/04/2009 8:57:52 PM
gregcovert:Exactly! Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, even he understood that "it's the economy stupid."---------------------------------------------------
Ah, Bill [The devil in a blue dress] Clinton. The gift that keeps on giving. Bill was campaigning for Deeds and Corzine and didn't that go well.
I can't help it. I am still gloating. As more election results come in, it just looks better and better for republicans. In the down ballot races in Virginia the democrats got hammered.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 10:24:37 AM
don-
I don't know. I asked the same question myself. I heard recently from a Republican that it was best to ensure this has bipartisan support. But it is obvious that it is not in Republican interest to pass the bill in any way. If they can stop it, they will give themselves a better chnace of getting more votes next year. It is a shame if we see a majority GOP return, just as America was starting to mend itself. Don't think we can sustain anymore wars or limbaugh politics. America will just collapse. Worst has been done, don, over the last 2 terms. We're hoping to pick up the pieces and live on.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 10:58:19 AM
Rob,
A 1990 page monstrosity is not reform. 1990 pages is more than 3 times the number of pages in the King James version of the bible.The democrats can pass it in the house without one republican vote. The problem for them is that most Americans want no part of it.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:19:56 AM
nothing is written in stone. Pass it and continue to make improvements. It can be done and has been.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 11:50:13 AM
Rob007:nothing is written in stone. Pass it and continue to make improvements. It can be done and has been.------------------------------------------------
If they pass it, it will only get worse. Let's just start over and fix the problems like fraud and frivolous lawsuits. The solution does not require 2000 pages.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:53:37 AM
I don't think it will get worse.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/05/2009 12:19:08 AM
And country is Obama, zig hail.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:14:56 AM
this silly comment from a phd with straight As. I guess it best that America outsources its labor force.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: johnco5454 @ 02/20/2010 6:34:01 PM
health care is dead thank God, who needs the federal govenment meadling in our bussiness any more that they do allready, and really mandating that I have to buy insurance, screw you and the horse you rode in on.
-
Posted By: James In Atlanta @ 10/29/2009 6:12:51 PM
We the People of the United States in order to provide a more perfict union provided for the common good and among the the rights are health care, education and afordible housing for all!
A happy, healthy, educated and well fed populace will insure the tranquality and prosperity for all!
The rich stay rich and the poor get a leg up and the middle class do not use our power of the vote to put those in office out of a job who are supressing US.
Politicians are just working the job and that is to take care of the populas and if they can not do the job then We the People of the United States of America will vote the incumbant out if they do not start looking out for the people who voted them in office and not the big business campain contributers!
James In Atlanta-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/29/2009 6:49:04 PM
James,
What about our rights to a new car, big screen T.V. Botox treatments, bling, and ice cream? Why so stingy?
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/29/2009 7:35:49 PM
Ask Soviets, they will explain you how they had to stay in line for 10 years for a car but had a lot of ice cream.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 1:26:40 AM
If any socialism can lead so quickly to soviet style communism, you'd think the USSR would still exist and have expanded greatly by now, considering the amount of socialized industries since the end of WWII. Instead, such a system is contracting. Interesting.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 7:51:49 PM
Only ONE reason why USSR collapsed - USA. People saw good alternative there. If socialism comes to USA - no way back because no more good examples, it will be easier to convince people that there is no other way. And without external presser socialism with "human face" will slowly bu inevitably be transferred into Russian-style "communism".
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:07:59 AM
Of all the developed countries in the world, we are the least socialist. How come none of those other countries have gone communist? How come their level of socialized institutions (we have some too) never increased or resulted in any such totalitarian future??
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 11:20:57 AM
While USSR existed, it scared away people in Europe, no more. And they are moving toward communism, even very slowly, presence of US and Japan so far kept them sane.
Imagine EU without USA and Japan - their technology would be kept frozen in 1970s, and such "stability" inevitably accelerates the path to communism.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:20:11 PM
Geez...how long is it going to take them. SO that's it? THere's no chance of stability? eventually a mad man will run each of those countries and bring about catastrophic totalitarianism? Seems like we've got more problems than Obama going to Coppenhagen then...wow. Doomsday seems unavoidable. Who's to be "left behind"?
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 1:21:27 PM
Why mad man? Look at USSR an Eastern Europe countries, or on Cuba. Where did you see mad men there, it was collective madness. What is common for them is they developed new parasitic "nomenklatura" class which will do anything to stay in power. As soon as this class grows to some level (from what we know here and in EU as middle and high ranking government workers, their unions, etc.), forget all your freedom dreams. The more government control on industry and common life, the bigger is this group of people, and Western Europe is on the way.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:44:14 PM
USSR - Stalin was a mad man
Eastern Europe is not communist
Cuba has a madman - Fidel (and especially Che - who helped usher it in).
I disagree with your theory about the size of government...for that came in after the madmen did their dirty business. It's called totalitarianism. You cannot escape its history thinking because government gets more control, totalitarianism is sure to follow. THat is not logical. Totalitarianism was ushered in by a dictator every time.
How come a Monarchy never turned into communism....isn't that the ultimate government control???? How come England then did not turn communist???? Instead went capitalist????
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:13:11 PM
Rob,
I was talking about post-Stalin communism (even Stalin can be considered anything but a madman, it was he, not Lenin, who designed this so stable "administrative system" as USSR was. All General Secretaries after Stalin were not very intelligent but otherwise pretty good people who did not wan countrymen to struggle, but the system required them to do what they did. Because of so long run, the "nomenclature" is still alive and well in Russia, and because of it they will not have success in anything for next 50 years.
Eastern Europe countries had communism in development. Their "nomenclature", even in power with Soviets support, was not mature yet (in USSR it took 3 generations to make the privileges "inheritable"), fortunately for those countries they were liberated before it was too late.
If you know Castro history, he was not mad man initially, great liberal from Americans point of view, he even was not a communist, and hardly he is a madman now. Cuba without natural resources still managed to stay better than most Latin American countries for long time, nobody dies from hunger there which alone is very good achievement for this region. But notice how they are frozen in time despite their relative "stability", it is the future of your socialism.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:12:47 AM
Bigh-
Understood. But Lenin didn't massage Russia into communism. The country went into Revolution. One day it was Czarist, the next, it was socialist republic of communism (so to speak). In other words the USSR wasn't peacefully created. A revolt occured because of massive poverty, inequality of wealth, etc... Actually, you have helped me make my point. If Europe's way of social capitalism works for the people, minimizes chasms between poverty and wealth and creates a better standard of living (which many of these populaitons purport), the likelihood of such a totalitarian inspiring revolution remains at null.
As for Easter Europe - those countries becaem part of the Russian Empire...they didn't start off by easing into social programs and then adopting communism. They were taken over, and thus had to be liberated as you say. So this region is not relevant to a comparison of Europe turning to communism because of socializing parts of their industry.
In fact, let's just forget the "madman" string and look at how ANY country became communist. Did any single one of them begin with socializing parts of their system and then all of a sudden vote in Commmunism? No. CHina had a revolution and was nothing close to communism before, Cuba = revolution. N. Korean = War/ madman. Russia = revolution. All had distinct problems between classes (wealth) and many were breaking from monarchy style governments. If Europe, because of integrating social programs into its governments, were to become communist...that would be the first time such a transformation happened in history. It would be the exception, rather than something you could reasonable predict.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:03:14 PM
"revolt occured because of massive poverty..." - it is a lie, Rob, Lenin's lie. He in fact had one good pre-revolution book "Development of Capitalism in Russia", where he gave much moe objective analysis, he himself did not see any chance for soon revolution because there was not the "mass poverty". Yes, there was big gap between rich and poor, but there was not mass poverty. Whoever wanted to work could easily find one, whoever did not want - they indeed lived in poverty, like in any country, like in USA. Russian peasants enjoyed unlimited land resources, Russian workers could afford anything for dissent life. Revolt happened because of highly disappointing war (even Russians in 1917 modernized their army - weapon production grew 7 times, and started winning, but it was too late), disproportionally huge "proletariat" concentration in big centers, weakness of czar who suddenly resigned without good reason. And what? Russian people celebrated freedom but were waiting for next czar, they could not live otherwise, and they got it. It was violent, but so several dynasty wars, if it was not Lenin than it would be generals Kornilov, Kolchak or Denikin. And now, you see, they have oppressive Monarchy again.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 11:23:44 AM
Russia before the Revolution (in effort to show 1. revolution did not occur solely because of a lost war 2. Russia did not smoothly transition to communism and therefore in no way is comparable to modern wester europe):
The prevalence of serfdom and the conservative policies of Nicolas I impeded the development of Russia in the mid-nineteenth century, when a zenith period of Russia's power and influence in Europe was abrupted by Crimean War. Nicholas's successor Alexander II enacted significant reforms, including theabolition of serfdom, these Great Reforms spurred industrializationand modernized the Russian army, which had successfully liberated Bulgaria from Ottoman rule in. However, many socio-economic conflicts were aggravated during Alexander III’s reign and under his son, Nicholas II. Harsh conditions in factories created mass support for the revolutionary socialist movement. In January 1905, striking workers peaceably demonstrated for reforms in St Petersburg but were fired upon by troops, killing and wounding hundreds. This event, known as "Bloody Sunday", along with the abject failure of the Tsar's military forces in the initially popular Russo-Japanese War ignited the Russian Revolution of 1905. Although the uprising was swiftly put down and Nicholas II retained much of his power, he was forced to concede major reforms, including granting the freedoms of speech and assembly, the legalization of political parties and the creation of an elected legislative assembly, the Duma however, the hopes for basic improvements in the lives of industrial workers were unfulfilled.
In 1914 Russia entered WWi in aid of Serbia and fought a war across the three fronts. Russia did not want war but felt that the only alternative was German domination of Europe. The Russian army achieved such successes as Brusilov Offensive in 1916, destroying the military of Austria-Hungary almost completely. However, the already-existing public distrust of the regime was deepened by the rising costs of war, casualties (Russia suffered the highest number of both military and civilian deaths of the Entente Powers, and tales of corruption and even treason in high places, leading to the outbreak of the Russian Revolution of 1917. A series of uprisings were organized by workers and peasants throughout the country, as well as by soldiers in the Russian army, who were mainly of peasant origin; many of them were led by democratically elected councils called Sovoiets. This first revolution, or February Revolution, overthrew the Russian monarchy, which was replaced by a shaky coalition of political parties that declared itself the Provisional Governmentt. The abdication of Nicholas II marked the end of imperial rule in Russia; the last Tsar and his family were imprisoned and executed during the Civil War. While initially receiving the support of the Soviets, the Provisional Government proved unable to resolve many problems which had led to the February Revolution. The second revolution, the October Revolution, led by Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Provisional Government and created the world’s first socialist state.Revolution (among other factors - there were many) because many of the people of Russia resented the autocracy of Czar Nicholas II and the corrupt and anachronistic elements in his government. He was seen as being out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the Russian people, the vast majority of whom were victims of the wretched socio-economic conditions which prevailed.
Summary - Russia hardly represents a smooth transfer to communism, nor any condition in Europe today or in the forseeable future to allow it this type of transition. Leaders who bring about such monstrous changes are usually from influential backgrounds, but are followed by the poor, en masse, who have nothing left to lose (good lesson for all countries to learn). THis was seen (poor following brutal people) in Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, etc... There are exceptions, but leaders seldom find themselves in such positions of power, having come from poor backgournds. The data supports this.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 8:27:01 PM
Rob, please... You are teaching me Russian history - I laughed so much, laughed more only when I red N. Korean translated books. I showed your post to mi wife, she is still laughing, so I hardly can print.
One piece of advise - if you want to learn some country history - read its historians and books, and never, never read their historical school books (what you provided here, I don't know from where you copied this - is almost exactly what they taught in Soviet Union, with probably some small addition from current Russia.
Nobody knows Russian history than Russians (living inside and outside Russia), I can give you references from memory to at least 50 Russian authors, most of them witnessed the events of 20th century Russia.
I can teach you a lesson if you are so much interested in Russia.
The common opinion in Russia is that 1914 Russia was the fastest growing economy in the world (and they were not 10-20 times behind like China, only few times compared to USA or Germany). Nicolas was weak, stupid, and very unpopular between Russian elite, Alexander III on his dead bed begged him to resign to hos younger brother, but it happened only in 1917, too late. There were not widespread revolts in Feb 1917, only in Petersburg, most of the country did not even know about Revolution for couple days. There were not other uprisings, and "democratically elected councils named Soviets" could not organized them, because they were illegal. How Nicolas was duped by Duma representatives to resign (he was with troops that time, not in the capital), is everybody guess. Russian moderate socialists, who lead revolts in Petersburg, did not want Nicolas (all score, mostly because of 1905 events) but still wanted weakened Monarchy, they knew the people they reluctantly lead on barricades in 1917, but elite again forced Nicolas brother resign as well (if they new...). The socialists could govern through the same restored Soviets (restored after Revolution, not before, and you can even imagine how cod they be "democratically" elected for couple days), but preferred to give power to the Provisional Government consisting mostly from experienced "capitalists". Russian people, however, could obey only to strong and oppressive hand, it was complete chaos in free and democratic Russia until the great Revolution.
If you want, I can tell you more about those times, but enough for now.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 3:49:27 PM
BigHappy -
The following is the non-Lenin western idea of economic conditions prior to the 1917 revolution. Understand - what we are talking about is a much more complex subject than the success of the Russian economy. As we have seen throughout history, there can be extremely successful economies, which don't necessarily translate to better standards of living, in fact (as in the age of Industrialization and Russia is particular) the opposite can be true, as productivity takes priority, while wages and labor standards devolve. So while your statement may be accurate about Russia's economic growth internationally, it does not by any means tell the whole story of how workers felt conditions bad enough to revolt, or at least follow those who would lead a revolt. As I said before, the more people have lost (the worse their conditions) the less they have to lose and therefore desparate (previously unimaginable) events will take place.
I ask you, as an educated man, if you are what you say you are, to reply in kind. If you disagree, please provide some sort of resource, so it doesn't appear to be a simple rebuttal to save face. In addition, I am not interested to know if you laugh, or think I'm dreaming, or anything else that does not have to do directly with the subject. If you expect to continue debating this, expect to have to go into details, for that is where I will tread, as always. Let's keep scope of our dicussion sparkling clear. My positions: 1. Russia did not simply evolve into communism (as suggested would be the case under a more socialized modern day western Europe). 2. Conditions in Russia were terrible enough to incite a need for change. 3. Poverty is not the absolute root cause for all tyrant regimes (who, as you stated, create hell on Earth). In order to correct my assumptions you would have to show me - 1. An instance where a similar transition occured from stable prosperous economy to democratically electing a communist regime. 2. Conditions for workers were in fact good, labor laws and conditions following war were NOT the cause of any part of the revolutions in 20th century Russia. and 3. Every tyrant in history came from a poor background.
Again, here is what I have found to be a commonly accepted view in America and Europe (thus, non-Lenin inspired) of economic conditions of Russia prior to the Revolution(s)...
Although Russian industrialisation was a success story, Russian industry was by no means firmly established by 1914, when the war struck. Historians debate whether Russia was or was not in a process of industrialisation in the period up to 1914. Alex Nove, the leading Western writer about Russia's economy, states that the question is "meaningless". The growth in the Russian economy was in part due to the worldwide boom of the 1890s. By 1900, however, there was a slump in international trade. Rapid industrial growth meant that the towns rapidly increased in size and there was overcrowding. With the slump came unemployment; however, there was recovery during 1908 to 1914, during which time state revenues doubled from 2 to 4bn roubles and the number of industrial workers increased from 2.5 to 2.9 million. However, real wages fell during this period. Between 1908 and 1914 there was 40% inflation, but wages only rose 8%. There was enormous industrial unrest. The number of strikes rose from 892 in 1908 to 3,574 in 1914. (There was a dramatic increase from 466 in 1911 to 2,032 in 1912). (The peak was in 1905 at 13,995.) There was a successful strike in St. Petersburg in 1896-7 by 30,000 cotton spinners and weavers; the won public sympathy and a law was introduced restricting work to 11.5 hours per day! All associations of workers striving for better pay and conditions were illegal until 1906. There were increases in state supervision of work-places; in 1885 22% of workers in industry were subject to the factory inspectorate; this figure rose to 31% by 1909. More and more women were being employed in industry, and this upset trade-union activists who sought to maintain wage-differentials and exclude married women from working altogether.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/05/2009 11:59:21 PM
Rob,
I can give you much more than you can read in your life. Unfortunately I am not sure that all these authors were published in English translation. As I said, Russians know their history better than anybody else, let alon CIA which even did not exist those times.
For starters: Anton Denikin (most dangerous Anti-Revolutionary general), Vitte (once was Russian PM), Kony, Savinkov, Felshtinsky, Trotski, S. Platonov, Grossman, Govoruhin - enough for now. These are not internet sites, these are books if you don't forget what it is.
At the same time it will be next hint for you why we were laughing, if you still did not get it.
And I assure you, I don't sound like Russian patriot.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 10:48:44 AM
BigH-
In order to refute that the revoliution had to do with harsh conditions due to both war and industrialization, you'll have to do better than that. I fyou cannot cite but books in Russian, whose history is not translated in English in any respect with regards to the contradictory history (contradictory to western understanding) I am led to believe you are perhaps reading from russian authors who may have a specific intent to show Czarist Russia as much more than it might have actually been. Because a source doesn't originate in Russia, by no means prevents any other objective observer and student of history from fully understanding Russian history and economics. It is something, after all, the British have been doing for centuries. MI6 and MI6 have been around literally for centuries and as well collaborate with commonly understood conditions of Russia pre-revolution.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 9:10:49 PM
I guess some of those authors were published in English, for example Denikin. If you are interested, I could find some site for you where you can get the material in English but it will be difficult, not many Russian books were translated, people like you prefer to read and trust CIA compilation of who knows what.
There are thousands publications about Russian czarism and Revolution, I read all spectrum of opinions and gave you only what almost every Russian author agreed (except USSR hired pens). It is that Russia was not poor country before WWI, that czarism was bad but necessary (without strong czar Russia would be thrown into chaos because they did not have middle class) but Nicolas || was a drunk and a jerk, that second revolution (after the first one in 1905, even in fact it was local Moscow uprising) was the unfortunate coincidence of few events - czar with loyal troops outside of the capital, temporary problems with bread transportation, czar family as hostages, betrayal of "loyal" Duma leaders, etc. Yesterday's peasant country could not survive without strong hand, and when the one was amputated - they searched and found the another.
Exactly the same happened now - they have new "czar" Putin.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:37:47 PM
I never disputed that Russia wasn't prosperous. In fact I specifically addressed that and gave the reasons that had much more to do with details. If you disagree, please provide resources, instead of restating previous. You know, I have refuted that and provided data. Your turn.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/07/2009 10:06:44 PM
Rob, I gave up, regardless how many clues I provide for you, you are not capable to understand.
I was born and educated in USSR, even left it well before "Perestroyka", and you can not even imagine how laughable it is when some arrogant liberal (I would prefer another word, but I am trying to be polite) teaches me Russian history repeating almost exact historical version what they were trying to teach us in USSR schools (only difference was your reference to non-existent Russian middle class, Soviet propagandists even did not know what it means). As I said, read Russian books (you can find plenty translated in English) if you want to speak of Russian history, or shut up. I would never try to teach Helga German history (for example, German revolution in 1918) without reading plenty of German books, and I did not read them. I still can pretend that know something (not plenty) of French, British and American history because I did read the books and novels, and newspapers as well, I am not so arrogant as you to read CIA or others compilations of other countries history and consider myself the expert.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 12:59:51 PM
BigH -
I would imagine you would have guessed by now that "clues" aren't going to cut it in a debate. I'd say try again, but I know the results will be the same. You saying "I give up" is like telling your boss you quit after he fired you. I told you this was over when you started pontificating with the definition of corporation (definition of "is" anyone?).
As for laughable. Look at it from my point of view. Every english written source collaborates with the information I have provided to you. So, if you think it's funny, it is some silly inside joke with your wife, where you were schooled differently in Russia. That you were schooled in Russia by the way, is still not resource enough. Imagine an American not knowing their true history...try in the thousands in this country.
So let me clear up where you too, have twisted words (Lenin, are you? Look in the mirror...another communist might be peeping back):
1. I never mentioned a middle class for Russia.
2. The CIA reference was not an effort (as I have restated numerous times) to show them as a defining source, but rather to demonstrate that this was widely understood common knowledge of pre-revolution Russia. I have already given you the summary of western understanding with data and details. If you were confident enough about your history, you would have been able to define a source or at least counter my arguments with details.
It would be a very amazing proposition indeed to put forth that despite the conditions of industrialization across the world and especially as described from Russians themselves in Russia, and despite the aftermath of war (which you yourself statewd had a major contributing factor to the revolution) that conditions had nothing to do with the revolution...but instead it was simply a few ideologues who managed through very limited and local strikes to pull off 2 revolutions against a monarchy. That in itself would be laughable if told as a joke...but it's not funny. It's sad. You didn't in fact provide neither details to sell this idea (at least in kind) nor sources to counter mine. Instead, your silly tales of laughter and dreaming just eliminate whatever credibility you think you had.
Didn't Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) come from Russia? Your ideology is almost frighteningly similar, redefining terms relative to size of government (an Ayn Rand obsession). That is fine...but by no means is it reasonable to treat the terms as if they are commonly believed. For there is much debate needed before most any reasonable person were to accept them. "Clues" certainly will never be sufficient.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 3:13:24 PM
Never mentioned Russian middle class, Rob, huh?
"That is why revolutions occur - when the middle class turn poor...that's when it happens" - did not you say it in the reference to Russian revolution? You probably don't remember it, poor Rob.
I never spoke of size of Russian government or good or bad czarism was, I only said that Russian Revolution was caused by weakened Monarchy, and they did not calm down until found the strong hand again. Then you started lecturing me of Lenin theory of revolution (not exactly Lenin, but close, another funny thing) and Russian history...
Enough of it , it should be good lesson for you, Rob. I don't mind when you teach me English grammar (I try to improve it, but it is probably forever), so don't try to teach me Russian history, besides it is very far from the subject.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 8:33:57 PM
You got my quote right. I still don't see where I said that Russia had a middle class. Quote doesn't say it. You can see I referenced revolutions. But I already gave you my whole summary on the Russian Revolution. Nothing in there about middle class.....right?
I did not lecture you on any Lenin theory. You should not accuse me of exactly what you do...and do comfortably...twist other people's words. That's twice now in a single post. Neither was my post even a lecture. And arrogance???? Arrogance is avoiding the importante left out details of your argument and instead referring to "clues" thinking that I should bend over because you came from Russia. Forget it.
Any objective reader can see mine was not a lesson, but rather a clear summary of my understanding of pre-revolution Russia, and that it was common knowledge among English speaking peoples. You admitted even to that, saying your sources are only in Russian (a likely story...and nefarious at that).
Again, to repeat what you have inferred here, by where you have "corrected" me: You believe the Russian monarchy weakened enough for a small and localized rebellion to completely overthrow it...after 2 revolutions. THis has never before happened in history. England had many weak monarchies...but none so weak as to lend itself to an overthrow so minor, ideological and localized. If that was the case, and this small minority had no need or ability to use any more of the population in its rebellious endeavours (because conditions were so great), there MUST be much, much more to this story. Something the Russians have been able to keep secret from western historians to date. Impressive, indeed!!
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 9:29:37 PM
Funny, Rob. One time you "connect" my dots through the North Pole and deduct that I named Hitler a communist, but when I demonstrated your explanation of Russian revolution (not revolutions in general, the Russian and only Russian revolution) by middle class "turned poor" - it is about revolutions in general, not about this particular one. Whatever you meant (even we know that you did mean Russian middle class), you admit that you did not have any idea of Russian revolutions, only about "revolution in general".
Now let me explain to you how it happened. Suppose Britain king resigned (how it was in 1936) - there are constitutional procedures how to replace him, nothing extraordinary.
Now see what happens when hysterical Russian czar suddenly resigned. It was not the first time in 1917, the first time similar situation was in 1825 (Alexander I died, his brother Konstantine resigned for the youngest brother Nikolas I), and it almost caused Russian revolution, only miracle saved Russian Monarchy in 1825. The second time was not so fortunate, because "new" Monarch Michael was in Petersburg under control of Duma and was forced to resign as well. It was not real Revolution in February 1917, Russian monarchs just signed power to Duma (in fact to nobody, this was the tragedy), and there was no constitutional procedure what to do in such case. And when you have power vacuum in huge country, not necessary in impoverished one, especial in war time when millions can "vote" with guns and even canons - everything can happen.
Lenin had the definition of revolution situation (probably, correct, he was the biggest specialist in this area) - it is when people on the top can not govern as before, people on the "bottom" do not want to live as they used before, plus economical and political crisis. Nothing like this was in February 1917, only first condition happened. It was later, trying to emphasize Lenin "genius", Bolsheviks invented "impoverished" Russian people, uprisings in several regions, etc.
October situation was quite different, there indeed was the Lenin's revolution situation, Russian people got taste of lawless "freedom" and wanted "the change".
I can not help you much with English sources of Russian history, because Russia was closed to West for long time, and whatever western historians could learn (if anybody was interested), they could obtain information mostly from owners of Petersburg and Moscow palaces.
Just forgot to answer you before - Zinovieva was a wife of Gregory Zinoviev, a major member of Lenin team executed by Stalin in 1936.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 11:17:59 PM
"Funny, Rob. One time you "connect" my dots through the North Pole and deduct that I named Hitler a communist, but when I demonstrated your explanation of Russian revolution (not revolutions in general, the Russian and only Russian revolution) by middle class "turned poor" - it is about revolutions in general, not about this particular one"
Ahhhhhhh.....so you can write a clear sentence linking Hitler to communism and wiggle your way out of that, but when I make a (clearly general, you can tell by the context of the sentence) statement, I must be held to your interpretation. The rules thus are: Bighappy makes the rules....right?
By the way, BigHappy. Let me take a break from any and all sarcasm and state, thank you for providing the information you did. I appreciate much that sort of retort and would have very much enjoyed a conversation with you, had we begun this way. In future, with me or any other poster, please - tone it down, lose the idea of "clues" for responses, and take the time to respond in kind. If you identify someone like myself who is going to dig into a subject, don't assume you can get away with generalizing or skirting an issue, by "laughing" off the response. Leave that for those without an education. I don't think I deserve it.
Allow me to address your thoughtful response:
1. Britain wasn't a monarchy in 1936. King was a figurehead, so no effect on government structure.
2. Actually, there were "English" accounts of what happened in Russia leading up to the Revolution. Sir George William Buchanan was the ambassador at the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917. He had developed a strong bond with the Tsar, Nicholas II, and (according to his own autobiography) attempted to convince the Tsar that granting some constitutional reform would stave-off revolution. Unfortunately Nicholas's opinion of him was poisoned by the Tsarina's views. Knowing that there were plots to stage a palace coup to replace him, Sir George formally requested an audience of the Tsar in the troubled early days of 1917. According to British and Russian accounts, the Duma was still calling for political reforms and political unrest continued throughout the war. Cut off from public opinion, Nicholas could not see that the dynasty was in decline. With Nicholas at the front, domestic issues and control of the capital were left with his wife Alexandra, however Alexandra's relationship with Grigori Rasputin and her German background further discredited the dynasty's authority. As the government failed to produce supplies during the war, there was mounting hardship creating massive riots and rebellions.
3. the more I dig into this subject, the more I find a deep connection between Nicholas, the war, and the conditions his government created, which were all significant contributors to the revolution. I think you are not presenting a Russia that was suddenly taken over by opportunist Marxist ideologues, but rather you have stressed that both the war and the destructive policies and politics of the tzar were very significant. I might add that this would have obviously, categorically resulted in documented worsened conditions for enough to have justified their participation in riots and rebellion. So, perhaps we agree, but have simply stated it differently.
4. Let's remember again, why this conversation began - which was to show that a. "poor" leaders did not cause this "hell". and b. Russia's adoption of a communist government really draws no parallels to modern western Europe to justify an impression that a partially socialized economy results in communism. There still is no modern day nor historic example of this occurring. I think, in trying to understand your sentiments for the poor, that it more accurate to say the poor might have helped "usher in" such "hells" on Earth by being so easily led by ruthless, calculating leaders who need them to do their bidding. I think that is currently the case in Venezuela.
I am interested to hear your thoughts on this - that is, if you can keep your post similar in engagement to the last.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/08/2009 11:54:26 PM
Rob, first part of your response looks like you were caught red-handed (with middle class) and are trying to convince yourself that I also had a misstep. I am not prone of it, but not with "communist" Hitler, I said "hell on Earth" much earlier than word "communism", sorry if you could not understand that it is all the same.
As for y your sir George William Buchanan - he was not smarter than Bush who wanted democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, on that stage all those "reforms" far ahead of time were dangerous for Russia.
And Britain still has real monarchy, as well as Lords Chamber, these institutions are very important for England stability even now, let alone turbulent 1936, I am amazed that you don't understand it. On one hand, you dogmatically kept mumbling that Stalin could not be compared to a czar because he was not a royalty, on another hand suddenly proclaimed that lawful British king was not the king at all because England only pretended to be a Monarchy. I am glad to see you more flexible than before, it is a progress.
About Rasputin, Alexandra Fedorovna, ets. - it was secondary (by the way, Rasputin was already dead the time), and don't try to apply common denominator to Russian revolution, all revolutions are unique and sometimes illogical, including American Revolution as well (here in USA I found different versions of American Revolution than I was taught in Russia where they also tried to explain it by standard revolution causes).-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 10:38:22 AM
BigH -
Caught red-handed? You DIDN'T have a misstep? Give it up. You not only called Hitler a communist, that was a minor offence. The worst part is that you said he would have been communist. I believe you still hold that point of view. That is enough there...don't try to justify that statement...it is far gone.
"As for y your sir George William Buchanan - he was not smarter than Bush who wanted democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, on that stage all those "reforms" far ahead of time were dangerous for Russia."
What in God's name has that to do with this discussion? Bush???? Buchanan's reforms??? His account of history was the subject, not his reforms.
Root cause of Bighappy's inability to debate: sticking to scope.
Brtitain still has a monarchy true - it is really just ceremonial and Parliament makes all the political decisions and runs the state. It is amazing, absolutely amazing that you would challenge that and not understand not only the history of Britain, but the current form of government either. Arrogance is the best word for your reaction here...and although I too could pull the "I'm from there" argument I won't. You're completely wrong about UK government and the influence of monarchy. It seems we'll be at this again, as we were on Russia. And in the end it will be another blunder on your part where you misinterpreted the information you could have used to placate the argument.
On no "hand" did I ever mention Stalin could be compared to a czar. That's not even a case of you twisting my words. It is actually what you said...that the Russian revolution replaced one monarchy with another. Then you referred to Russian communism only through Stalin. I'm not sure if you've read my posts, based on this response, or are responding to someone else.
You know BigH...perhpas you and I should just hang this up. You are way out there. I extended an olive branch last post thinking perhaps we had some interpretation disagreements and really understood the same things. This is not true. It appears you have a very distorted interpretation of history you have read. I don't doubt what you have read, just your ability to interpret it and put it into proper perspective. I'm not sure now what even position you are determined to take...you have never attempted to revisit the argument that started this whole conversation which was twofold (again, I repeat, trying to remind you of scope): 1. that "poor" leaders brought "hell" on earth and 2. that western europe will eventually vote itself into communism. You seem to have foresaken those positions completely, nor did you even address my final stateemnt on the influence of poor on your "hell"s on earth. Instead, you show me that you don't understand anything about the British government and skirt completely the Russian revolution subject with a wierd statement about Rasputin (which really was no significant part of my response). So forget rational communication. I guess one-liners best for you and your aluminum hat vision of the world.
On the bright side, I feel much better knowing that American education system did not create the historical knowledge disaster that is your mind. Thanks for that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 10:46:36 AM
bighappy -
You laugh like a Russian patriot, proud of a czarist history. Intersting perspective, but the history I provided has nothing to do with whatever it is that they taught in the Soviet Union. In fact, it was general enough that there could be no particular bias whatsoever....unless you were a reader who was wishing to promote the czarist system and only took from the pages what you wanted. Your response was entirely predictable based on previous posts. And that you and wife laugh at a basic (very basic) history of Russia (pre-revolution) only speaks to your own education (or lack of absorption thereof)...you can show her this too. Insult is meant for both of you...your position here, I find quite embatrrassing and am very happy it does not represent any sort of consensus in the free world.
"The common opinion in Russia is that 1914 Russia was the fastest growing economy in the world" - common opinion? Evidence please. I challenge that.
secondly - your description of the russian revolution is lacking in very important details: The Russian Revolution is the collective term for the series of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. A tsarist autocracy is was an absolute monarchy...not a free and Democratic Russia by any means. In the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar) the Czar was deposed and replaced by a Provisional government. In the second revolution of October that year the Provisional Government was removed and replaced with a Bolshevik (Communist) government.
As for conditions in Russia before the revolution, think that industrialism was spreading around the world, and governments had to adapt to this new style of manufacturing in quantity (comnbined of course with all new theories about how to manage workers in this environment). THis is extremely relevant in Russia as they (under Nicholas II) did not adapt to this climate well, leaving workers in horrible conditions. This is nothing new, nor surprising...bad conditions at this time were rampant from London to New York, and it is just before this time, that trade unions began to form as protection for worker's rights.
Now - with what about the above do you disagree? I don't care about laughing or criticisms...they don't change my position in the least. They're just statements very telling of how little your phd and your straight As helped you in understanding history or even in engaging in debate. I think you come to these posts flooded with a quary of emotions that once you put finger to keyboard, you are little able to control, and thus, your argument and context is distorted to the point of denying basic history- even to the exaggerated point of making a mockery of it. Forget your propaganda and promotion of fake democratic and free market systems of early 20th century Russia and debate proper.
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 8:28:18 PM
I want only add few facts to my previous post (did not fit 3000 characters):
After the Civil war, new Russian "czar" Lenin decided to go "Chinese" way (so-name "New Economic Policy", allowing small and not so small private business, and who knows where it would have led, with great success, but Lenin got sick and died soon, and Stalin completely dismantled what Lenin created. Like you put words n my mouth, Stalin also also put words in Lenin mouth, for example Lenin was saying "cooperation" - Stalin converted it into "collectivization", the process of land requisition.
It was Stalin who created the Soviet system, not Lenin, Lenin was brutal but never imagined such system. It is also the common opinion in current Russia, not mine.
Please, don't be so arrogant next time, I already laughed enough.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 10:53:36 AM
Bighappy-
I don't disagree with any of what you state here. However, it has nothing to do with any of the positions you have taken about transitioning to communism. We are not talking about transitioning to the soviet system, just communism, I believe....right? Or are you now saying that western europe will soon be a brutal soviet regime because of some industries being socialized?
Don't make the grave mistake that my providing data from which my opinions come, is arrogant. Arrogant is providing an opinion then expecting me to believe it with no data. It is also arrogant to mock someone for asking questions or assume they are putting words in your mouth for the same.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:55:19 AM
Big -
Read up on Tzarist Russia. There are plenty of non-Lenin written books that show how corrupt and desparate those time were. You are revising history...but it is all on your own. The Revolution did not occur because of a lost war, that is ridiculous and makes less sense than just about anything you've said (except your tax theory and Hitler being communist). Instead of thinking how to respond to me on this one, just do a little reading....please. Just look into the history of Russia objectively, forget your political leanings and just read...doesn't have to be a Lenin book. There are plenty of objective sources. Hell- even the CIA has a good history on Russia (great website, by the way). I think you just need to get back into the books...and stop recreating history based on this whacko idea that the world is either "left" or "right". It's just hurting you, not me. Sure, it's frustrating for the rest of us. But you're the one who has to present himself in public with this ideas...not me. You didn't like High School?
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 8:39:48 PM
Rob, this is the part of your two posts where I laughed the most. CIA knowledge of Russian history??? Lenin books???
And again the same lie about "communist Hitler", the same Stalin interrogators' tactic to twist somebody words, this is not funny anymore.
This time I say directly to you - you lie.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 10:59:06 AM
bighappy -
Sometimes I think you sit at home smoking out before you answer my posts. CIA posts a factbook page..and it is very current and informative. It is an accumulation of information from various source...but diverts in no way from a very common historic understanding of country history. Now - what is all this about Lenin books? I don't get it. Is this another joke?
I lie? I lied about you calling Hitler a communist? OK - well if you refuse to see it, then I'll post your comment again so at least other readers can see how embarrassed you should be. Keep challenging me on this and I'll keep posting it.
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved."
Do you see it now????????
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 12:11:31 AM
Rob,
As usual your logic leads you wrong way. Like "liberal" word means today almost opposite, the same is "communism". As I said already, today this word symbolizes the communism Marx was talking but ultimate dictatorship and oppression system. Communists did not and do not want to go there but there is no other destination for them. Hitler, unlike communists, new what he wanted, but communists and socialists go to the same destination (communism, fascism, all the same, only different names), probably from different side, with closed eyes. Like everybody who goes north will come to the same place (North Pole) regardless of the starting point.
Tell me again that that I named Hitler a communist.
And, answering to your another remark, I don't divide people on left and right, I divide them on the left and everybody else.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 10:56:29 AM
BigHappy -
Between communism, socialism, and fascism, only the first two (by definition) define economies. Fascism is not defined by economies and therefore cannot be called the same thing as the other 2. In addition, since we're on the subject of insight and sources, a good reading of Trading with the Enemy, by Charles Higgins will give you a better understanding of Hitler's economy and how reliant he was on the capitalist structure to maintain his military dominance. It is unlikely he would have reverted it to complete nationalization, especially when you look deep into the actions of the "Fraternity", a conglomerate of German and Allied corporations which brought him to and maintained his power, you will find how capitalist his structure really was and how much it relied on that for survival. Remember, capitalism doesn't have to mean "free market". After all, pre-communist Russia was capitalist, but by no means the free market and severely controlled by government. That does not define communism nor socialism. As you stated, the definition of terms must be addressed before we continue. It appears I see much too often these definitions being used too loosely. Scholars certainly don't do that...it could be embarrassing for them should they reflect o the logic of their own argument. Socialism does not have directly to do with how much government control, it has to do with type. Communism is a different story. Definitions.
As for my logic and your statement. I explained it already. You implied Hitler was a communist.
As for dividing people as left and everybody else - well now...now we have our answer. You disqualified yourself as a logical debator. You're done.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 8:34:53 PM
Rob, put your bottle away, you already sent your post 3 times! One post is boring enough, but three... I am still reading it and can not understand why you refuse to speak as a human, not as encyclopedia.
I met such people who could not speak without teaching "scientific" definitions of every word, do you know who they were? Professors teaching Marxism-Leninism.
It will be also your next clue why we were laughing.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:32:25 PM
Big -
Seems you're finding communists around every corner. Careful...or the next room will be peramanent, white and padded.
Anyway, those are the words and their definitions. If you do not agree with them. As I said previously - we're done.
Also - each post replied to one of yours.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 10:57:48 AM
BigHappy -
Between communism, socialism, and fascism, only the first two (by definition) define economies. Fascism is not defined by economies and therefore cannot be called the same thing as the other 2. In addition, since we're on the subject of insight and sources, a good reading of Trading with the Enemy, by Charles Higgins will give you a better understanding of Hitler's economy and how reliant he was on the capitalist structure to maintain his military dominance. It is unlikely he would have reverted it to complete nationalization, especially when you look deep into the actions of the "Fraternity", a conglomerate of German and Allied corporations which brought him to and maintained his power, you will find how capitalist his structure really was and how much it relied on that for survival. Remember, capitalism doesn't have to mean "free market". After all, pre-communist Russia was capitalist, but by no means the free market and severely controlled by government. That does not define communism nor socialism. As you stated, the definition of terms must be addressed before we continue. It appears I see much too often these definitions being used too loosely. Scholars certainly don't do that...it could be embarrassing for them should they reflect o the logic of their own argument. Socialism does not have directly to do with how much government control, it has to do with type. Communism is a different story. Definitions.
As for my logic and your statement. I explained it already. You implied Hitler was a communist.
As for dividing people as left and everybody else - well now...now we have our answer. That comment show so much bias, that it is now obvious that there is nothing to be gained in our conversation.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/07/2009 12:44:47 AM
Rob,
I've been observing this exchange. It;d freakin' exhausting. Now, have you finally, realized it's the communists who want to socialize your nazi-ism? Good! Glad you finally got it. You must be wiped out. Get some rest. For some light reading , may I suggest "War and Peace?-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/07/2009 11:26:45 AM
Also good book, even outdated for our dispute, but it is longer than Democrats health care project, I hardly could read it all, let alone Rob.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 10:56:32 AM
BigHappy -
Between communism, socialism, and fascism, only the first two (by definition) define economies. Fascism is not defined by economies and therefore cannot be called the same thing as the other 2. In addition, since we're on the subject of insight and sources, a good reading of Trading with the Enemy, by Charles Higgins will give you a better understanding of Hitler's economy and how reliant he was on the capitalist structure to maintain his military dominance. It is unlikely he would have reverted it to complete nationalization, especially when you look deep into the actions of the "Fraternity", a conglomerate of German and Allied corporations which brought him to and maintained his power, you will find how capitalist his structure really was and how much it relied on that for survival. Remember, capitalism doesn't have to mean "free market". After all, pre-communist Russia was capitalist, but by no means the free market and severely controlled by government. That does not define communism nor socialism. As you stated, the definition of terms must be addressed before we continue. It appears I see much too often these definitions being used too loosely. Scholars certainly don't do that...it could be embarrassing for them should they reflect o the logic of their own argument. Socialism does not have directly to do with how much government control, it has to do with type. Communism is a different story. Definitions.
As for my logic and your statement. I explained it already. You implied Hitler was a communist.
As for dividing people as left and everybody else - well now...now we have our answer. You disqualified yourself as a logical debator. You're done.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:54:37 PM
Rob,
I already told you about Russian revolution (in fact, your version is the repetition of Lenin intentional BS).
And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved. There are more not so obvious examples, such as Chili (thanks to Pinochet? Bad person, but still...), Cuba (yes, in 1957 Castro would have won 90% in elections).-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 4:00:46 PM
"Cuba (yes, in 1957 Castro would have won 90% in elections)." stated in attempt to prove Cuba might have become communist without a revolution.
1. Castro not poor: He was born into a wealthy family and acquired a law degree. While studying at Havana University, he began his political career and became a recognized figure in Cuban politics. In 1948, Castro married Mirta Diaz Balart, a student from a wealthy Cuban family through which he was exposed to the lifestyle of the Cuban elite.
2. Cuba did not "ease" into communism: In an uprising known as the "Revolt of the Sergeants," Batista conspired with the U.S. ambassador, Sumner Welles, and took over the Cuban government on September 4, 1933. Castro broke away from the Partido Ortodoxo to marshal legal arguments based on the Constitution of 1940 formally to charge Batista with violating the constitution. After Fidel came to power, he went to the United States in 1959, requesting US support for his government. Because he had taken back control of US export controlled goods under Batista, Castro's government was denied legitimacy. Castro, in need of alliance from one of the superpowers, then went to Russia for support, which he got along with communism. No easement into communism...it was adopted for national security at the near height of the cold war.
"Chili (thanks to Pinochet? Bad person, but still" Another attempt to show (poor?) easement of communism:
1. Chili was never communist. On September 11, 1973, the day of the coup, the military officers issued an Act of Constitution. The act established a military government that suspended Congress, imposed strict censorship and curfew, denounced the leftist parties that had constituted Allende's Popular Unity coalition, and halted all political activity.
2. Pinochet was not poor: Pinochet was born in Valparaiso on 25 November, 1915 to Augusto Pinochet Vera and Avelina Ugarte Martínez. He went to primary and secondary school at the San Rafael Seminary of Valparaíso, the Rafael Ariztia Institute (Marist Brothers) in Quillota, the French Fathers' School of Valparaíso, and then to the Military School in Santiago, which he entered in 1931. Certainly no indication of poor in that man.
"Europe democratic jorney to communism" There's a contradiction in terms. There has never been a Democratic journey into communism. Hugo is not quite there, although he has come the closest. But his is still a socialist country and not communist. Commmunism is a totalitarian government structure, which is why it is not democratic. Contradiction in terms. By the way, Vzle is at about 26% unemployment and rising, with huge chasm between rich and poor - the ideal conditions that may eventually allow Hugo his revolution. But it will certainly not ocme peacefully. There is much resistance.
Bighappy - here is the problem with generalizations or the lack of knowing details. Communism, is unknown unless it is referred to as a totalitarian regime. Exactly how communist countries came to be is utmost relevance, especially when skiing down such monstrous slippery slopes as to believe a peaceful and economically stable western europe will all of a sudden one day elect a communist style government. You must have an inner self that is just riddling such theories of yours with nagging and unanswered questions. Tranquility with such theories is a sign of a damaged brain.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:25:09 PM
Nothing to say about Castro, you seem to agree what I said.
I never said that Chili was communistic country, but on the way. Allendes and communists indeed were preparing mass repressions to solidify their power, fortunately were stopped by Pinochet. I never said that Pinochet was poor, besides he provided "hell on Earth" only for some, and he let democracy come back, communists and fascists would never do it, this is the difference between right and left dictatorship.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:58:38 AM
I think you need to read much more about Pinochet as well. What on earth were they teaching you that you come up with this nonsense and still get straight As?
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 8:44:34 PM
I did not speak about Pinochet, I don't care who he was, only I know the fact that besides brutal oppressions, he redefined Chili economy and eventually returned power to the democratically elected government.
But I already expect your remarks that im my opinion he is a communist, true democrat or I can not imagine even what you will dream next.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:04:30 AM
No fear bighappy. If what you say is true, I will give you that. I have never denied you that in a debate. I'll give you that pinochet improved the economy of Chile. He did eventually return democracy...but as we both know...it wasn't something he came up with...not without tremendous international pressure. This man was called a classic fascist model government. So if you think fascism is communism, then you can expect such a comment from me as you foretold. Otherwise...he was a fascist dictator, of the same category as Hitler.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 1:06:43 AM
Here is your problem, Rob. You can not distinguish fascism from Dictatorship, even the dictators might be as bad as Hitler. Pinochet did not have party, did not have roots, he represented group of generals. My guess is, he let his power go so easily because he understood that otherwise he would not live for long.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 11:45:58 AM
Bighappy -
Here is the definition that I had always understood fascism to be((I was wrong, it does define economy):
Fascism, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. (Hitler, in Mein Kampf, spoke enthusiastically about the 'National Socialist corporative idea' as one which would eventually 'take the place of ruinous class warfare'; whilst Mussolini, in typically extravagant fashion, declared that 'the Corporative System is destined to become the civilization of the twentieth century.')
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator, without hereditary ascension. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
These are clearly defined terms. If we cannot agree on these as definitions and distinctions between the two words, we must end this debate here and now. I am not here on these posts to debate meanings of words. If you can cite a contradictory definition from a widely accepted resource, then perhaps this can go somewhere. I am not into unorthodox definitions of my language, English. Ambiguity in words meaning is nothing but a manipulative way to not cede any ground to your opponent. That is not debate, it is mere word conflict. I will save this email and repost it every time a post to me misinterprets the definitions of these words. In no way, do they signify left (the traditional left, not your Ayn Rand version which only looks at amount of government control - flawed), in no way do they represent communism.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 8:27:10 PM
Rob,
I don't understand what you are talking about, probably I am not alone. I guess one of your point is that "communism" built in USSR is and Eastern Europe is not the same as fascism because of corporatism" and other BS. You don't even realize that sort of such "corporatism" was built in Tito's Yugoslavia and was invented not by Mussolini but Russian communists (Kamenev, Zinoviev). Lenin heavily criticized them in 1920 and named this phenomenon "Anarcho-syndicalism".-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:30:28 PM
BigHappy-
I'm not going to debate the meanings of words with you. I doubt anyone else is confused...All I have posted, after all, were the term definitions as they are commonly understood. If you don't agree with them. Then you and I are done with this conversation. I'm not going to wonder through history and hear pontifications about how different corporate definitions mean they are really communist. Too absurd. I'm not going there with you. Done.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:42:28 AM
bigh-
Hugo and Hitler???? How are they in the same class?? Hitler brought his regime to pwer on racism, nationalism, and religion. First off, the people who persecuted the Jews then and in a long history of persecutions were religious Christians themselves. The people who shovelled Jews into the death pits and crematoria were either raised Lutheran or Catholic and had a long history of hatred towards these people because they refused to acknowledge the divinity of one of their own rabbis, Jesus. On the SS belt buckles was inscribed 'God is With Us" As for the Russian Revolution. Read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917). Since it seems while pursuing Physics, you have forsaken all other subjects, it would do you good to understand the conditions of Russia prior to the Revolution...then try and tell me that Europe is like this today. Don't forget the part about the Tzarist Autocracy that existed before communism. In every case in history, communism ONLY follwed revolution.
OK, for you phd's (perhaps there is indoctrination in school, but certainly not to the left, if these ideas are case in point):
1. Hitler was NOT a communist.
2. Taxes do not cause nor worsen depressions.
3. Socialist industries in governments does not turn them communist...never has, never will.
4. Communism doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with the amount of government control, it has everything to do with the type.
These are very basic lessons you should have just believed when you learned them in High School....because they are true. That you have decided the GOP can change basic facts into mush, is just embarrassing. Your arguments are almost Ayn Randian...is that who you believe in? How can that be when she was an atheist? Hitler was absolutely NOT an atheist....yet Stalin was. hmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:15:38 PM
I already answered you about you dreaming of Hitler communism. Hitler and Hugo have in common that they were both elected, and immediately started transformation elected them democracy into dictatorship. Wait few years, maybe you will see Hugo regime similar to Hitler's, but it was not I meant.
And don't teach me "all other subjects" besides Physics, I was straight "A" student in history and proved to know historical facts much better than you, for example I never said nonsense of impoverished middle class in Russia, or how Lenin criticized fascism (again, your reliance on fake sources), I even studied Marxism (not my choice, but I learn something useful from it). Treatment of historical facts is different issue, but it depends on brain and common sense, not the special historical education.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:57:06 AM
Big -
Funny - you brag of straight A's in school, then you repeat a rubbish statement about Russian history. How embarrassing for you. Guess you just learned the "system"....but not the material.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/05/2009 12:25:48 AM
Rob, you did not get the clue yet, didn't you? Sorry, you have to grow more brain cells, communication with me had to tell you something. One more hint - while I and my wife were laughing almost to death at your version of Russian history, my children would not.
Think, Rob, think, you must figure it out, how silly you are with such posts.
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/03/2009 12:40:06 PM
Rob,
How do you do it? I said "uncle" two days ago. I know my limits. Good luck trying to keep up with a Republican ph.d education. I feel your pain and yes," I get it". God's speed!-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 3:05:11 PM
Thanks, Chris. I guess it seems we go through the same thing over and over. Perhaps it's that I just can't let statements like that sit in a public forum. Are you as amazed as I am that Hitler (50 years on) would ever be called a communist, or even a socialist? I doubt a single poster here has any idea what communism or socialism is really like - or they wouldn't throw the word around so loosely. Although, I do believe they don't care. It is a sense of revenge having had their "team" (Bush) called such names for a few years. It doesn't matter if it is relative or not, just keep repeating it. I was told I was a "kool Aid" drinker simply for asking a question. So now even that term has come to be used to get people to conform (the opposite of its intent).
It is as though a new group of people are convincing themselves to look at history stricly in terms of liberal and conservative - two 20th century terms that are now supposed to apply to the history of civilization. A redefinition of terms is definitely going on. I heard from a friend in the UK who says they're now blaming the whole economic mess in the world on Gordon Brown, with Blair (Labor Party lefty) as their hero to the U.S.' G.W. Bush. When pinned down as to what publications she reads, it was revealed there is a whole nest of Murdoch publications over there now too. This man is like the 21st Century Karl Marx, with the influence he is peddling to the uninformed.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/03/2009 5:36:04 PM
Rob,
Amazed? You don't want to get me started on Murdock. This guy has such elastic ethics. Not only does he approve of the hate, holler and howl debate technique, doesn't he own "The Sun"? Isn't that the same newspaper that, at least used to, post a naked woman, everyday, on page three? His so-called conservative values are simple, " if it pays, show it!" He's in a murky, money mad business. I'm not a prude and don't care where people get their entertainment, but Rupert needs to pick a side, on this whole moral issue. He's either pro or anti- porn. Think he owns Direct T.V. and don't they provide "movies" to our motel rooms? I'm just sayin'..........
So, what's the point? We don't have to have a ph.d to see the game plan. Whether it's hate, porn, politics or any other form or purience, if the public wants it, if it's inflammatory, even if it's proven to be mental or moral poison, it doesn't matter! So what if it's a dangerous dynamic that may cause the democratic foundations of the nation to crumble, Rubert will povide it, right up to the end. Freedom of speech, ya know? Oppose it and you're a communist or socialist, take your pick! Which one are you again? I can't keep up.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 6:07:40 PM
Chris,
I think the bottom line for Murdoch is money and ratings. It's his job. His forumla, however demoralizing, seems to bring him quite a bit of money. In the US, for example, no matter how small the GOP base gets, they are loyal, they don't let facts get in the way, easily accept redefining conventional terms, and like a model that can speak down to them. A true populist media mogul.
As for page 3 of the Sun - brings back memories of high school. I remember when Samantha Fox came out in one issue (p. 3), then later started her singing career, and MTV videos ("dirty old" Brit Grandad clued me into that a long time ago). To be fair, page 3 only showed topless women. I don't consider that porno, do you? Although to you point, I'm sure conservatives (by definition) do.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/03/2009 9:38:24 PM
Rob,
No, I don't consider that porn. I was just pointing out Murdock's capacity for hypocrisy. If Rupert could put topless women on the front page of anything and make money in the U.S. he certainly would. Good conservative that he is. I have yet to figure out how the Christian, conservatives can reconcile their devotion to Fox, and look the other way in light of Murdock's refusal to clean up his empire. Just like all of us, his values are reflected in what he "does or does not." do. He certainly does not bless the meek, the humble or the poor, in the Christian sense. This is a guy whose moral position will always give way to profits. Since the diva of decency, Ann Coulter, said that liberals "adore pornography", I suppose he is just catering to us "perverted" liberals.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:17:31 PM
Helga, your buddy is sleepwalking with "my" ideas of "communist" Hitler. He needs your help, please wake him up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:23:23 PM
"How come a Monarchy never turned into communism..." - good question. Pre-capitalism monarchy and post-capitalism one are two different things. Monarchy in England and France never were able to control more than good part of finances, its own palace and guards, the rest was done by their vassals, so capitalists class with bigger money easily took real power from kings. Another issue if monarchy would have controlled communication, TV, radio, and own most of the land and factories. Russian monarchy was such, their Revolution was not a fluke, just one monarch was changed to the other.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:16:42 AM
In ALL cases, monarchies have much more control over everything private than any social governments today. Why did they not turn communists? You never stated that the type of government control mattered, just how much. If we look at the type of government control, we find that you may have to disqualify many of your "socialist" european countries as well. By the way - you must have had significant history to understand better the Russian revolution. It certainly did not occur to replace a monarchy with another. It occurred because of severe class distinctions, rising poverty and harsh conditions. That is why revolutions occur - when the middle class turn poor...that's when it happens. Purposely forget that to make some BS political point, and risk losing your entire government. Happens every single time ("let them eat cake").
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:44:43 PM
Rob, don't talk nonsense.
Monarchies controls people life?? People in provinces (mostly peasants) answered only to their seniors, who were little kings completely independent in internal affairs from the king. If you read historic books or at list novels you will see that even Lui XIV could perform his "absolute monarchy" only by buying his vassals. His grandchild did not have such monetary advantage anymore, the rest is history.
And you know zip about Russian revolution. "Middle class turned poor" - it is so silly. Russia before WWI, and even during it, had the highest growing rate in the world, it was like China now but on higher level (relative to other powers). Middle class did not turn poor, it had been absent in Russia before and just started growing. WWI pulled Russia down, and not because of hunger or poverty but because million of poor peasants got weapon from weal csar (probably the main reason for revolution to succeed, but of course there were much more).-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:47:50 AM
Sorry to repeat myself - but "nonsense"!!! WOW! Hitler is a "communist" and western europe will soon be communist, but I am talking "nonsense". And this, to every scholar's shame, is coming from a phd in physics. Mother of God help this country...in every way you can. As for this country's ability to educate to nontechnical subjects (history, politics) - I guess to our shame, this is what we've come down to. No wonder why we are outsourcing to such a large degree. We're producing this crap here in America. Not worth investing in - that's for sure.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 7:48:04 PM
This is what I was talking about, nonsense. I desperately tried to find where I put Hitler together with word "communist", on this site or anywhere. Are you dreaming, Rob? I guess you are having nightmare now where Hitler with red flag chases you. Take your pills, have good sleep, and only after that come back here. You started sounding like Apolitical, ot 40YearsMorons. In your dreams I agitate for higher taxes during recession, was for public option and stronger medical insurance, now I said Hitler is a communist (he was a leftist, it is proven by facts, but of course not a communist).
My post, to which you responded, was about monarchy and Russia, subject where your lack of education is so outrageous (impoverished Russian 1917 middle class also got from your dream?), you don't want to talk of it anymore, so don't talk.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:19:25 AM
Bighappy - Perhaps your desparation to find something you'd hoped you wouldn't find hid this post from you. But I wasn't dreaming after all:
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved." Post #117481. Actually I posted this again for you on another post. There is no ambiguity in this sentence. You are speaking of journies to communism and you said Europe's wouldn't be the first, implying that Hitler and Hugo achieved slower journies to communism. If you did not mean to equate Hitler with communism, your statements makes no sense (ie...nonsense).
No dreams big happy...and no pills needed. Just the ability to interpret my mother tongue.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 9:01:24 PM
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved." - yes, I said it and stay on it. But where do you see here that it will be communists who will lead Europe to so-named "communism" (not as Marx imagined it) which in fact is totalitarian oppressive regime without hope for change?
Oops, now you will blame me that I named Hitler a socialist - no, don't bother, he was a leftists, and all leftists will lead their countries to the same "communism". Like give Hitler time - and you would not find the difference between his Germany and Stalin's USSR.
And in "democratic" European socialistic countries it will be the same - one day new hidden Hitler will be elected to power and, using huge government machine which controlls everything and anyone, will briefly transfer it into totalitarism.
Do yo know that Stalin also was very friendly, obeying "camarad" to whom Lenin trusted, only in his last few months he understood Stalin's nature, sent few letters but too late.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:13:37 AM
Big -
This one speaks for itself. I don't need to twist any words, just repost your own words from time to time. They are silly enough. You have the great big monstrous brassy big balls to tell me you laughed at a common understanding of Russian history, but no problem posting that Hitler would turn iunto a communist, or even try to deny you said it even after you reposted your own words saying it - again??? Wow. You are truly in the zone. Where are you getting your greens? Must be an awesome high!!!
Let's break it down simpler for you genius phds:
And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process (meaning journey to communism) than Hugo and Hitler achieved (implying that Hugo and Hitler achieved this same process - which is the journey to communism). By the way, neither achieved communism.
Now - if that is not what you meant to say: 1. don't defend it as is and 2. reread what you wrtie to ensure you have stated exactly what you meant. I can't walk you through the grammar of your sentence anymmore than I have. If you are still having trouble with this we can possible get on netmeeting and I'll try getting you through this that way.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:19:04 AM
Bighappy - Perhaps your desparation to find something you'd hoped you wouldn't find hid this post from you. But I wasn't dreaming after all:
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved." Post # 1174781. Actually I posted this again for you on another post. There is no ambiguity in this sentence. You are speaking of journies to communism and you said Europe's wouldn't be the first, implying that Hitler and Hugo achieved slower journies to communism. If you did not mean to equate Hitler with communism, your statements makes no sense (ie...nonsense).
No dreams big happy...and no pills needed. Just the ability to interpret my mother tongue.
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/03/2009 12:28:27 PM
Rob,
Hitler is not a "communist," he is dead. He killed himself in 1945. It was the only good thing that he ever did.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 2:55:53 PM
donald,
Halelluja! I agree with everything on your post.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/03/2009 3:08:24 PM
Rob007:donald,
Halelluja! I agree with everything on your post.
----------------------------------------------------
A meeting of minds. Now how about that ObamaCare disaster. The House bill is now at $1.2 trillion. They are all insane.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 3:25:50 PM
there's something about "counting your eggs before they're hatched" I believe.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/03/2009 5:39:32 PM
Rob007:there's something about "counting your eggs before they're hatched" I believe.----------------------------------------------------------------
These eggs are rotten.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 6:08:31 PM
But they're still eggs....and that's more than we have now.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/03/2009 6:33:06 PM
Rob007:But they're still eggs....and that's more than we have now.---------------------------------------------------------
Just heard a news report that there will be no ObamaCare this year. Huge majorities of Democrats in both the House and Senate and he still can't get his signature issue passed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:32:39 AM
bighappy -
Tru "nonsense" is the belief that higher amounts of socialized programs within a government will slowly ease it into communism (when it has never happened in history). The details of Monarchy control over government are important? Does it matter how the government controls? Or how MUCH the government controls? As for history, governments since the beginning of time have been controlling and taxing the hell out of businesses. That is not controlling private sector (which had barely existed in the past)? How is that not then on its way to communism?
If I know zip about Russia...what does that say about your knowledge??? Do you think they were slowly instituting one social program after another and then just eased into communism? How silly is that?? How crazy is your idea that Europe will ease itself into communism....even after more than 50 years in such economies? That is sane? Are you absolutely kidding me? How do you even get to the point of using the words "silly", "absurd" and "lie" when proposing such absurd theories???? Who in god's name believes that depressions were worsened by tax increases, or even caused? Who believes that increased government control will eventually result in a communist country? That is for the asylum...now that we're into name calling. You want to go there???? You've got to be absolutely kidding me. Might want to get out of that crystal glass house before you start throwing stones at me.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 8:21:48 PM
Rob,
I understand, sleepwalking and complete lack of logic pushed you to treat my words in the most outrageous way, you look like Stalin interrogator (not that you are bad or brutal, not at all, I mean that they were trained to twist words of their victim to prove their guilt).
For example, where I said that Russians had social programs, let alone "eased" to communism, it was Revolution, not the way Europeans are going, Russians used to live under czars whatever the real names were, and even Revolution only changed one monarchy to another.
"Who in god's name believes that depressions were worsened by tax increases, or even caused?" - everybody. Even your lovely liberals are afraid to push taxes now, they know that economic meltdown will make their .ss t5he grass.
Where did I say that "increased government control will eventually result in a communist country"? Government may impose temporary full control to lead desperate country from crisis, like in Chili (again, I said that Pinochet is a bad man but he produced results). But a socialist government is different issue, their purpose always was to increase the control no matter how much they control already, mo matter how hard it for people, and it will lead to totalitarian regimes unless there are other powers like USA and Japan. What is communism or totalitarism? It is when the big brother decides what you need plus full control of production, communication and distribution.Banks are almost nationalized there and here, not long before big government will have control packets of anything? The Dear Leader already is trying openly to rid us of "poisonous" Fox news and other opposition broadcasters, Hugo showed him the way.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:30:23 AM
Bighappy -
The statement that "czars whatever the real names were, and even Revolution only changed one monarchy to another" is absurd. Read about the revolution and what communism is. As I stated before, if you are looking only throught he narrow lense of how many people are leading the country, you can say manrchy was the same as communism. But that is not enough and is too oversimplified to be of any use in this argument. The Russian revolution occured because too many were poor and too few had money. Conditions were terrible for those without. Whenever your society becomes like this, you can expect to be overthrown and replaced with a new government.
Everybody believes taxes create or worsen depressions? Isn't simply saying that, meaning that you actually DO believe this? A statement you denied in your last post? In any case, there is absolutely no data to prove this. You and I did the numbers on this before and apparently you conveniently forgot. Never in history has a depression been caused by taxes, neither was it worsened by them.
It's not that you stated "increased government control will eventually result in a communist country" but your reference to why Europe will turn communist has everything to do with how socialized you think it is....right? And in your own terms, socialism has pretty much only to do with the amount of government control. I was just putting 1and 1 together and coming up with "2".
What "results" did Pinochet produce that distinguishes him from bad lefty men?
"But a socialist government is different issue, their purpose always was to increase the control no matter how much they control already" You have confused the word "totalitarian" (which is both left and right) with socialist, and it is hurting your argument badly. A dictatorship which is not socialist will also expand control as much as possible. A Monarchy has no need because it already has as much power as possible (at least historically).
As I said to donald, comparisons with our American preisdent to Chavez are boardering criminal. There is no such similarity between any other leader in the free world except maybe Berlesconi's right wing italian government, in which he controls 90% of media outlets. You have absolutely no idea about Chavez, or you would not make such absurd comparisons.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 4:53:47 PM
"How come a Monarchy never turned into communism" is actually a ridiculous question, and meant to be so. Not recognizing it as ridiculous is not to understand what a Monarchy is....it is the giving of absolute power to a single leader, by divine right. How do you get from "divine right" to an atheist communist state? Once you started promoting atheism, you start demoting your right to rule. As for "Pre-capitalism monarchy" - there is no such thing. Monarchies are classified as such: Absolute, Limited, and Constitutional. England's was different than it is now because of a man named Oliver Cromwell. You can read about him yourself. But he established a republican commonwealth and eliminated Charles I., thus ushering in an age that would eventually yield England with its constitutional Monarchy which it is today, changing the landscape of government control. However, this too, is pre capitalism and does not define any specific freedoms of markets. To say capitalists took power from the Kings is about like putting together museums with saddles on dinosaurs. Monarchies of France and England did not give way to capitalism. They gave way to Republics and Democracies. Style of finance was revolutionized under writings of Adam Smith, which eventually taught England that trading outside of the colonies brought better prosperity. In fact, to discuss control of finances in terms of socialism communism vs. monarchies is a little silly. First, socialism as it is known today didn't exist until the 20th century. By that time monarchies were pretty much well established, in whatever form.
To say the Russian revolution was a change from one Monarch to another is to have absolutley no understanding of systems of government. Monarchies are associated with political or sociocultural hereditary rule, in which monarchs rule for life.
What Stalin was under communism might be compared to a dictatorship, which has its own definition. But to call communism a monarchy is like saying..."hey, they both have leaders in alot of control, so therefore, Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, and any other dictatorship are all the same"....to make that sentence relevant, you would have to add, "in that regard (of a single ruler)" - and that would be the qualifier, which when absent makes the argument ludicrous. Neither system by the way defines how markets are handled, except communism.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 8:44:48 PM
I see, Rob, you are also a dogmatic. If Stalin was not born a royalty, he can not be considered a monarch (by the way, Russians name him the Red Monarch, they are mistaken, of course. What is the difference between communism and non-communism dictatorship? Communism system GUARANTEES that one dictator (Red Monarch, General Secretary) will be followed by another, not a slightest hope for democracy after his death, look like true absolute Monarchy, how do you think? And about inheritance and "royalty" - N. Korea showed the way, in USSR they already had dynasties of rulers, soon they would have created the royal dynasty as well, only give it time.
Decorating Cromwell exclusively for English revolution is naive, if not him that another leader would had come, they had new powerful class behind them. And if you pretend to know history, you must know that it was the "second coming" of Charles II with great ambitions and vengence, and what? He was easily handled even without Cromwell.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 10:50:27 AM
BigHappy-
If we are discussing how communism came to be, how is Stalin a subject? Yes, Stalin was poor. But he did not bring communism to Russia, which was the subject. I agree with your description of the differnece between communism and dictatorship guaranteeing a continual authoritarian state. As I stated before, through a narrow looking glass of leadership powers, it resembles a monarchy. But Communism is nothing like a monarchy. Communism by the way (and as I said before) is the only system of all the ones we discussed that describes the way the economy is run. In addition, (also as I stated before) a monarchy controls different segments of power than what we have seen under communism (an idea no older than the 20th century).
If you think the name Cromwell was distinct in my explanation, you have completely missed the point. Cromwell represented England's first separation from a monarchy - nothing more...and because of the timeframe, it preceded modern capitalism as we know it (Adam Smith). That point was made to show the idiocy of the idea of a "pre-capitalist" and "post capitalist monarchy" (no such description exists). Yes Charles II was handled without Cromwell....in the late 1600s, when parliament took more power and England's "bill of rights" were established (still all pre-Adam Smith).
You seem to be getting frustrated, and I am guessing because you are treading into very unfamiliar territory. It shows because you are over generalizing political structures and when you make a point you seem to feign from providing examples (eg...pinochet "produced results").
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/04/2009 8:47:58 PM
If I am frustrated, it is only that of your twisting my words. Did they teach you interrogation technique in US army?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:07:53 AM
Twisting?
Post #1174781
"And Europe democratic jorney to communism will not be the first, it only will be much slower process than Hugo and Hitler achieved. "
Those were your exact words.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:07:18 AM
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:07:02 AM
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:06:34 AM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:05:07 PM
Germany has always been a leading edge of technological development. As a Physics phd - did you not collaborate in anything internationally to have gotten more intimate with other country technologies? Sorry BigH - I have always had a hard time with ethnocentricity...I think it to take too narrow a view.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 3:52:01 PM
Oh yes, you have such great knowledge. I remember I worked in company which produced medical machines, and there I learned where Germany goes. German analogs were perfect, very precise mechanics typical for Germans, but they cost 10 (!!) times more than American machines doing exactly the same with similar quality. The trick was that despite less precise mechanics (much cheaper materials and technology), US designers managed to use computers to compensate the lesser precision.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:04:13 AM
I have such great knowledge? Don't have to lump me personally into this part, I am not German. Your example is hardly evidence to show Germany's technological development is lacking. What you want is a study like this: http://www.bmbf.de/en/1869.php. But you would want to show statistics concerning R&D funding lacking or problems with reverse engineering committed by Germans, or lack of manufacturing jobs, etc... A personal experience is really kind of incidental in terms of our argument.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/29/2009 9:28:32 PM
bighappy:Ask Soviets, they will explain you how they had to stay in line for 10 years for a car but had a lot of ice cream.-------------------------------------------------------------------
I very much doubt that the Bolsheviks were providing ice cream to the proletariat. Maybe for the nomenklatura, but not for the average Boris and Natasha. They had to make due with cheap Vodka and tales of the glory of the "New Soviet Man."
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/29/2009 9:45:41 PM
Don, I see Pelosi unveiled her 894 billion +++ healthcare plan. It has a public option, publicly funded abortion money, and death panels in it. The lady is a gluton for punishment.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/29/2009 10:04:49 PM
40YearConservative:Don, I see Pelosi unveiled her 894 billion +++ healthcare plan. It has a public option, publicly funded abortion money, and death panels in it. The lady is a gluton for punishment.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is $894 billion only if they collect $161 billion in fines and penalties from folks who don't purchase insurance or employers who do not cover their employees. A new tax which Obama claimed he wouldn't impose. Just another broken promise from the "one."
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/29/2009 10:07:32 PM
Yeah, it's definitely over a trillion dollars. This is like a bad dream. They (politicans) are "on the road to Abilene," if you know what I mean.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/29/2009 10:21:26 PM
40YearConservative:Yeah, it's definitely over a trillion dollars. This is like a bad dream. They (politicans) are "on the road to Abilene," if you know what I mean.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well as far as I can tell, they didn't actually use the term "death panels" in the bill. I suppose we should be grateful for that. Not quite sure how they are describing them yet?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/29/2009 10:52:07 PM
According to the great news source "MSNBC," it is being called, "End of life counseling."
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 1:30:00 AM
I sure hope we get some legislation like that. If I want to be taken off a machine, I should be able to. After all, if it takes a machine to keep someone alive....God obviously wants them. It's absolutely sickening to see 90 year olds kept suffering on life giving machines when they just want peace. My own Grandmother was pulling on her breathing tube, signaling her best to let her go, but she couldn't talk. 91 years old. Thank God Pelosi has a heart, then.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 7:12:48 AM
So you want to talk to the big government about how much you want to suffer before you die, Rob? Are you for real? All you have to do is take a do not resucitate letter with you and they will be more than glad to let you die. Have one on file at the hospital and with your doctor. Here, fill out form 1153, section 2, and get it notorized and witnessed. THen, take it down to room 332 and Dr. Dummit who graduated with less than honors will discuss the issue of passing. Why do I need Uncle Sam, Rob? Haven't you gotten the "green weenie" enough to know what that feels like? You libs sure are a glutton for punishment. 200 pushups!
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 12:28:47 PM
I'd much, much, much rather speak to the big government, which has done a great job taking care of my health for almost 20 years, than to a private company driven by profits and accountable to no one. Yes 40 - I am real...very real. Why would I have any reason to believe some hyped up theory about "death panels"? ...unless of course I was proned to such aluminam foil cap ideas...you know, lkike birthers and 9-11 inside jobs (I'm sure you subscribe to both).
But hey...you trust the government enough with all your personal security - enough that they can listen in on your personal calls and mess with your constitution. Why would health all of a sudden be the exception?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:30:25 PM
Rob, I'm just wondering how someone could go through the military like you say you have and be happy with their healthcare. You'd much much much much much or just much much rather talk to the government.....You are funny.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:46:06 PM
I'm wondering how a birther can think they have credibility - but that is besides the point.
Anyway - I never realized how good the military health care was until I began to use the private one...worse - having seen what my brother went through after his transition to being a civilian - with back problems and skin cancer....civilians put him through hell.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:49:24 PM
How is a big government program going to prevent that from happening? I'm not a birther, but, feel free to think what you may about me. The truth is we have the finest healthcare in the world and should be very apppreciative of that fact.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:55:45 PM
If you're not a birther, why would you think Obama needed a visa to be in the US?
Big government is exactly who ended up solving those problems, when he joined the Guard.
US is ranked 37th in the world by WHO, last behind the developed world, in healthcare. THe critieria is crystal clear and is based on infant mortality, lifespan, cost, waiting time, etc.. All knowable information, all checkable, all clearly defined with criteria for "best" and guidelines to follow to understand how each rating is determined. No ambiguity in their argument.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:04:53 PM
Rob, THe H2B Visa comment was a question about how he traveled between America and Africa. A legitimate question. I was just being curious is all.
He joined the Guard with health issues. Was it a fraudulent enlistment?
37th or 137th- WHO CARES? Tell that to the families from 30 different countries currently at the Houston Cancer Center. Are we beating down the door to Canada to get their healthcare? Drink the kool-aid, Rob.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 5:22:43 PM
You were in the military and you don't understand about swqitch services with health issues attained while in the service of the military? Now I'm beginning to quesiton your own authenticity.
37th - I care. All criteria are very relevant.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:26:58 PM
They probably referred him to a specialist downtown somewhere. I hope he didn't go to the VA.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 7:09:08 PM
VA - the Air Force medical beats all!!!
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 8:54:13 PM
I guess if you don't expect much. Why is it that some people eligible for tricare prime turn it down and pay a co-pay out of their pocket when they live next to an Air Force base? Man, I have some horror stories for you from my neighbor. Geez, Air Force care. OK.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:20:34 AM
Tricare is medical insurance for facilities that are not "on base". Tricare is a difficult insurance to deal with (in my experience)...but it is only used for off base hospitals. I've heard some bad stories...but actually recently good ones. I work with a retired AF SGT who opted for tricare over company benefits and he swears by it (to my surprise). But Air Force hospitals are some of the best in this country...in my opinion.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 12:04:57 PM
Not true, Rob. Tricare Prime is for those people who use militay medical facilities. My neighbor pays over 2,000 per year for his company plan because Tricare wasn't working out for him. The Air Force base hospital had a lot of problems.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:16:02 PM
Interesting. I never used tricare and I used military medical for almost 20 years. Wonder how that could be? I never paid a cent into it. How can that be. You and I can go tit for tat on those with good and bad tricare experiences. I can also throw in a million horror stories off of America's "private" system.
Bottom line: Hey if you like what you've got great! If you are representing the GOP, more interesting. The GOP isn't here to help anything., Their goal is to shut Obama down and get into power. Then what? Convince us everything is fine, start a few more wars, convince us again (as they did last administration) that deficits don't matter because after all who is going to make us pay?, and tank our economy once again? Give it up mate. We need a better party than that to compete with the Dems. THe GOP is dead.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 1:13:19 PM
Rob, Active-duty dependents that go to the hospital on base use tricare prime. Tricare standard is for those that aren't near a base or they are in a romote assignment. You don't pay into it when you are on active duty. You pay into it when you retire. I think I pay about 450 a year (great benefit if you are getting good care.) Big if!
Don't know why you would bring up the GOP, except possibly you having some feelings of inadequacy or something about the positions you take on issues. THe GOP is dead. Good one. You aren't from Virginia are you. Let me know how dead they are on Wednesday morning. Haha!-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:46:47 PM
40cons
The GOP is ridiculous. They are so in the past, clinging to moral socialism and all their complaints about dems are hypoctritic. They haven't a chance. If they do, this country is done for. The Democrats need a more traditional Republican party to oppose them. THis one has spun in direction of the extremists, bending to figures like Robertson and Rand.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 3:42:18 PM
Just opposite, Rob. GOP was similar "dead" in Carter time. Do you remember what happened next? With idiot Obama help, GOP will be in power from 2013 till probably 2030 (unless they find another Bush which is doubtful, nobody trusts morons anymore inside GOP, they learned their lesson). And already in 2010 they will have the House.
Oh, by the way, who will be next Democratic majority (still majority) leader after 2010 elections? Reid and Dod are not going to be around.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:49:22 PM
Yes, Big, but that GOP represents todays much less...and there would be many hardliners who, knowing a Reagan under a different name, would not have him. He was much more pragmatic and crossed party lines, as well as raised taxes than any would accept today. As I said, if you understand and appreciate this constitution, you should be very wary of any single party which could be in power for as long as you are hoping the GOP. Or perhaps, Americans such as yourself are groing tired of all our rights and our referencing the constitution. Perhaps a system which allows imbalanced powers and movement to true totalitarianism would be better. Perhaps, as Limbaugh recently said, a benevolent dictator? Yeah right.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 6:36:51 PM
There was periods of time when Democrats stayed in undisputed power for 20 years, we know what happened - WW2, Korean war and more. So, you are probably right. Our best hope that GOP will have healthy competition within.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 3:05:41 PM
Man, I personnally hope that the GOP isn't dead, Rob. THe upcoming elections will probably show that they are alive and well. The democrats are worse than the Republicans in my opinion. Nothing good to say about them, so I won't say anything at all.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:09:11 PM
Other than social moral issues, they are both the same. Someday you will see that. Democrats need a proper rival - one that doesn't lean so heavily on the evangelist vote nor cater to Ayn Rand whackos.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 7:35:10 PM
37th is exaggeration, Rob. Infant mortality - it depends also on parents, and unlike Europe or Japan, we have so many cultures here, some still don't care of their infants much (before and after birth). Lifespan - it depends not only on health care but on stile of life, popular food, drug habits , etc. By objective estimations, we are right in the middle.
As for death panels, with Pelosi help we can achieve great heights here leaving far behind Europe, the sky (not heaven) is limit for Democrats.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:06:08 AM
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
infant mortality has been a standard measure of a country's health care for decades. You can try and explain such critieria away.,....but it is specifically defined and as I stated before...not ambiguous. Most of this stuff is actaully knowable.
Death panel is propaganda hype. I've seen them try and make the connection within the wording of the bill (which by the way is the same wording as is currently in Medicare) and it's way too far of a stretch. Do you really believe the government will put itself in this position to make these decisions, above our personal desires? If they would....just think of what such a government would do with your other personal freedoms....like privacy. I know, you're a good guy, so have nothing to hide. You're probably not one of those less than lucky people who get into those positions where the government would have to make such a death panel choice on you. Probably don't have to worry about that then either.
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:58:41 PM
Rob007:If you're not a birther, why would you think Obama needed a visa to be in the US?
Big government is exactly who ended up solving those problems, when he joined the Guard.
US is ranked 37th in the world by WHO, last behind the developed world, in healthcare. THe critieria is crystal clear and is based on infant mortality, lifespan, cost, waiting time, etc.. All knowable information, all checkable, all clearly defined with criteria for "best" and guidelines to follow to understand how each rating is determined. No ambiguity in their argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The WHO report is apples and oranges. Different countries use different criteria so the comparison means nothing.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 5:20:37 PM
The WHO uses the same criteria by which to compare ALL countries. Based on that criteria, you have your rankings. I agree the criteria is exactly rleevant to what I would determine effective healthcare.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 1:58:02 PM
Rob,
Anyone who believes that big government is here to help is just as gullible as birthers and truthers. You would be better off trusting Smith & Wesson than the government for personal security.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 2:10:05 PM
The birther DonaldDuh-k:"Anyone who believes that big government is here to help is just as gullible as birthers and truthers. You would be better off trusting Smith & Wesson than the government for personal security. "
Wtf? Let me get this straight, we all know you're a birther so you are saying you are gullible too? Boy aren't you dumber than dirt. You shouldn't post when your cheerleaders aren't around, you're just too stupid.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:29:46 PM
Loathsome,
Did the girls chase you over here? Was their laughter to much for you to take after I got you to admit that you are a mall cop and a eunuch. And I did it in just one afternoon. Loathsome you have been punked.
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:12:41 PM
Interesting. Who made this statement when government expanded exponentially over the last 8 years....giving all trust to personal security to the government (and not S&W)? Never heard it then when it threatened most, why should I hear it now when it's goal is much less nefarious.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:24:02 PM
Rob007:Interesting. Who made this statement when government expanded exponentially over the last 8 years....giving all trust to personal security to the government (and not S&W)? Never heard it then when it threatened most, why should I hear it now when it's goal is much less nefarious.-------------------------------------------------------------------
The government is always nefarious, Rob. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Treat your S&W right and it will never let you down.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 9:54:21 AM
40YearConvict:" 200 pushups! "
More pushups, yeah right. I'm waiting to hear where and when you served in the military. Pretending to have served just to impress a few tact heads is disgraceful. So Beetle Bailey, how about it?-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:26:58 PM
Beetle Bailey was a mighty fine soldier. Thanks for the compliment! I have served in the military. I wouldn't bust Rob's chops if I hadn't, unlike you. I won't give you a set number of pushups to do (you probably can't count that high with taking off your shoes). Just do them until I get tired, son.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:32:21 PM
40YearConvict:" I have served in the military."
Where and when? Nothing worse than a wannabe claiming to have served when he didn't.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:35:06 PM
Lothario:40YearConvict:" I have served in the military."
Where and when? Nothing worse than a wannabe claiming to have served when he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tough talk from a castrato mall cop.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:37:52 PM
Paulejb, you were deleted for vulgar language, why are you still here?
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:40:41 PM
Lothario:Paulejb, you were deleted for vulgar language, why are you still here?-----------------------------------------------------------
So It is true. Paulejb did run you off under your previous screen name. You better watch out, he may be back to get you again.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:15:35 PM
If I want any lip out of you I'll pull my fishing line up out of the water. Paulejb, you were deleted, why are you still here? I heard you were living with your grand kid up in Canada, is that true? Or is this you? http://www.myspace.com/paulejb
You know I bet that is you, you're just a foul mouth kid that lives in his grandma's basement.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:17:51 PM
Now that is classic "Geek" there.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:21:31 PM
40YearConvict
Tell us about that time you served in the military. Hanging around the gate on payday is not the same.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:24:43 PM
Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Geek's sister likes it best..................
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:30:33 PM
40YearConservative:Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Geek's sister likes it best..................Maybe I was wrong about the geek. He must have had a big impact on you.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:32:12 PM
Not on me, personnally. The only thing he had an impact on was the crime rate in his neighbor growing up.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:39:08 PM
Maybe you should mind your own business then. How about in the mean while you tell us about that military service? Or are you a liar?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:42:13 PM
Left, Righr,Left,Right,Left,Right,Left,Lethargic likes it best..............
Son, I was jumping out of planes and slapping punks like you around when you had to be wiped. What is it you want to so desperately know?
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:44:29 PM
Give us the particulars about when and where you served.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:51:16 PM
When and Where? Are you a spy? Do you have plans of asking me my social security number and such? Are you a senior member of the administration? Too many questions, Geek. I have served with distinction and have received a lot of blessings for that service. Is that good enough?
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:54:29 PM
Liar. The only service you gave was at the front gate. What was it you were selling?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:58:02 PM
your backside
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:59:05 PM
More like your mama. Wanna play the dozens for a bit? Your turn.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/31/2009 4:12:33 AM
No. You will probably react like most Obama lovers with your standard racist stuff when I give you two dozen and you lose. Or, you will want to visit a gravesite to do unspeakable things. Either way, you are an embecile.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:55:45 PM
Said the misoygnist Geek
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:58:31 PM
Come on Beetle Bailey, tell us about that service you gave. Not at the front gate either.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 6:01:22 PM
There I was, walking through the Valley of the Shadow of Death..........
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 6:04:06 PM
Talking in your sleep again?
Hey, it's been fun, but I'm out of here. See ya!
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 6:07:09 PM
Later, Geek! Stay out of trouble, if you can. You should stay in your basement tomorrow night, what with Halloween and all. Just a suggestion!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 6:01:17 PM
Calling me geek is quite the insult, not sure how much more I can take. ROFLMAO
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 6:02:39 PM
Get use to it, Geek.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 7:10:39 PM
Then don't defame it with ideological politics. You more than anyone should know a soldier's business is not politics.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:28:15 PM
What, can the geek read as well? I know reading is a marvel where you come from, but it's not really that big of a deal.
I've never said this was my first time here, but I'm not the geek. I use to like the geek until he went all soft and started crying all the time and went on his great apology tour. The geek got his whittle heart broke by mean ole Pia.
Did the geek beat you up? Why are you so afraid of him?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:30:05 PM
Sure, Geek. You are soft, son.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:44:19 PM
Lothario:Paulejb, you were deleted for vulgar language, why are you still here?-------------------------------------------------------------------
Loathsome is terrified of paulejb. Are you afraid he is coming back for you? Are you hiding under your bed? In the closet?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:46:04 PM
DOn, I think Lethargic is a basement dweller.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:50:51 PM
40YearConservative:DOn, I think Lethargic is a basement dweller.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, he probably resides under the basement.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:54:32 PM
Maybe he's posting from the endzone in Giant's Stadium.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:33:04 PM
40YearConservative:Beetle Bailey was a mighty fine soldier. Thanks for the compliment! I have served in the military. I wouldn't bust Rob's chops if I hadn't, unlike you. I won't give you a set number of pushups to do (you probably can't count that high with taking off your shoes). Just do them until I get tired, son.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40YrCon,
Loathsome is a mall cop and a eunuch. I manipulated him into admitting it over at the "O'Garbage Factor" article. He is as dumb as a post. He is also terrified of a poster named paulejb.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:35:01 PM
You admitted you were busted for shoplifting some fish and spent the night in jail. It seems the 100 dollar bail was too steep.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:38:09 PM
Lothario:You admitted you were busted for shoplifting some fish and spent the night in jail. It seems the 100 dollar bail was too steep.--------------------------------------------------------------------
You were punked, Loathsome. I got you to admit that you are a mall cop and a eunuch in one afternoon. And it's there for all the world to see at the "O'Garbage Factor." I warned you about bringing a knife to a gun fight.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:11:50 PM
If I want any lip out of you I'll pull my fishing line up out of the water. Paulejb, you were deleted, why are you still here?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:15:28 PM
You, like your twin 40Year.R, get too excited when you post and either post a blank or repeat your drivel. You two are classics!
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:17:39 PM
40YearConvict
Tell us about that time you served in the military. Hanging around the gate on payday is not the same.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:20:14 PM
A voice of experience?
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:37:10 PM
We know who likes and what they do with the fish up here, son. Wheeew that smell.....
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:48:52 PM
Paulejb got deleted for vulgar fish jokes.
Speaking of jokes, isn't that why you created your screen name? To mock 40YearR, I mean. Why is that? Got a man crush?
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:55:58 PM
Lothario:Paulejb got deleted for vulgar fish jokes.
Speaking of jokes, isn't that why you created your screen name? To mock 40YearR, I mean. Why is that? Got a man crush?
--------------------------------------------------------
The ghost of paulejb still terrorizes losers like Loathsome, the eunuch mall cop. We're still laughing at you, Loathsome.
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 5:10:41 PM
If I want any lip out of you I'll pull my fishing line up out of the water. Paulejb, you were deleted, why are you still here?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 5:12:28 PM
Good one, Geek.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:40:53 PM
They all seem to be afraid of Paulejb. He must have been the Master of NW. Lethargic is a mall cop geek!
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:48:28 PM
40YearConservative:They all seem to be afraid of Paulejb. He must have been the Master of NW. Lethargic is a mall cop geek!--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some of them wet their panties when paulejb is mentioned. He must have been hell on the Obamanoids. Loathsome is obsessed with him. Paulejb must have run him off in his previous identity.
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:36:27 PM
40YearConvict:"Beetle Bailey was a mighty fine soldier."
Yeah and you were about as much a soldier as he was.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 12:25:07 AM
I doubt this fee will withstand Supreme Court.
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/31/2009 4:36:22 PM
don,
Could you please pass me some of that vodka flavored ice-cream? With brandy topping. I have the feeling it's going to be an early night.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/31/2009 7:30:16 PM
chris s.:don, Could you please pass me some of that vodka flavored ice-cream? With brandy topping. I have the feeling it's going to be an early night.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a card carrying member of the nomenklatura, Chris? If not, you are out of luck, no ice cream flavored vodka for you. Just pepper vodka for the proletariat.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/31/2009 11:57:12 PM
You have doubted me as any less than the nomeklature? I am isulted. Here I sit in my drawing room, clad in my ermine dressing gown awaiting my cavier, champagne and vodka flavored ice-cream. A simple girl with simple taste And you offer me peppered vodka! The drink of the peasants? I am insulted! Heads will roll!
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 12:23:21 AM
Yes, they did. Russian ice cream is one of the best and can make it from cheap ingredients. It was one of few products they had a plenty.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/29/2009 6:52:01 PM
A government which does not provide entitlements has never existed in the history of civilization.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/29/2009 7:28:12 PM
Rob007:A government which does not provide entitlements has never existed in the history of civilization.----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 5:25:59 PM
...and here's one for those fans of the Patriot Act and wiretapping laws and like to think it was acceptable that "things changed" (in terms of our rights) since 9-11:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 11:22:16 PM
Rob007:...and here's one for those fans of the Patriot Act and wiretapping laws and like to think it was acceptable that "things changed" (in terms of our rights) since 9-11:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin.--------------------------------------------------------------
How is that quote relevant when mine was not?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/31/2009 2:07:25 PM
Donald -
Here's how it works: If you reply with a quote that is supposed to answer a specific post, it must be relevant. If you know it is not relevant (as I did with this one) you must qualify it by stating something like..."on this other subject...here is this quote" type of thing. I obviously did not post this as a response to healthcare issues...but rather brought in Franklin to another subject which you and I have discussed, since you seem to accept Franklin's words.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/31/2009 2:51:00 PM
Rob,Franklin's quote on people voting them selves money is entirely appropriate. The supporters of ObamaCare obviously believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. They do not care where the money comes from as long as they get their subsidized health care. They are all in for a rude awakening.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:23:35 AM
Donald - There are alot of groups in America that believe there is a free lunch for something. Tose are called entitlements. I don't think Franklin meant "entitlements" when he said "cash". There has never in the history of civilization been a government that did not give entitlements.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/01/2009 3:28:30 AM
Rob007:Donald - There are alot of groups in America that believe there is a free lunch for something. Tose are called entitlements. I don't think Franklin meant "entitlements" when he said "cash". There has never in the history of civilization been a government that did not give entitlements.-----------------------------------------------------
In Rome it was bread and circuses. It is not much different today. Keep the suckers fed and occupied. And we know what happened to Rome.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 11:11:04 AM
I don't understand, Rob and Don, why are you keep talking of what Franklin said. He was not the smartest man on the globe or even in USA.
It is like Britain Empire as we know it was created by Henry VIII or Elizabeth, but I don't remember that British used their citations to prove any political point.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:18:25 PM
Big -
Thanks for that. I don't think quote bring about a philosophical argument either. Should be dropped.
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:17:23 PM
Yes we do. Bush brought us back to that "fall" in october. Thanks for all the bread and circuses (or at least your rich corporate buddies thank you).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 8:11:33 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin. "
What "essential" freedom did Patriot act take away from you, or others US citizens, Rob? Freedom of carrying a bomb or a gun in your backpack (even without bad intentions)? Freedom illegals to stay in USA indefinitely? Freedom to collect "charities" for terrorists? Freedom of hate speech (in this area, by the way, Obama went even further with "hate" crime law which can indeed restrict free speech, dependent on prosecutors)?
I remember you complained that it allowed goverment to see your financial records (again, Obama came further, twisting Swiss bankers hands, and probably it is right thing to do), but what about IRS then? Should we dismantle IRS?
Restricting people rights to take care of their own health (like mandatory health insurance) is indeed the essential liberty violation for the sake of little fake "temporary safety".-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:12:25 AM
The Patriot act doesn't specify a search for such weapons. It juts allows the government to check alot more things about its own private citizens. That privacy is essential in a democracy. Neither does the patriot act specify anything about charities, hate speech. The IRS is not the executive nor the legislative. THere is at least an indirect linkage...and a very independent agency as well. The additions of Obama actions does nothing to change my position. I never said I was happy with Obama. I have only reacted to the wayyy exaggerated charges against him. See - I am niot interested in the party nor the leader....just the constitution.
I don't think we'll find your hc argument will have violated any constitutional rights.
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 1:24:49 AM
That quote is not relative to the discussion.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 1:51:51 PM
Rob007:That quote is not relative to the discussion.-------------------------------------------------
Ben Franklin is always relevant, Rob.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:10:51 PM
That quote is not relative to the discussion.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:25:48 PM
Rob007:That quote is not relative to the discussion.-----------------------------------------------------------
It is exactly on point. Supporters of ObamaCare expect their health care coverage to be paid for by their neighbors.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:48:54 PM
nobody has voted themselves money. The quote is not relative to the discussion.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/30/2009 4:53:41 PM
Rob007:nobody has voted themselves money. The quote is not relative to the discussion.---------------------------------------------------------
They voted for Obama. They should be more careful about what they wish for.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:02:15 PM
Let's get back to the pressing question, since you were deleted as Paulejb, why are you still here?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:22:00 PM
Because you are Geek
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 4:33:30 PM
Prove I'm the Geek, while you're at it tell us about that military service you claim to have.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 4:35:50 PM
I thought you where suppose to be doing pushups. You don't listen very well do you.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lothario @ 10/30/2009 2:18:10 PM
Watch out Rob, DonaldDuh-k is a bit testy. He was in jail all night for shoplifting fish. He just made bail. We all knew he was a pescatarian, but man not to the degree he'd steal for a fishy snack.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 11/06/2009 12:21:28 PM
I realize I speak only for myself and this is what I see as accurate and being objective. There is so much being said that is based on aggressive appeals to biases, prejudices and selfish interests, all aimed to manipulate and even to purposely mislead the public. Take the criticisms of the Obama Administration as 'tax and spend', 'big government', 'Socialistic' and even (the very bazaar) as 'Communistic'. Any rational viewing has to recognize that Obama literally inherited very extreme and drastic problems that desperately needed considerable and quick action and any honest evaluation would conclude that continuing as was, doing nothing or doing too little would result in things getting worse and that just couldn't be tolerated. It is also very obvious that over the previous eight years everything was steadily going down hill as government demonstrated an unconscionable irresponsibility in offering the majority only total apathy, the costs and substantial subterfuge while they totally focused on benefit for Special Interests and a select few who provided overt and covert support, substantial contributions and promises for after office compensation. It should also be honestly admitted that ever since the switch the Republicans have stubbornly worked to block/obstruct every effort and have offered nothing positive and/or constructive. It is in this light, plus the knowledge that Obama has had only ten months and the Republicans are pushing to return to the disastrous 'more of the same', that the criticisms need to be evaluated. I am a moderate conservative and was a Republican (now Independent) who never voted Democratic between JFK and Al Gore and I always seek to be rational in considering my choices. I have never wanted 'big government' but as I see it today significant and rapid changes are absolutely necessary to bring balance back and then the changes really need time to take full affect. In so many areas drastic action is now desperately needed and to stall corrective efforts with fault finding, especially when with questionable purpose, is ridiculous. Whenever a child is running an excessively high temperature one acts quickly to bring it down, without waiting and worrying about taking it too low. Yes, solutions need to be fine tuned and exit strategies need to be developed but that requires responsible representatives honestly working together and without any selfishly motivated critics. Even when considering the hyped-up scare over raising taxes the reality is that, and no one knows it will be, if we incur a modest increase while experiencing a return to a robust economy, the net take-home could be improved; just ask the person without a job what they think. We need the Republicans to once again become honestly concerned and diligently working for the benefit of the majority and the only way that will ever happen is if we reject what they have become!
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/24/2009 6:30:52 PM
Public option is the dumbest thing to do for Democrats. Others aspect of health reform may work, may not (90% chance), but it will be visible in few years. The public insurance, on the contrary, will collapse right away.
Imagine, you force somebody to buy insurance which he does not need and never wanted, what insurance he would buy? Right, the public one, the cheapest. You count that he will not visit doctors, as usual, and therefor will pay for others to help to keep the premium low? Wrong, he will go to doctors right away, it is the psychological factor, if you must pay for something - you will try to get as much as possible in return. So, he will have a lot of "free" check-ups which he never had before, doctors definitely will find something and prescribe some medicine, schedule the next visit, and so on, expenses of the public insurance will be as high as the others'.
Another issue - imagine who will work for private insurance, the same unionized morons which we used to see in goverment offices, their efficiency will be 3 times lower that those in private insurances. On one hand it will make public insurance even more expensive and on another hand will cause stockpiles of unpaid bills (remember cash for clunkers, it was only $3 billion and goverment could not pay in time even such negligent sum of money).
What will happen next? With expenses too high, goverment will have to raise taxes, try to impose lower payment on doctors. In Congress they will debate if it is worthy and sustainable to keep this public insurance, in courts they will consider to close public insurance because it does not pay bills and owes hundreds of billions, doctors will have all the legal reasons to drop participation in such bad insurance, states, if they have the option to quit, will start dropping the insurance (and liberal states will go first).
I vote with both hands for public option.-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/26/2009 10:26:00 PM
bighappy, Do people go and get unnecessary prescriptions because there is a Medicare Drug prescription plan? By the way, that plan was not a funded plan by the Bush administration. I don't think anyone goes to the doctor for fun. Maybe if there is a public option, those who have been putting off going to the dr. because they can't afford it, will finally get the care they need. As it is now, a lot of people who are very sick don't get the care they need, or they wait too long and now it's too late because of the expense. This includes children. You have absolutely no idea how many of your fellow Americans are truly suffering. By denying health-care to others, the Republicans are the REAL death panels. This is just a selfish case of "I've got mine so the heck with everyone else."
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/26/2009 11:42:35 PM
Chris,
Going to doctor for surgery is not fun, but going for checkup is OK, and EVERYBODY with insurance will come.
You can say all you BS about GOP "bastards" denying care needy people, but I told only about the cost here, if you can read. My conclusion is that public option will be unsustainable, inefficient, and will be thrown away very soon either by Congress or by courts (and by doctors and states even earlier).
By the way, another example how goverment is capable manage health care - big fiasco with swine flue vaccine, it even can not estimate how many doses we have (10 million instead of 100 million, definitely not smarter than a first grader). Fortunately it is not lethal flu.-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/27/2009 3:18:40 PM
bighappy,
FIRST, I did not say"bastards" you did. Yes I can read! I don't call names and I expect not to be called names. It dilutes the argument and makes things uncivil.
SECOND, all flu can be lethal, if not treated. Remember the Hong Kong flu on the 70s? A lot of people died. By the way, if you don't have insurance, you will hesitate going to the dr. or taking your child, until it may be too late. That is a fact! I see it it my line of work often.
THIRD, please address why you are ok with the, unfunded, Medicare Prescription plan the Bush administration gave us? I s it because you are taking advantage of it?
FOURTH, Am I wrong in assuming that you are also alright with funding wars, that kill our young people? Those are your taxes, you know! You want to pay less in taxes make less money, like you did in the 70s. This is a very typical plan with Republicans, "let's go back in time" then everything will be swell. Not an option, so get your head out of the sand. It's called progress and as much as you don't like it, the world is proceeding with or without either of our participation. Although, I will admit, I find that the older I get the more difficult change is for me also and I don't have a choice either.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 7:44:18 PM
What wrong with you, Chris? What wrong with most of you, liberals? My post was about particular issue, the prove that public options will not survive more than couple years, and all your answers are - how about Bush, how about elderly, why Obama's treatment of swine flu will cause several deaths (strange, you had to defend Obama administration on this issue, not to exaggerate, maybe your brain functions do not allow you to understand).
If you want to answer - answer with numbers why public insurance will survive regardless of morality. It was only computations, so anybody capable of multiplying 7x8 without calculator give me your calculations back.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/28/2009 12:20:04 PM
Bighappy-
I went back through your posts, and you did not provide any "proof" public options will not survive. Medicair is a public option and so is military healthcare. Both have been in existence for decades.
By the way, what possible computation would you expect to see that would offer an argument that any endeavor will last more than a few years? Please, if you have the answer to that one - do share. Would like to use it to speculate on some equities!!!!
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/28/2009 7:38:13 PM
OK Rob, let compare. Take a look at so familiar to you Germany, they also have public option together with all sorts of private insurances (sorry for confusion, by the way, I meant that German public care is slightly worse that what THEIR private insurances provide, I had to read my post before sending it). It looks like Obama and Pelosi must point fingers on Germany as the encouraging example, but they do not, why? Because for middle-class workers their public care premium is BIGGER the that of the private insurances (as I understand, in Germany public care premium progressively grows with income, and paychecks make bigger hits their that in USA, considering it is only 20% here). They don't pretend it is cheaper, they accept that it more expensive but safe, and does not have medical preconditions. And Germans are very punctual people, they used to finish their work in time, even goverment workers, besides most of Germans are unionized regardless of their workplace, so efficiency of their goverment workers is not so bad.
In USA, on another hand, we don't have enough Germans to do work in time in non-competitive environment, and it is a fact that giverment workers productivity is much, much less then others (I remember somewhere I read 3 times, but I don't insist on this number). As a result, the goverment insurance will have to use more workers that private ones (2-3 times), and it will make expenses difference even bigger. Why they will not pay bills in time? Look how they miscalculated number of available swine flu shots (10 times!!) or "cash for clunkers" - only few $ billion to pay in month, and they are still several $ hundred millions behind, while the public insurance will have to pay $ hundreds billions a year.
Now what will happen when Congress is asked for more money. Because the public option was based on lie (that it would be cheaper and competitive), even Democrats will hesitate to increase the expenses on public option.
Medicare - it is not a fact that it is cheaper, it depends how you calculate (see, for example, Samuelson article), but nobody argue the fact that it provides worse care. And again, Medicare expenses keep growing from year to year (mostly because of rising medical cost), but who would refuse to fund Medicare (except Obama, of course)?-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/29/2009 3:53:28 PM
BigHappy-
Thanks for your thought out response on this subject, and for providing more details on what you understand as the German Health Care system. I have not lived under it, so am only responding based on available public information. I think it would be very beneficial to ask Chris (assuming she has experience under the system) what she believes to be the correct and most accurate version. For example, you and I may read about certain systems, not knowing about others, for example), or we may not exactly get the story straight on costs either.
According to a German website cited in wikipedia: "Approximately 92% of the population is covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status."
According to the WHO: "Currently 85% of the population is covered by a basic health insurance plan provided by statute, which provides a standard level of coverage. The remainder opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits. According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004"
And according to another German publication: "The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive, but whose price may vary based on the individual's health status.
Under Germany's public system: is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage of salaried income (typically 10-15%, depending on the public health insurance company one is in, where half of that is paid by the employer) and includes family members of any family members, or "registered member" ( Familienversicherung - i.e. husband/wife and children are free).
In addition, speaking with my German contemporaries, a retirement pension is required to be paid to all employees at the rate of 70% of working salary.
It appears, from this information, that regardless of a country's working culture, the system is paid for in a multiple of ways, which include those contributions to the private system. In other words, Germany is able to keep insurance costs to as low as 11% GDP because of a complex mix of private and public services.
As for Medicare, is certainly cheaper than other US options, without doubt. I know enough who will testify to that. As for Obama taking money away...it MUST be done for 2 reasons. 1. Medicare in America is barely able to sustain its costs. 2. If HC is to be expanded to other demographics (a public option for more than just elderly, military, and congressmen) Medicare (which rose incredibly under Bush to the tune of about $1 trillion more) will have to make sacrifices. After all, what a small sacrifice to ensure America's children are covered. It must be cut. But to you final point, it will be to the detriment of any politician who does is AARP represents a huge voting block. Bush knew this well. And AARP is only looking after itself, not America. "I'm alright, Jack! PULL UP THE LADDER!"
Chris? Would love to hear from you in this...
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/29/2009 6:42:20 PM
I read similar article about German health care system, and found that several middle class workers were not happy with public option premium and tried to find a private insurance (plus penalty tax) which would be cheaper. Some succeeded, some not because of health preconditions. From this point, as well as your post, we can conclude that German public plan is more expensive for middle-class employees than the public one, and it is in well-organized Germany. Here is the starting point of our estimation how much the public insurance will cost in US.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/29/2009 6:50:57 PM
"From this point, as well as your post, we can conclude that German public plan is more expensive for middle-class employees than the public one, and it is in well-organized Germany. Here is the starting point of our estimation how much the public insurance will cost in US. "
I make no such conclusion, assuming that instead of writing "public" both times, you meant to say the public plan is more expensive than the private one? I doubt that, because the information I read states the rich usually opt for the private plan. The public plan, being a percentage of income, and offering more benefits than private options in the US, seems more attractive and obviously would cost less. Whether or not either plan is better than in the US depends on quality of care, benefits, and price. I don't think we've established that German is more expensive than what we pay here for private. Not only that, in terms of "I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder", the poor have very limited options here, as do the recently unemployed - a problem not facing Germans in such numbers. That is sad, if we are supposed to be the example for the free world, we I think we should be. After all, we wouldn't want to have to say the British Empire was the height of civilization (which it so far appears to be). We would want to take that title...I would think, having pride in our international position.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/29/2009 7:13:47 PM
I mean middle class people, not exclusively rich. For them the public plan is more expensive. I read about American engineer who started working in German company. He was very happy with the quality of German medical help but was shocked that he had to pay sufficiently bigger premium than in USA, private option seemed to be more attractive but they rejected him because of the preconditions. And it is understandable - they have to pay for poor, and German goverment people are smart enough to understand that scaring away doctors (with mandatory low payment) is not the best solution.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 1:21:53 AM
Interesting. I work have German counterparts (same field) and American co-workers who go there often. They've never found the costs to be more expensive than here. Perhaps this gentleman had quite a good deal with his care. I would certainly opt for a percentage than a fixed rate - especially in this economy where we are taking pay cuts left and right. Plus, I believe the German coverage is much more extensive than my plan....which more than doubled for next year.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 8:38:19 PM
Rob,
I found good analysis in
"http://www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/5822193C9542F32386257218006058B4".
In particular:
"Pricing in the Public System. Germans in the public system do not pay an actuarially calculated health insurance premium, but a payroll tax, currently 14.2 percent of their salaries up to a taxable limit o n earnings of ???42,750 per year (US$54,164).1 This process caps the monthly payroll tax at ???506 ($641), with the average being ???241 ($305). "
Compare, US employees in big companies usually pay something like $200 monthly for family coverage.
There you can read other interesting information of European (and USA as well) health care.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:18:07 AM
$200 monthly for families??? WHo's getting that? I want in. Now I enderstand why some think it's a good thing! I pay closer to about $500 a month and my benefits just got cut more for next year, as well as maximum charge, copay, etc... Mine's with Cigna. No - the way Chris described it, where the benefits are sort-of all inclusive in Germany and there are not all these extra costs we have (normal childbirth here no complications cost $7000), I would pay the extra money in a heartbeat!
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 11:31:45 AM
I had Blue Cross, Harward Community, now the same CIGNA, through few middle-size and big-size employers, and never paid more than $200 for family (20%-25% of full premium). When I worked as a contractor and searched for insurance - it indeed was the hell as expensive for individuals, $1500 - $2000, twice as much that they charge companies (by the way, this is one good thing, half-measure, that Obama could do instead of this fraud, and McCain suggested it - force insurances to charge individuals the same premium). Sorry, probably you have to pay much bigger percentage than I do, probably it is my future as well.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:21:16 PM
Wow. When was that? It's certainly not like that in these parts...for any of my peers.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 1:33:09 PM
I don't know what you are talking about, it was always common premium in big companies, till this year. I am not familiar with military coverage, maybe it requires bigger premium because of better care?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 2:34:27 PM
The democrats are getting amnesia. The premium has always been around 200 withthe better or bigger companies picking up some of the premium. It is the me generation trying to get us to pick up the tab.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:37:03 PM
So if I look at my pay statement and it shows that I'm paying nearly $500 a month then I'm getting amnesia? Are you for real? Why does ideology mean I cannot believe what I read on my own pay statement? What kind of a drug is this stuff you guys are being fed?
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 2:45:54 PM
Rob, What do you want me to tell you. I worked for the third largest defense contractor in the world and the premiums for policies with dependents where around 200 a month. Did my pay voucher lie? If your's says 500 then dust of the resume' Get a decent job and pay less. See, solution to your problem without big government involvement
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:07:50 PM
40cons....my medical costs are competitive. These are things I check on. I have family and frieds spread throughout the industry from the LARGEST commercial aviation company to the LARGEST defense contractor agency. Don't know of anyone paying your rates...might have to do with where you live. But hey as I said if your happy with what you have fine. I've seen it better. I want it better. Plus, I believe what our companies have to pay out in employee coverage is forcing them to outsource more manufacturing jobs....bad news.
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 3:34:28 PM
Rob, I am not doing cart wheels over my medical, but it isn't bad. I am lucky that I am healthy and have insurance. My family is also healthy and seldom use it. I just don't think that a 1900 page bill from the Congress is going to help out. All their failed policies started with the best of intentions.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:45:45 PM
40cons-
Forget my last post where we continue comparing insurance. Hey - if you're against this bill because it will do you or your family worse...fine. Leave it at that. Although it is the "I'm alright, Jack. Pull up the ladder" approach - it is pragmatic, which means your concerns are specific to you and I fully understand and cannot argue with you and your interests.
However, from my perspective - rates have already increased immensly on me and mine and coverages, especially what's coming in 2010, are significantly worse (paying up to 50% more for any hospital stays). Our current system is exempt from anti-trust laws and therefore is not an example of a free market industry, which competes (the very reason capitalism works). It is also a dangerous lobby giant in congress, so its influence actually appears socialist by nature. In addition, hospitals aren't transparent as they should be with accidents, quality nor pricing. May be healthy now, but (God forbid) it only takes someone running a red light on you to change all that, or an illness, or birth complication on wife, etc.. I told you how expensive it was to pay for a noncomplicated childbirth recently. In addition, many lawsuits are instigated to cover medical damages...there is another motivation for a plan system that alleviates such worries from the consumer. Bottom line: if GOP thinks everything is fine (and they must because they have yet to propose any reform) then they are a party to be avoided. I hope things continue well for you...otherwise the GOP may lose another supporter.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 6:27:56 PM
"Bottom line: if GOP thinks everything is fine (and they must because they have yet to propose any reform)" - it is a lie, Rob. GOP tried several times, and unsuccessfully because of Democrats obstruction, to reduce doctors liability. McCain also proposed to allow individuals participate in "corporate" insurances (which big companies have) which are twice as cheaper (sort of indefinitely extended COBRA).
I don't know to whom to say "you lie" - to you or to Obama (like one now well known Congressman did) who fed you with false information.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:45:32 AM
Those GOP initiatives may have improved some conditions, but not nearly enough to be reform, which is what is needed. COBRA is a very expensive preogram ($1000 a month). So, if you think I am presenting false information, please don't say "lie" because that would mean it's intentional. And that is disingenuous. You present the counter punch data and I read and react to it. You cannot step back and just say, "you lie". I don't do that to you, and I expect the same treatment.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:16:44 PM
Yes, those are half measures from my point of view (you know, I am against any health insurance), but those very measures will have great impact, unlike current fraud.
Reducing lawsuit liability will drastically reduce doctors insurances and therefore the medical costs. Democrats could only justify their opposition with mumbling about protecting poor people from bad negligent doctors, even n Europe their own colleges proved that it is nonsense.
Allowing to join n "corporate" pool will reduce premium for the same poor and other uninsured and will reduce their number. Yes, even Cobra is pretty expensive, but still twice as cheaper that "individual" insurance and still sustainable for big, even poor, families. I know several people (contractors) who gladly kept going with COBRA but dropped medical insurance as soon as 18 months had expired.
If it is not a lie to hide and diminished advantages of those GOP proposals, than how to define the lie?
But relax, you may be misled by Obama as several lower educated people, I assume that it is his lie, not yours.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:23:35 AM
bighappy -
Your insincerity does not help this debate. A lie is a willful deceipt. I am not lying. In order for mine to be a lie one of two things would have to be true. 1. I know the facts and are purposely misrepresenting them. 2. I believe everything you state and purposely ignore facts that would disprove a counterpoint. Neither of those 2 options are true. You are beginning to allow your emotions to take over the rational portions of your argument. That is just as evil as lying.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:28:13 PM
"Neither of those 2 options are true." - prove it. What is not true, that GOP proposed them and Democrats rejected (at least the liability ease), or that it would not reduce medical costs?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 11:00:31 AM
You want me to prove it is not true that..."1. I know the facts and are purposely misrepresenting them. 2. I believe everything you state and purposely ignore facts that would disprove a counterpoint."? You really need me to prove those statements are not true? Is this a joke?
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/05/2009 12:30:23 AM
These two statement completely kill you theory of GOP obstruction of health care reforms, and you still have nothing to say. Then keep your silence, it is golden in your case.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 11:18:27 AM
BigHappy,You do understand that what you are asking me to do is to prove to you that I am thinking in a certain way? Does this still make sense to you? Didn't you just tell me to think about what I am posting? If there is a God in heaven - let you heed your own words. ...or at least pass on the name of that excellent bud you are inhaling nightly. It may have killed all your brain cells, but the high must be fascinating...like you're walking on mars...perhaps you are...-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/06/2009 1:20:08 AM
Rob, are you drunk? My advice, drink something in the morning to ease the hangover, then read the rest.
Another good news for you, Rob. GOP officially published their health plan couple days ago. It consists only of 200+ pages (so it is possible even for you to read the last page without forgetting the first 1000), will cost zero, and ... surprise, surprise, it includes those two issues - liability and over-the-borders insurance.
Understood? Now you have choice - either to drink again and answer in the same style, or answer my question - why Democrats are against liability ease and why it would not help to cut the medical cost.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 11:49:46 AM
BigHappy -
Please - before you begin responding....go back and reread the posts from which our conversations originate. I do. That is where I went and saw that you are asking me to provide evidence that I was thinking a certain way and therefore was not lying. You seem to be just seeing the current post and reacting. As I stated before, I'm not interested in whether you think I'm drunk, dreaming, whether you are laughing...etc. That is just noise. I am ony interested in the subject - nothing else. I assure you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 11/01/2009 5:15:23 PM
Rob, my biggest problem with all this healthcare talk is that I know most of it could be solved with a "mandatory" PT program. People simply need to get off the butt. Most peoples aches and pains would go away if they would work out. But, we can't get in someone's "grille" today and tell them that they are fat. That is being "too" conservative. Haha!
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:30:45 AM
40cons.
Point taken. However, the "most of it" part, I have issues with. People go bankrupt paying for issues related to cancer, car accidents, genetic illnesses, etc, etc... neither of which are necessarily related in any way to obesity. In adidtion, to your point, many cures to illnesses can be treated by nutritional advice. Why do doctors not even consider that as an alternative? I hear from people just having bypass surgeries, bragging that their diet wasn't the cause (even though they are well overwieght). Go to a doctor for heartburn and they prescribe a medication instead of asking how much coffee you drink, or what you are eating, or what foods you react to. None of this...they just hear your symptoms, type in a prescription in the computer, and you are out the door in 5 minutes. There is more focus on drug prescriptions, and enable these fat people to continue down their destructive paths than anything to the contrary. We give people pills for losing weight, telling them they can continue hoarding down dollops of ice cream, complain about why fat people are not considered attractive, etc... The whole systems in America is an enabler. Why? It's a big market (pharmeceuticals, fast food, junk food, etc)...and we wouldn't want to get in the way of that now, would we. So, while they have ultimate control over their bodies, you also have a system that 100% encourages this lifestyle. This is not a question of responsibility, it is a quesiton of whether or not you really want to solve this problem.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/01/2009 7:59:36 PM
40,
You want a mandatory PT program, I'm ok with that. You're right, prevention is an answer. While you're at it let's get rid of all the soda, french fries, candy bars, pizza, hamburgers [the lettuce and ketchup don't count as vegetables], in the school and at home. That's just feeding the kids poison. Of course you've got to give them healthy alternatives and that's not always the cheapest way to go. So, parents and school districts need to, be prepared to spend a little more but the payoff is there.
I think you might be a little out of touch with the idea that a good job is tied to lower premiums. I have a good job, my husband does, my son-in-law works for a MAJOR telecommunications company and has a lot of zeros on his paycheck. What does that mean ? It means we can all afford our premiiums, for now. It does not mean that we have low premiums or that they are not going up every year. All of my immediate family are educated and have pretty darned good jobs, We are spread from Kansas City to Calif, to Wyoming, to Oregon. Nobody has a premium even close to $200 per month. If you are fortunate to have that low of a premium,, stay where you are and don't let anyone get really sick because that's a golden policy. God forbid, if something unforseen happens, like cancer [which does not descriminate by age], you will have your "health-care moment" things will change and I guarantee, you will see things in a different light. I wish you all the very best of health!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:26:20 PM
Drop army, Rob, be a civilian, hopefully for couple years you will see your premium far below $500.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:17:21 AM
$500 is civilian premium. I paid nothing in the Army.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:21:25 PM
So, you must pay 50% of premium?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:26:16 AM
perhaps my nomenclature is not correct. Let's make it simpler. I pay $500 per month out of my pocket for my civilian (and very competitive) insurance.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 6:20:50 PM
Rob, I also want to make health care cheaper, but why your Democrats resist to make one logical step to fix (even it will be a temporary fix) what separates us from Europe - drastically reduce doctors liability?
Their Democrats in Europe are not such insane not to understand it. No surprise psychiatrists here are not the best paid doctors, because good part of Democrats in Congress thinks they don't needs their help.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:41:56 AM
bighappy -
While I'm not a Democrat, they are currently the only ones offering a reform. Like to see one from the moderate side of the Republicans...but haven't. Once one is passed, as all programs, it can be improved. I'll admit, because of US economy, now is not the best time to begin this process.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:19:43 PM
Rob,
I already showed you how significant GOP proposals are, and they will not cost a penny, recession or not.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:25:03 AM
While they are better than nothing, they do not address root cause and therefore are insufficient for true hc reform.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:40:25 PM
Bighappy-
Active military pays nothing...period.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:28:50 PM
Can you explain, I don't understand. Do you mean that active military do not have to pay anything for their family coverage (probably it is fair)? Or they have to buy insurance on their own and allowed to pay some reduced "corporate" rate?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/29/2009 7:26:37 PM
"the poor have very limited options here" - yes, with current insurance system. Besides, they will have exactly the same options with public health care, the same very long lines in few hospitals accepting the public insurance. On one hand, they will still feel better because are covered some way, on another hand they will have less places to go, instead of emergency rooms in practically any hospital (and hospitals are obliged to treat them for free) they will have very limited set of medical facilities.
As Glenn Beck said (sometimes he is right, you know), in old good times rich people helped poor directly (charities, contributions, etc.), and now they pay the same money to the goverment middlemen and only part of it comes to the poor. Like I give money to my daughter for her dog, dog licks her and barks on me.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 1:24:06 AM
That's not how the wording of the proposed plan goes at all. Poor and unemployed will pay next to nothing. Read it. It also requires hospitals to accept such coverage.
Sorry - I don't think I would ever agree with anything Beck says.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 8:26:25 PM
I am not sure how they can oblige private hospitals to do it. Now doctors have freedom to reject participation in any insurance, will this freedom (of doing business, whatever cynically it sounds but health care is also business) be violated?
About Glenn Beck - you should not believe anything he said, but I heard from one of his conservative guests or him, I don't remember, the same Franklin citation which you use here.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:14:44 AM
With government uarantee, they will not reject it...that's how they can make acceptance mandatory. As for poor...they are to get subsidies.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 11:41:19 AM
"With government uarantee, they will not reject it..." - what guarantee, Rob? Not to cut their salaries more than 50%? To reprieve them from lawsuits (GOP idea, Democrats always tried to make doctors more liable, this is one of the main reasons that medical help here is 2-3 times more expensive that in Europe)?
With such "guarantees" doctors will prefer rather to run away from big hospitals (on which goverment may be capable of imposing such demands) and open their private practice.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/31/2009 12:03:28 AM
Rob,
I have never had to live under the German system because we left when I was very young. Yet, I do have several relatives, that I am in contact with and close to, who do. I hear them complain, moan and groan about the cost, just as we do. Although, when they get sick, they brag endlessly, about the great care they get. My relatives seem to take for granted that they have no deductibles, no co-pays, that insurers can't raise your premiums if you get sick or older. You are not penalized for having a pre-existing condition. Yes the premiums are based on a percentage of your salary but the big deal , to me, is everyone gets the same quality of care. They don't have the division of quality of care between the classes as we do. I've heard about the nonprofit insurer called a "sickness plan." Yes, you pay for it too.
My most personal story is about my cousin Uli. He had non-hodgkins lymphoma for 14 yrs, in and out of remission. His occupation was policeman, in Berlin and his wife was also on the police force. Yes, he did eventualy die, but in the interim years, he never was worried about losing his job, nor was his wife. After each of his series of treatments, during his recovery, his wife was paid to stay home and care for him. When he was ill, post radiation, he, his wife and child were sent to a resort outside the city to recover. That seems to be part of of the :sickness plan." Also, never was there a threat of bankruptcy, because of the mounting medical treatments, unlike here. They had a vacation house and never worried about losing it either. There was even enough money for he and his family to come visit the U.S. every two to three years. Can you imagine, being that ill and not having to worry about the mounting debt or providing for your family? What a burden that took off the family! When he was able to go back to work, they moved him to a desk job, so he was still productive. No "take a disability and stay home." That would be unproductive!. According to my relatives it is unthinkable that anyone, in the U.S., would be medically uncovered. You know how "those" German's are? They can be a little arrogant , think our system is barbaric and boast about the quality and efficiency of theirs. Perhaps they are more about the family than we progressive westerners are.
I want to find out where to get a $200 a month policy without a big deductible.
I-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/31/2009 2:09:26 PM
Chris...thanks for your input. Great perspective. I imagined that costs would not be minimal as I read more, but also that coverage would be more complete. For anyone who has had any serious injury/illness...they will appreciate the value of that system.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/27/2009 9:56:57 PM
bighappy,
"Fortunately it is not lethal flu." Those are your words! You did say you are against "ANY" insurance, right? You did say you wanted to go back to the 70s, right? Keep in mind, you did not have a computer to vent on then. You did say that Germany had "worse" quality of health-care, right? Did I or did I not respond to each of those statements?
Let me ask you. What are you for? I know what you're against, but what are your solutions, other than going back in time, [yeah me too, I wanna be 22 again] tax cuts and more money in your pocket?
I thought I made some pretty specific statements. I even numbered them for you. I asked you some questions which you won't respond to. Also, I am aware that I didn't give you any calculations. I could look some up, but you would dispute them because you wouldn't like my sources. We can all pick and choose our sources here. That is why I very rarely give numbers here. Someone will argue with them, come up with their own numbers, it goes back and forth and it means nothing.
True, my opinion is clouded by personal experience and yes, I admit to being a bleeding heart liberal. I am also a very practical and fairly efficient person. We Germans, you know! Tomorrow, I will go to work and look into the faces of hurting, sometimes dying, often poor, under- insured or uninsured people. Probably, the highest praise I've ever gotten, at work, was from a patient who said "You are in the perfect job, for you." Come walk a mile in my shoes, look into those faces and then we'll talk. Until then, I see you as a very angry, person [feel free to correct me] and while I feel bad about it, I refuse to become that. Admittedly, you do get under my skin. However, I will stand my ground!
P.S. I have yet to figure out your " moniker", since I have yet to see one "happy", positive, even sightly good natured or humorous post from you.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/28/2009 12:05:50 AM
So, Chris, no numbers, I came with pure calculation - you responded with pure emotions, like "yes, we can, Obama is our prophet, he is always right". Just cry and "stay your ground", huh?. Crying people never can be trusted and never solved any problems.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/28/2009 7:01:07 PM
Chris, if you did not read my post to Rob, I apologize, I did not suspect you are a woman, "Chris" name is so deceptive. It is OK for women to cry (no offense), I respect it.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/29/2009 12:21:58 AM
bighappy,
Yup, it's Chris, short for Helga Christel. I accept the apology, but you won't be surprised that I don't think that anybody should speak to another person in that way, no matter what the gender. It goes back to my civility argument. There doesn't seem to be any physical strength involved in blogging, so it shouldn't really matter, what my gender is. We are all equal opportunity bloggers here. I look forward to seeing debates from you here, but on another level, whether they be aimed at a male or female. Perhaps you'll be able to communicate your point in a more receptive way.
I'm sure don agrees with your point on this health-care issue more than he does mine. It may get heated, at times, yet we manage to have opposing opinions and still come out of the ring and shake hands even if we both have black eyes and a couple of teeth missing. It's obvious, by now that neither don, Rob or I have a glass jaw. We usually live to fight another day.Plenty of room here for differing opinions, in fact they are welcome and encouraged. One of my many, oh so many, very solid points, is that there is no need to get in the gutter with our discussions.
Glad to here that you don't have a habit of abusing women [ in any form] in your own life. I try not to abuse men as well. I actually enjoy it when someone doesn't know my gender when responding to me, gives me a chance to observe there real style.,incognito. So, keep on fighting the good fight. Good debate is healthy. Yet, I still don't see where I was "crying" because even though I'm; not one to "use" tears, it's ok for men to cry too. We women find that sensitive, if they're sincere.
So bighappy maybe we've both learned something today, not to judge a book by it's cover and we are alive to come out swinging on any other given day. I look foreward to debateing you on another issue, which we will both, no doubt, feel equally passionate about. I promise not to cry. But I might be packin' heat.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 12:27:16 AM
OK, Helga, do you work in a hospital?
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/31/2009 4:17:24 PM
bighappy,
Although many people mistake it for a hospital because of it's size, I actually work in a very large medical clinic in Oregon. The clinic is open on weekends, so there are walk-ins and an emergent care sense as well. We have, at last count, 14 providers, with more to come. Seven of the original providers bought the practice from another group ten years ago. So, in every sense of the word, the doctors are my bosses and they own me too. The practice employs about 140 people full and part time [which is what I am]. We are pretty all inclusive, with full service lab and radiology. Mostly family practice and a couple of specialists [endocrinology]. When I started, we had many specialties from oncology to dermatologists, but they broke off. I've been in the same building for 19 yrs. To their credit, they try to keep it as "mom and pop" as they can and pride themselves in being approachable. It's called a lattice system, where everyone is equal and the providers work very hard to keep it that way.There are no arrogant docs, some more temperamental than others and everyone is on a first name basis. We are all friendly enough that 40 or more folks, in our practice, came to my daughter's wedding, five years ago. My husband and I thought they should have made it a clinic "retreat" so some of the expense would have been charged to the business. Our daughter worked there, in clinical, before she moved away. The system is very family friendly. My job is in the lab,[ we must work all lab depts.including microbiology] so I will know if you are pregnant, having a heart attack or have strep throat before you do. I am pretty proud of where I work and the high level of service we provide. It can be a pressure cooker, but it's all about the patient.and everyone better take their job very seriously or else they are outta there.
What is or was your profession? I'd be interested in knowing what part of the country you live in, if you feel like sharing.
Peace,
Helga aka "chris"-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/31/2009 5:47:08 PM
Helga,
I had technical education, PhD in Physics and Applied Math. I worked as a Scientific Researcher for military and not for military, now I am a computer programmer.
Currently I live in Florida.-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/01/2009 12:37:32 AM
big,
Wow ph.d in physics and applied math. Very impressive. As you've already guessed. I've only got the B.S.in science from OHSU.While I loved the clinical part, the pounding the books in especially math was hard.. Coulda used you as a tutor. Can't even talk about physics without breaking into a rash. Actually ,I started out in liberal arts and social science,, was going to be a social worker and drifted,off into something completely different. Had some good profs who guided me along or I'd have never made it. That explains why you are stats and facts driven .I on the other hand lean to the personal experiences,yeah, bleeding heart liberal, part of the experiences. We'll never agree. That''s OK. Maybe we will come to a respectful meeting of the minds occasionally. Just don't expect facts and figures. As you implied, different brains process things differently...-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 11:51:54 AM
Yes, Helga, I rely on common sense and believe only in solid facts, not emotions. There were times when I believe that only people from poor families could understand the misery of other poor people rather than greedy capitalists, not anymore, people from poor families in power so far managed to bring only hell on Earth.
It was time when I believed that economy is a science like math and physics and therefore economists are smarter than us in this area - it appeared to be mostly untrue, economists are as much partisan as politicians.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:35:06 PM
BigHappy-
You refer to hell on earth brought to us by the poor. Is this "hell" in America? Do you have a personal tragedy that has occurred because of poor people being in power? If so, I'm sorry to hear that. But am interested to hear what happened, if you don't mind sharing.
You are a phd in Physics, so you have posted. So during your schooling you must have been introduced to the mathematics and variables that make up economies. How is it you think partisanship has been introduced to politics? I think there is something to that belief...but am very hesitant on a blanket statement that might sound as if "baby" is being tossed out with the "bathwater". For example, why had Greenspan kept interest rates so low and not reacted to obvious signs of this coming crash as far back as 2006?...or even 2004, when our accounts deficit had just reached record levels? I think the bailing out of the banks was not so much partisanship as it was a bandaid that had not addressed any root causes. I know many in finance careers now who complain these banks are still tight with lending to small and medium size businesses. And also understand that bank rebounding has occrurred solely because of putting bailout money into the stockmarket...not from any "business" actions. THe problems were never solved.
Furthermore, as someone (as I assume you are) educated to the US system quite a bit more than undergraduate schooling, I am not fooled for a second that there is really that much that distinguishes the Democrats from the Repulicans (minus media propaganda - which is really just a distractor). I think more than anything else, Obama's presidency should have highlighted to any reasonable person that the Democrats and Republican really support the same policies. Sure there are distractors (abortion controlled by central government, gun control laws to monitor sales, and other social moral issues)...but the real (foreign policy, financial and economic) policies never change. Time to dump the red and blue filtered glasses and let's take a look at the real America.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:42:22 PM
Rob,
"You refer to hell on earth brought to us by the poor. Is this "hell" in America? " - no, not in America yet. But look, besides communist regimes, on Africa, Latin America, Saddam's Iraq.
About economists - I stopped believing them during real estate boom (several years before the bust), when they tried to prove that those crazy prices are justified. Economy is not a precise science, only part of it is scientific. You can not find physicists speaking differently of Newton laws, but in economy you have as many opinions as number of economists. Don't ask me what those economists were doing or were thinking, my point is that they had different opinions and explanations and are good only explaining what happened and how.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:21:39 AM
The poor didn't bring you those, bighappy. If you look into those who began revolutions and managed to acquire popular supprt, they are seldom poor people. Not even Che was poor. They get poor to vote or support them, but that is because when you have a group of people with nothing to lose, you can convince them to support anything (Chavez, for example). In addition, people like Sadaam came to power with the full suppport of the US, and stayed in power (Piinochet) again, with full support of the US (School of the Americas). There is much history on this and much government evidence (FOIA). If these are "hells" on earth, the devil is your neighbor.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 6:57:17 PM
"If you look into those who began revolutions and managed to acquire popular supprt, they are seldom poor people" - partially correct, but see who supported them, who occupied majority of new government positions and finally even threw away old "revolutioneers" and consolidated full power.
If you think that several African, Asian, Latin American and even European regimes founded and governed by former poor people were not hells on Earth for ordinary civilians - I understand why you support Obama.
And that USA supported them, does not change anything.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:14:43 AM
My statement about Revolutions occurring to have brought in communism was not to show the types of people who usher in new regimes (although this is an interesting subject in itself and should be treated with much more than a statement or 2 that these were poor people), but to show that countries don't "ease" into such totalitarian regimes. They are revolted into. Your belief that Europe because of having a few more socialized institutions than America is therefore headed to communism is not a sound position to take, based on historical precedent. In all cases, such a revolution is sold to the people (by those of influence - not the poor) based on very tough conditions (of which Russian history greatly demonstrates) and the idea that wealth will be equalized in an otherwise very unequal society. The opposite is the case in socialized systems of Europe. So a revolution would be a very hard sell...a totalitarian alternative is just not attractive when you're not suffering.
Neither USSR, nor N. Korea, nor communist Cuba, nor China (all communist countries) were founded by poor...nor former poor.
In fact, in some very rare cases, I give you that if by poor you mean uneducated (Chavez, for example) - they certainly can create a hell on earth. However, the rich have a much worse history in terms of governments turned totalitarian and corrupt. For it takes brains to pull off such schemes, as well as money (Maddoff, for example, on a micro scale).
If you feel I have missed the point or that you disagree still - please provide at least a country or 2 for example so I can get the gist of you message.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/03/2009 9:37:01 PM
"Neither USSR, nor N. Korea, nor communist Cuba, nor China (all communist countries) were founded by poor...nor former poor." - yes, they were!
N.Korea and even China right from the beginning, Russia wiped out their original leaders in 10 years, and EVERYBODY in Stalin administration had roots from poor families, including himself. Stalin completely overdid what old "intelligent" Revolution "guards" had in mind. Castro himself and his brother were not poor, but how many such middle-class representatives were in his government after couple years?-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/04/2009 11:05:25 AM
No the were not poor. Your stretching hard to rectify yourself here. But you're wrong and you should concede.
1. N. Korea - Kim Il Sung - Gained power through an ancestral seat of Chonju, born of wealthy parents.
2. Stalin didn't found communism in Russia, so your Stalin argument is irrelevant.
3. Fidel Castro came from money. So Cuban communism wasnt founded by the poor.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/01/2009 5:23:35 PM
Rob,
If you don't mind my asking, how did you become a moderate, independent or whatever you call yourself, while having a career in the military. From my limited experience, most people who choose the military life are more conservative and Republican leaning. You don't fit the mold. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm curious as to how you arrived at what, I perceive, to be more liberal and of the minority in an military environment. Is it a profession you chose or fell into? Perhaps I'm stereotyping and need to be straightened out. Then again, maybe I need to mind my own business. That's ok too.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:39:52 AM
Chris,
I was always moderate. I was brought up to ask quesitons about everything and not accept "conventional wisdom" without substantial reason. Grew up arguing and debating really. As for the military, while there are many on the far right...there are also many moderates...at least career folks. I joined the military with a single goal...I always wanted to fly (extreme risk taker) and at the time, I used to say "military might is right"...so being much younger, I wanted to fly in a war. I spent my 20s trying to be a pilot. I spent my 30s trying to get out of it. As you age, if you are reasonable, you see enough bad things to moderate your attitude. For me, ageing itself, made me tire of the military and people telling me what to do. When I finally left active duty, I told my leaders I wanted to work for a company where people could be fired. I called them all socialists. They didn't like that - but in fact, that is what they were. They would grandstand politically against such a lifestyle while basking in the same. As for deploying, mission execution, and war, my politics never affected my support for ALL soldiers. I learned a long time ago not to lose friends based on ideology. Hence, my respect for the pragmatist.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/02/2009 2:55:06 PM
Rob,
Thanks for sharing your story. You have an interesting perspective on the military as a career. especially like hearing about how your ideology [for want of a better word] evolved over time. Sounds like you've got a little rebel in you, but also have learned diplomacy. Or maybe that just came naturally. I feel better knowing there are some more moderate, men and women in our military. I respect them all. While most of the men in our family have served, they've had the enlisted or drafted 2 or 3 yr. experience. Each did serve in war, so I've gotten that perspective, when they've felt like sharing. As my husband, who went to Vietnam ,all gung ho, said, " seeing the suffering and dying makes you grow up and sucks the wind right out of your, young, sails".
Thanks for sharing and for your service.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 4:07:10 PM
Chris,
Hats off to your husband. Actually, you got me thinking about moderacy in the military...and there are many, many examples of soliders who do not tow the extreme GOP line:
Iraqi veterans against the war:
.ivaw.org
Soldiers for the truth (a group put together by a vietnam hero who at one time during his life was the most decorated living soldier, COL. Dave Hackworth - rest his soul).
sftt.org
Veterens against the Iraq War:
vaiw.org
and many many more....
In fact, how do you turn a hard right GOP into a moderate? Send him into combat. Once someone experiences the vast waste, chaos, and destruction of war, they would never again choose to wage it unless absolute imminent threat to their survival is at stake. It does indeed take the wind out of you. Ask Senator Jim Webb - Democrat and 3 tour hero Marine in Vietnam, who had been fighting Bush Administration attempts at cutting veteran's benefits during the time he asked American military men and women complete dedication in fighting his 2 simulteneous wars (not to mention the very nefarious global war on terror (GWOT)). Bush Administration? Chicken Hawks = leaders who crave war desparately, but have never served a day in combat. That's the GOP.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 4:05:54 PM
Chris,
Hats off to your husband. Actually, you got me thinking about moderacy in the military...and there are many, many examples of soliders who do not tow the extreme GOP line:
Iraqi veterans against the war:
Soldiers for the truth (a group put together by a vietnam hero who at one time during his life was the most decorated living soldier, COL. Dave Hackworth - rest his soul):
http://www.sftt.org/Veterens against the Iraq War:
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.phpand many many more....
In fact, how do you turn a hard right GOP into a moderate? Send him into combat. Once someone experiences the vast waste, chaos, and destruction of war, they would never again choose to wage it unless absolute imminent threat to their survival is at stake. It does indeed take the wind out of you. Ask Senator Jim Webb - Democrat and 3 tour hero Marine in Vietnam, who had been fighting Bush Administration attempts at cutting veteran's benefits during the time he asked American military men and women complete dedication in fighting his 2 simulteneous wars (not to mention the very nefarious global war on terror (GWOT)). Bush Administration? Chicken Hawks = leaders who crave war desparately, but have never served a day in combat. That's the GOP.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 12:23:19 PM
Big-
What about common sense led you to believe (nonexistent) taxes caused this current or any other recesison/depression? I'm surprised a man with your education allows himself believe such (contrary to common sense) theories.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 1:29:51 PM
Rob, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Once you said I was for higher taxes, now I "said" that current recession (future depression or in the best case stagflation) is caused by higher taxes. Not yet, because it appeared to be a regular recession, before Obama and Bush post-October insanity. We definitely will have higher taxes soon, and you will see what happen.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 3:02:11 PM
BigH
All I bring to these posts is what I read from them. I began debating you about this tax causing depression issue, then donald came in to your defense. His last statement on this was that I couldn't deny taxes incentivized actions (or something along those lines), which has nothing to do with the fact that taxes have not been raised and therefore cannot have had anything to do with this recession...nor did they have anything to do with the Great Depression - as they were raised 3 years after it hit...and by that time, the economy was stabilizing....not getting worse because of taxes. If you want to now take the position that that is not the case, I'm fine with that. That would certainly be more reasonable to understand alot more goes into such catastrophies than these simple (and seemingly partisan) explanations.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 4:44:03 PM
My opinion is simple - raising taxes during recession is grave and idiotic mistake.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/02/2009 11:23:18 AM
If you don't believe in economists or that economy is opinion....you can't be so sure of this statement as to call those who raise taxes "idiotic". This dogmatic position, negates completely your previous statement on the ambiguity of the eocnomy. In fact, taxes were raised in 1932 and did not have a negative impact.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/02/2009 7:01:10 PM
Rob,
You are trying your games again. I did not say that it is idiotic to raise taxes, I said it is idiotic during recession.
Second, raising taxes in 1932 produced 2 worst years of Big Depression, in fact 1932 and 1933 defined the Big Depression, before they named it big recession.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/03/2009 11:18:44 AM
Bigh-
Forgive me if my response appears as a game. Not intended to do so. Just trying to understand your position. In the depression, each successive year was worse than the previous, as the economy was in a declining state. What economists measure in such circumstance is not year over year, but rather acceleration or deceleration of the depression. If you look at the numbers which define a depression (unemployment), you'll see that it actually stabilized in 1933 (after tax hikes) and the decline shallowed out dramatically. Prior to 1932, the decline was accelerating very rapidly, unemployment from about 9% in 1929 to almost 30% by 1932. I'm not saying taxes slowed the decline, but they certainly did not make it worse. That would be a very hard sell indeed. In fact, only a couple of years later, and we had a recovery....same taxes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 11/01/2009 4:53:03 PM
bighappy,
Since I am in a science related field, obviously I have to do the cut and dried facts and logic thing when I am on "the bench" at work. There is the other side, which is not so black and white, that is the very real person on the receiving end of what I do. I must take down the wall, separate the two and try to balance. Since it's obvious that our life experiences shape our opinions or beliefs, I have a question for you. When you state " people from poor families, in power, so far managed to bring only hell on Earth, where is that coming from? Please elaborate and help me understand your thought process of how you came to that conclusion. Make it simple, because I'm not as smart as you.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 6:06:24 PM
Helga,
Probably I had to be more specific about "people from poor family in power" I meant not single person in government but a party lead by such people, like communists, nationalists, or even fascists. I already answered to Rob, but will repeat here.
We know about communist regimes in USSR, Eastern Europe, Korea, Cuba, etc. So are and were several regimes in Africa, Latin America, Saddam's Iraq. Do you understand now my way of thinking?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/28/2009 12:21:13 PM
don - you going to let bighappy speak like this to our female posters? Remember your words on chivalry...
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/28/2009 3:32:14 PM
Rob007:don - you going to let bighappy speak like this to our female posters? Remember your words on chivalry...-------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about, Rob? Chris is not made out of glass. She gives back as good as she gets. And I doubt that she would appreciate a male coming to her defense just because she is a woman. As a matter of fact I would pity anyone, who is not up to the game, who tried to take on Chris. She does not suffer fools gladly. That is why I admire her so much.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/28/2009 9:46:46 PM
don,
High praise, I'll take it! You know how we "girls" are, flattery will get you just about anywhere.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/28/2009 10:24:22 PM
chris s.:don, High praise, I'll take it! You know how we "girls" are, flattery will get you just about anywhere.---------------------------------------------------------
It would only be flattery if it wasn't true, Chris. I do pity those unsuspecting posters who get skewered with your 6 inch stiletto heel before they know which end is up. It's like lambs to the slaughter.
I've seen you in action and have even suffered some of your barbs myself. You are a formidable opponent and people had better be on their game before they take you on. Your best weapon is your sense of humor which is so lacking among many of the bloggers here.
It is my distinct pleasure to have met you.
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/28/2009 3:35:48 PM
I have a feeling this post is going to come in handy. Saved.
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/28/2009 9:55:10 PM
Rob,
You guys are so funny. Just what I needed after a long day. Made me laugh out loud and I appreciate that.. -
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/28/2009 3:44:07 PM
Rob007:I have a feeling this post is going to come in handy. Saved.-------------------------------------------------------
Don't you save all my posts, Rob?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/28/2009 6:54:59 PM
No don...just the special ones. You know my game:)
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/28/2009 8:27:55 PM
Rob007:No don...just the special ones. You know my game:)---------------------------------------------------------------
They are all special ones, Rob.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/28/2009 12:14:56 PM
Watch you manners, Bighappy...and keep to the subject. Seems Chris' experience is relevant. Treat her with respect.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/28/2009 6:58:40 PM
Chris is she?? I did not know it, probably because I did not communicate with her as often as you did.
Chris, I apologize, i would never speak to woman this way.
-
-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/28/2009 10:43:05 AM
bh,
Stop putting words in my mouth! I can speak for myself and don't appreciate being misquoted! Too emotional for you? Sorry about that, deal with it! You sound mighty emotional to me, only in a very angry way.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/27/2009 12:29:56 AM
BigH -
Swine flu can be lethal, depending on age (small children) and secondary infections. But why should we allow the government to distribute a vaccine? Isn't that also public health care? Why would we trust the vaccine if we cannot trust government? By the way, they do a great job with health care in the military and also for every single congressman. If it's such a pariah, why don't we stop congress from having it? If it's so bad, why don't they vote it out so they don't get it? If it's so costly to have a government healthcare program, why are countries like Germany spending less as a percentage of their GDP than we are? We are spending more money on this privatized monopoly we support than many countrires on thier national health. This wonderful private system is not even participating in the free market. It is exempt from antitrust laws and gets support from govt.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 1:09:59 AM
Swine flu, fortunately, is less lethal that a regular flu. Don't ask me why goverment decided to distribute it, regular flu shots so far have been distributed effectively by insurances and hospitals, probably it is special case because of vaccine shortage.
As for Germany lower medical cost (with worse quality, but not much, unlike other countries, because it is Germany with their traditional punctuality) - as you must remember I am against ANY medical insurance, I want back in 1970s when medical costs were 3 times cheaper (related to salaries).-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/27/2009 6:14:06 PM
bighappy,
Contrary to what you said, the Swine Flu is not less lethal than the regular flu. This is important because I don't want that myth out there. ALL flu can be dangerous and life threatening. It can be very serious and people should not ignore it. Don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone thinking "it's just the flu" and dying. It happens! It happened to my 29 yr.old sister-in-law in Jan. 1970. She left behind two young children. IT WAS JUST THE FLU!
How is it that you are so familiar with the poor quality of health-care in Germany? Please don't cherry pick your sources. Either visit there and experience it first hand or talk to someone who has.
If you are against all health insurance, I hope you put your money where your mouth is and deny Medicare, if you are now eligible, or decline it when you are. But we'll never really know will we? That's one of the great things about the anonymity of the internet. -
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/27/2009 12:38:33 PM
BigH -
Why government distribiuted swine flu: Answer - it is now considered a pandemic. Once something is a pandemic, the government gets involved (all ogvernments, all over the world). Because of something being a pandemic it is treated differently, which has nothing to do with lethality. That is how the system works.
You can't say Germany has worse quality HC without references and criteria. The WHO ranks its HC many levels above the US. They use statistics like infant mortality, longevity, causes of death, etc... I'm interested in those statistics. Those are the ones that affect me. Ideology seems never to affect me, until some silly policy gets passed in support of such meaningless ideology.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Jay Yo @ 11/05/2009 3:52:34 PM
Eleanor Clift,
Like most important decisions this government makes, the health care reform will take a long time to perfect. Although the Democrats have the odds stacked in their favor, there is no guarantee that a new health care system is in the near future. Although this column is well written and has some good points, I feel as though it was not necessary to write. Are you trying to simply update the status of the health care reform or persuade people to support it? Either of those can be seen on CNN at least every 3 hours. And then we don???t have to read long columns we can sit back and watch while the bright minds of television enlighten us on the status of the brilliant new health care system that is going to be put in place. I think your prediction of Thanksgiving or even Christmas for a bill to be put on President Obama???s desk is ridiculous. Are you trying to put hope back in those who thought change would occur January 21st 2009? You do say that ???our system is designed to take a long time.??? This statement is true, but I don???t think you understand the concept of long time. Some of the most important bills ever passed have taken years to perfect, so be patient Eleanor, we will see a new health care system before summer time.
-Jay Yo athens ga
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 11/05/2009 12:52:22 PM
For eight years the Republican Party strongly and stubbornly supported everything the Bush Administration did as it totally placated and patronized Special Interests and a select few, done with an in-your-face arrogance. Together they irresponsibly and unconscionably encouraged the dishonesty, self-indulgence and neglect that literally contributed to bringing down most systems in this country. The Bush Presidency unapologetically passed a gargantuan mess on to the Obama Presidency and the Republican Party then just attempted to block/obstruct, without any regard for other than their own interests, all efforts to solve problems. Without ever contributing anything positive or constructive they now aggressively criticize the Obama Administration for not totally turning things around in just ten months. Today everyone should be able to recognize the lies, the scare tactics and the appeals to prejudices and emotions, all intended to mislead and manipulate the majority and benefit only the few. Anyone who accepts all of that, who supports the Republicans' efforts with the substantial overt and covert activity of their patrons, aimed to return to 'more of the same', obviously has to be certifiably crazy. Anyone who is willing to ignore the consequences, at the very least, has to be masochistic.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/05/2009 2:42:48 PM
That is exactly the picture any rational person will come up with when evaluating the circumstances.
-
-
Posted By: johndee1984 @ 11/03/2009 11:56:27 AM
Bush and Obama are both servants/puppets of the global elite and New World Order.
in Carroll Quigley's (Princeton History professor) "the Anglo-American Establishment" he explains that the people are given a false sense of democracy while the real power is with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute for International Affiars and of course the private financial giants like the Federal Reserve. research the truth at www.somethingmustbreak.net or www.infowars.com and watch Fall of the Republic on youtube.
You'd better wake up before the offshore banking cartel pulls the plug on the dollar and plunges the US into third world status.
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 11/02/2009 10:16:01 AM
John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, and other Republican representatives seek to just fault and block everything and anything the Obama administration offers. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin and others aggressively criticize every position taken by the Obama administration, now ridiculously even H1N1 flu vaccinations. The obviously and totally discrediting problems with all of that are threefold. One, their positions are always aggressive and arrogant in being negative attacks without ever offering anything constructive or positive. Two, their efforts are clearly aimed at manipulating public opinion without any real concern for the people. Three, their deceptive concentration on finding fault fails to admit that over the last eight years their positions irresponsibly and self-servingly heavily contributed to the severe problems we have and the ... it is that same mentality which they seek to return to, to 'more of the same'. We can't withstand 'more of the same' and it is their real responsibility to conscientiously and honestly work together in fine-tuning and finding compromises that work in the best interests of the people, all of the people and not just Special Interests. Their bold and belligerent self-serving efforts and their obvious arrogance in taking the people for granted by thinking that public opinion can so easily and continually be manipulated while they just serve as puppets to Special Interests and a select few, is disgusting and costing us greatly. They need to change their ways or to be thrown out.
-
Posted By: onebiga$$mistakeamerica @ 10/30/2009 12:41:50 PM
hey rob, which coverage have you had for hte past 20 years? which program?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/30/2009 4:10:05 PM
Military
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/30/2009 8:17:12 PM
Does it mean that if military budget is going down, your coverage will also be reduced to something like "public option"?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 1:13:11 AM
nope. coverage had never changed.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/01/2009 1:35:00 PM
I wanted to say "good for you", but then remembered your complain about high premium - I don't know what to say because maybe soon we all have such premium.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/01/2009 2:39:32 PM
My high premium has to do with my current Cigna coverage. I never paid a premium in the military...never paid a cent. You do have a point though. If we get the "baucus" bill as it was written without a public option, we will likely be paying more.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/30/2009 9:06:10 PM
The proposed healthcare bill descimates the gains that retirees made in the late 90's early 2000s. I hate to see a soldier on here talking about the healthcare plan when he knows it takes back all the advantages gained by the faithful service of our soldiers to their country. Pelosi and Reid hate the military. Their distain is clearly evident by their legislation.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 10/31/2009 6:21:33 PM
Man, you leave for 2 months and, when you come back, the place has changed. So let me get this straight:
-The legendary Paulejb is no longer with us. May he rest in peace. He will always have a place in our hearts for handing 40YearFishSmell and IzaGeek their heads on a daily basis. He still has them running scared by the looks of things.
-Everyone now thinks that Donaldrex is Paulejb. I think most just hear the footsteps. Don, if you are him, you have big shoes to fill. Don't let us down.
-40YearR is now 40Year.R. We can only hope that the "." has made him smarter. That doesn't appear to be the case.
IzaGeek is now Iza_Geek. It appears that some think he has a few more screen names, like his buddy, 40. No doubt.
-I haven't seen any posts from TTR or Fortunate Fox. I hope they are still with us.
-Chris S. is still here.
-Rob007 is still here.
-The liberal nonsense is still here.-
Posted By: chris s. @ 10/31/2009 8:18:58 PM
greg,
Yup, a guy leaves home for awhile and we painted, redecorated and moved the furniture. Same address, though. Welcome home! Did you notice, little Susie? Surprise! Your wife had another child while you were gone too.-
Posted By: gregcovert @ 10/31/2009 8:30:11 PM
Too funny! On the way home, I bought a bag of rice and spread it around by the back door of my house. I, then, walked around to the front door and rang the doorbell. Then, I ran back around to the backdoor and looked for footprints in the rice. Hehe!
I've been going back through and reading some of the posts. Why I bothered, I'll never know. Same ol', same ol!
-
-
-
Posted By: Cybercorrespondent @ 10/29/2009 3:06:53 PM
Political points to ponder
What would happen if any other political party pushed for a cap and trade bill that could create green jobs of which 9 out of 10 created would be unsustainable, require government subsidizing and cost the nations economy millions of real jobs? And this is not to mention the increase in manufacturing costs that would be passed on to us in time of depression.
No matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or an Independent, what do you think is going to happen when the government revenues are down and spending is quadrupled? As one senator from Florida was categorized as, ???One must be a fry short of a happy meal??? to believe that wiping out the U.S. dollar and reducing the purchasing power of our salaries and retirement savings is a good thing.
How do you think the media or yourself would react if the republicans were the majority party and were negotiating behind closed doors on a republican senator???s proposal to overhaul one of our economy's largest industries, especially when it hasn't been written yet? On an almost straight party-line vote, Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee squashed an amendment by Senator Jim Bunning that would have required the Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed and the Baucus healthcare or ???rob our children and their children bill??? to be posted on the Internet for all Americans to read for 72 hours prior to the Committee voting on it.
There are Republicans who should be voted out of office as well. They are the ones who didn???t listen to the American people and under the veil of "negotiations," kept the ???rob our children and their children??? bill scheme to socialize the nation's health care system alive. And those are not the only ones. Every politician who allowed the Federal Reserve to loan two trillion dollars without knowing to whom, for what or the disclosure of terms should be investigated, made accountable for their irresponsibility and thrown out of office as well. Sleeping on the job is no excuse.
The Federal Reserve has no real oversight and it???s time for these politicians to get the message loud and clear. We need to learn from our past mistakes and before voting, find out the candidate???s passed association???s, voting record, speeches made and most importantly, don???t let the progressives in the media or celebrities who receive bribes from the likes of George Soros brain wash you. The buss is speeding to go over a cliff and we need to get hold of the staring wheel and the brakes.
Cybercorrespondent
cybercorrespondent@gmail.com
-
Posted By: Cybercorrespondent @ 10/29/2009 3:06:25 PM
Political points to ponder
What would happen if any other political party pushed for a cap and trade bill that could create green jobs of which 9 out of 10 created would be unsustainable, require government subsidizing and cost the nations economy millions of real jobs? And this is not to mention the increase in manufacturing costs that would be passed on to us in time of depression.
No matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or an Independent, what do you think is going to happen when the government revenues are down and spending is quadrupled? As one senator from Florida was categorized as, ???One must be a fry short of a happy meal??? to believe that wiping out the U.S. dollar and reducing the purchasing power of our salaries and retirement savings is a good thing.
How do you think the media or yourself would react if the republicans were the majority party and were negotiating behind closed doors on a republican senator???s proposal to overhaul one of our economy's largest industries, especially when it hasn't been written yet? On an almost straight party-line vote, Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee squashed an amendment by Senator Jim Bunning that would have required the Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed and the Baucus healthcare or ???rob our children and their children bill??? to be posted on the Internet for all Americans to read for 72 hours prior to the Committee voting on it.
There are Republicans who should be voted out of office as well. They are the ones who didn???t listen to the American people and under the veil of "negotiations," kept the ???rob our children and their children??? bill scheme to socialize the nation's health care system alive. And those are not the only ones. Every politician who allowed the Federal Reserve to loan two trillion dollars without knowing to whom, for what or the disclosure of terms should be investigated, made accountable for their irresponsibility and thrown out of office as well. Sleeping on the job is no excuse.
The Federal Reserve has no real oversight and it???s time for these politicians to get the message loud and clear. We need to learn from our past mistakes and before voting, find out the candidate???s passed association???s, voting record, speeches made and most importantly, don???t let the progressives in the media or celebrities who receive bribes from the likes of George Soros brain wash you. The buss is speeding to go over a cliff and we need to get hold of the staring wheel and the brakes.
Cybercorrespondent
cybercorrespondent@gmail.com
-
Posted By: freecitizen @ 10/27/2009 11:03:00 PM
Can we PLEEEEEASE stop calling the health insurance stooges in the Senate MODERATE Demoncrats. There's nothing moderate about graft, bribery and corruption.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/28/2009 12:07:20 AM
freecitizen:Can we PLEEEEEASE stop calling the health insurance stooges in the Senate MODERATE Demoncrats. There's nothing moderate about graft, bribery and corruption.----------------------------------------------------------------------
So than why did Obama make a back room deal with Billy Tauzin and PhRma? Graft? Bribery? Corruption? Or all three?
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/25/2009 12:03:43 AM
I would rather say that the Senate and Congress "used" to be a deliberative body. That is, until the Republican party started to be ruled by extreme right-wing members whose only agenda is for Obama to fail on the sole objective of a power grab. No longer on the lofty aim of a debate to find out what's will be the policy that will serve the common good. Just look at the health care reform bill and the energy act. It is obviously beneficial to Americans overall but the Republicans choose a lemming-like partisan vote along party line that would not need any use of brains or being deliberative.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/25/2009 11:09:53 AM
Apolitical,
Your lack of knowledge never ceases to amaze me. There is a filibuster proof democrat majority in the Senate, 60 democrats and 40 republicans. The democrats have a 70 vote edge in the house. They can pass anything they like without one republican vote. The republicans do not have enough votes to change the menu in the Capital cafeteria. This fight is strictly intramural among democrats. So get off your soap box and stop spreading disinformation.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/26/2009 1:32:02 PM
donald - Your idiocy is again in full display. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Dems think for themselves and not easy to coral. Unlike the Republicans who don't think for themselves and just vote like a zombie along party line. A good example is the supposedly deliberative issue of health care reform. Republicans have nothing but lies. They lied that it will cause deficit. No, it's not but in fact would result to $81 billion surplus. Republicans lied about death panels. No, it's not, the Republicans unable to show the provisions saying so. The Republicans lied about government take-over. No, it's not. CBO estimated that 84% of new enrollments will sign up to the private insurers. Well, at least now the Republicans ran out of lies and had accepted defeat.
Americans welcome two-party system and a cerebral debate. Except, currently cerebral and Republicans does not belong into one sentence. Republicans are not only known for do-nothing and party of no. It's now also known as party of NO BRAINS.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/26/2009 10:21:30 PM
Apolitical,
You should be ashamed to show your face. You can't even count votes. If the dems really want this turkey, they can pass it with not one republican vote. But the problem is that some democrats don't want fall on their swords for ObamaCare. They know that supposed $81 billion surplus is BS. How can the CBO score a bill that hasn't been written yet?
It's a simple equation, Apolitical. Public option = single payer = disaster. Some democrats are unwilling to sacrifice their careers to bail Obama out.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 12:25:48 AM
donald - Actually, that's a proof that Democrats, unlike their right-wing Republican counterparts, are not mindless drones. Well, you are proving yourself worthy. CBO scores every bill that comes out of the committees before it is voted upon. All health care bills coming out of committees had already been scored and voted. What's being written now is the consolidation of the committee versions each from the House and Senate. I'm glad I've been of help educating you although I have yet to turn-around your learned idiocy from Rush.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/27/2009 10:08:36 PM
Apolitical,
That is merely proof that democrats who represent a swing constituency don't want to go over the falls in the barrel of ObamaCare. To a politician, political survival is the highest cause.
These CBO estimates are merely smoke and mirrors. Until the Congress arrives at the actual legislative language of a bill it is all just guesses. You should know that, Apolitical. Especially since the cost of every government program has been underestimated in the past. What makes you think they got it right this time?
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/26/2009 11:47:44 PM
"Dems think for themselves and not easy to coral. Unlike the Republicans who don't think for themselves..." - whatever you wanted to say, Apolitical, you admitted that Democrats are selfish jerks and are willing to bring chaos to its own party, and Republicans are selfless disciplined people.
Even I do not believe in such extreme characterization, but anyway thank you.-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 12:21:06 AM
bighappy - That's a Palinisque reading comprehension you got there. Congratulations! You may yet out idiot Rush. Don't stop trying.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 12:35:40 AM
I just pointed to your own words, Apolitical. You proved again that you are an idiot whoever tactics I used.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 12:44:00 AM
bighappy - Read again and tell me where you get the idea that Republicans are selfless disciplined people instead of mindless drones whose biggest idea on the health care debate is an unthinking "NO".
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 12:59:59 AM
You did say it, moron. Read back your post, Apolitical, you said that Democrats in Congress thing about themselves and because of it sabotage Pelosi and Obama efforts, and at the same time Republicans do not think of their own survival and vote against, all as one (you can say like zombies, but usually it is what discipline responsible partisan people do).
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 4:09:08 PM
bighappy - You must be hallucinating imagining things.
How can Republicans vote be considered "disciplined" when every argument they make against the health care bill is either called out as lies or pure fabricated fear-mongering?-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 7:57:52 PM
Whatever BS you say, Apolitical, about the reasons, they vote exactly as GOP elected leaders want, it is what disciplined people do.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: libertyfirst @ 10/26/2009 4:36:05 PM
Do you really believe that adding a massive, $800 billion plus government won't add to the deficit? By what measure of faith do you pin that on? Pelosi's word? Sure. Nevermind the shear absence of logic that by spending more we don't add to the deficit. Enamored by the Medicare program enough to want more of it? Are we to forget that it's running massive deficits as well? That it only pays pennies on the actual dollars of cost to the system...who cares, right? By God we need a government option no matter what the cost, right? And whose being ideological now?
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/26/2009 6:58:34 PM
I'm sorry Liberty if you miss your morning papers and not keeping up with the news. But the, CBO estimate is that the latest bill will actually reduce defict by $81 billion. If you don't know anything as basic as the non partisan Congress Budget Office (CBO) in the health care debate, I wonder where you find the gall to participate in this forum.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/26/2009 10:25:30 PM
Apolitical,
Which bill will that be? The Senate's bills, the House's bills or a combination of all of them? And when will we see this final version?
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 12:04:04 AM
donald - The House bill price tag is $871 billion while the Senate's CBO score is $819 billion.
bighappy - Anything that's $900 billion and below is deficit neutral. That's the reason you are getting nowhere, you are asking your doctor about national issues instead of researching it yourself.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 12:39:40 AM
"Anything that's $900 billion and below is deficit neutral" - are you posting from mad house, Apolitical? Or from White House? They keep searching how to cover those $900+ billion, but it is "deficit neutral"??? Call 911, promptly.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 4:13:13 PM
bighappy - Empty retort as usual. CBO's scoring outlines sources of funds. Seems like CBO is creditable to you if it's serves the Republican hypocritical deficit argument. Boehner keeps on citing CBO when the score was at $1.6 trillion. Now the dude with the unnatural tan is all of a sudden silent and tongue tied when score was at deficit neutral.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/27/2009 7:51:02 PM
Yes, I "forgot" that they are going to "fund" the spending for the expense of elderly, special fees, and so on. It is like we have $1.5 deficit, what a solution - yes, everybody will pay $10000 and no deficit.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/26/2009 11:52:13 PM
All they discuss now (I mean mostly Democrats) that either it will be $110 billion extra-spending a year or $80 billion, how you, or some crooks you are referencing us to, came with $81 billion surplus - we have to ask your doctor.
-
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/26/2009 4:50:37 PM
Why not take that same Medicare system and turn it into a program that is offered to a wider demographic (especially children)? As it is, all these visits to the emergency room are getting very expensive for us tax payers to sustain. Already, our medical system costs us over 16% of our GDP. Germany's fully nationalized system is 12% of their GDP. What are we doing wrong?
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 10/27/2009 12:31:26 AM
Another example of Republican disregard for the welfare of the American people. Republicans are holding up confirmation of Obama's nominee for Surgeon General while the country worries about swine flu epidemic. The reason for the hold up, Republicans wants to protect Humana from being investigated about their fear-mongering memo to seniors.
-
Posted By: Reg373 @ 10/26/2009 3:32:40 PM
Add a .50 tax to every fast food order which exceeds 500 total calories. With the millions of those sold every day in America, that would help illuminate the issue, discourage the consumption a little, and toss billions of dollars into the kitty to finance health reform -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 10/26/2009 11:57:16 PM
Increasing food prices in 3dr world countries always provoked riots, do you want riots in USA? It is half-joke, but I am afraid it can be real. And do you realize that it is tax on poor, how can you?!!
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 10/26/2009 4:48:05 PM
...you see, selling foods that are essentially considered bad for you (high in fat and sugar, deep fried, even excessive BBQ) are also business decisions. These are the most cost effective foods to offer the public in a restaurant business. Isn't increasing taxes telling a business how to operate and what to sell? It seems to me, taxing the consumer on meals offered by the private sector amounts to a for of protectionism.
-
-
Posted By: njresident @ 10/26/2009 9:27:58 AM
Why? 1. The bills are so biiiiig!. 2. They are designed to create more problems instead of soving problems.3. They use dirty tricks thinking the Americans are stupid....We adults know it. We need to educate the younger people about the horror of Obamacare.
D. Morris says the best way to now stop ObamaCare is to educate those under 30. This 3-D, anti-Obamacare ad is a great way to do it on their own turf: YouTube. But we need more than the current 12, 500 hits to make it more visible to the youth, so please watch it once or twice a day to drive the numbers up and send it to everyone who can think of, including other message boards.
(And yes, if you have the red-blue 3-D glasses, it really is in amazing 3-D!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpQlTN9kgfo
THIS is how conservatives need to start diversifying their messages to the youth audience so conservative messages all aren???t just scenes of tea parties and paintings of patriotic scenes. Please make this go viral, everyone. We only have one week left before it???s ???out of season???. Please hurry! We can make an impact!
Just watch it once or twice and send it along; it doesn???t get any easier than that!
-
Posted By: JstTired09 @ 10/26/2009 6:20:18 AM
Eleanor please, for me, will you wear THOSE earrings, just change once? On Mcchlaughlin? It's not much to ask. I have stopped yelling at you in my front room. ;)
-
Posted By: dkcloud357 @ 10/25/2009 11:23:13 AM
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/25/2009 11:09:53 AM
Apolitical,
Your lack of knowledge never ceases to amaze me. There is a filibuster proof democrat majority in the Senate, 60 democrats and 40 republicans. The democrats have a 70 vote edge in the house. They can pass anything they like without one republican vote. The republicans do not have enough votes to change the menu in the Capital cafeteria. This fight is strictly intramural among democrats. So get off your soap box and stop spreading disinformation. < >< > Agree , it seems that Democrats never exert their power the way the Republicans do.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/25/2009 9:53:54 PM
dkcloud357,
"I am not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" -- Will Rogers
-
Posted By: 40YearConservative @ 10/25/2009 10:15:09 PM
Will said a mouthful when he said that!!!!!!
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 10/25/2009 10:29:17 PM
40YearConservative:Will said a mouthful when he said that!!!!!!----------------------------------------------------
"And kid Congress and the Senate, don't scold 'em. They are just children thats never grown up.They don't like to be corrected in company. Don't send messages to 'em, send candy." -- Will Rogers - 2 December 1932
-
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- You guys thought he, like, carried arugula in his pocket to snack on Gibbs on Obama’s diet NYT
- It felt like the earth had split open Juan Martinez, of Tubul, Chile, on the Feb 27 quake NYT
- She kind of cleaned the place out Ben Russo on Palin and entourage at a gifting suite AOL
- I placed the receiver in its cradle and wept Rove on finding out he wouldn't be indicted NYT
- Everything there is to say about health care has been said ObamaAP
Discuss