Conservatives & Liberals - What's the difference?

[usmc1]

In "Harlot's Ghost" Norman Mailer offered a similar scenario. Decades earlier, Prouty asserted the CIA connection linking people such as Hunt and Sturgis, et al.

What has never been proven is the Nixon connection. But, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that there were some very intriguing leads to a rightest group from Southern California, extremely closely connected to Nixon--finding key posts in his administration, and calling themselves the rat-f***ers. They, some believe, were the agents de provocateur, who later helped create the plumbers, various black bag jobs, and screw-up at Watergate.

There was a St. Louis, Houston, New Orleans trianglzation of mob activity in the hit. A young, red-haired, wise-guy, club manager from East St. Louis was sent to Dallas to ramrod clean up and was still there in 1967.

The problems for various researchers, including Prouty and Jim Garrison, was that they would find a piece of the puzzle and think they had formed the complete picture. That and CIA and Mob clean up crews are very fastidious and good at their work.

[Bicycler]

usmc1: Interesting that you should mention Jim Garrison. An interesting character to say the least. I remember reading his interview in Playboy. That is undoubtedly what got me interested in looking beyond Oswald.

[usmc1]

More proof of the USA/Iran war by proxy as each shuttles arms to supply its catspaws.

July 23, 2006, 3:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

Carrying fresh stock of bombs, missiles and spare parts for Israeli Air Force aircraft and helicopters, giant Galaxy C141 transports have been landing, unloading and taking off at short intervals.

The American airlift to Israel follows the air corridor Iran opened to replenish Hizballah’s stocks on Wednesday, July 19, landing supplies at Syria’s Abu Ad Duhur military airfield north of Homs. The deliveries for Hizballah include large quantities of new missiles, including the long-range Zelzal and Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 missiles, Katyusha rockets, anti-tank and anti-air missiles sent out from the RG HQ in Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf. Some of these missiles can reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Thursday, July 21, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander Brig.-Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi assumed command of the Lebanon war from Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. RG forward command posts are operating out of Iranian embassies in Beirut and Damascus. Syria has placed its army, Scud missiles and air force in a state of preparedness.

[Naturist Mark]

I have been holding back on commenting on the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Yes, I realize it is part of a larger geopolitical struggle, yes I understand that there were provocations and responses on every side that led to escalation, but at the base you have Hezballah firing missles across the border into civilian towns and cities, something no nation would tolerate or respond to with anything other than overwhelming force.

But the more I learn, the more it smells. The DEBKAfiles may be full of Mossad sponsored conspiracy theories, but new facts keep pulling the tinfoil right out of the hats.

We now know that the Gaza and Lebanon invasions were discussed in Washington last month with administration officials well before the Hezballah provocations.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAD20060724&articleId=2801)

by Wayne Madsen

July 24, 2006
Wayne Madsen Report

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.

Lebanon and Gaza invasions planned last month in Colorado meetings between Netanyahu, Sharansky, and Cheney.

After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and "Islamo-fascism" in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.

Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected "event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.
[/list]

-Mark

[nacktman]

... an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.

T'aint gonna happen McGhee!

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Bicycler:
...Looks like I have another Kennedy assassination book to read. A quick perusal of the documentation in your links makes it a must read for me. I have read a lot about the JFK assasination and have always come away with the feeling that I don't really have the answer. The mob connection always seemed feasible to me because of Ruby. Looks like Amazon is going to get a little more of my money.

I guess I'll have to add usmc1's recommendation (L. Fletcher Prouty and Oliver Stone: "JFK: The Cia, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy") to my Amazon list but I'm much more inclined to buy the mafia theory than one involving the CIA.

The Company has always been an eclectic assortment of ivy league egg-heads, militarists, mercenaries, vagabound adventurists, hustlers, expatriots, bureaucratic careerists, and out-and-out criminals. This especially true in the D.O.

The point is simply this, when you beat the bush around the JFK hit, you find Mob & CIA spoor. You find the same spoor scattered throughout the events of the Nixon era.

One of the first things one learns at The Farm is to mistrust coincidence--there ain't no such thing.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ... an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.

T'aint gonna happen McGhee! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nacktman, you have so little faith in the American public. And speaking of faith, I'm sure the RRR will use the context of the war to mobilize its troops mightily. And with less than 40% of eligible Americans voting in mid-term elections, a good showing by the RRR might be sufficient to keep Jesus, er, I mean Republicans, in control.

[nacktman]

To the contrary hm0504, I have enormous faith in the American public.

Good showing or not by the neo-cons and the RRR, the American public will oust the cabal and rid themselves of the stink of conservatism, and we shall have a return to the Liberal ideals this nation was founded upon.

Every time the serpent has raised its vile head we have beaten it down in the past, this time it will be struck off and the carcass will be left to rot on the refuse pile for the world to see that it is dead and will not slip it up the world's postier ever again!

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
To the contrary hm0504, I have enormous faith in the American public.

Good showing or not by the neo-cons and the RRR, the American public will oust the cabal and rid themselves of the stink of conservatism, and we shall have a return to the Liberal ideals this nation was founded upon.

Every time the serpent has raised its vile head we have beaten it down in the past, this time it will be struck off and the carcass will be left to rot on the refuse pile for the world to see that it is dead and will not slip it up the world's postier ever again!

I hope you are right; however, the significant gerrymandering and other anti-democratic tactics (including those aimed at manipulating vote counts) should be of high concern.

Epiphany - too little too late? Or just in time?

Doug McIntyre is a Republican radio talk show host on KABC, Los Angeles who recently read this on his radio program

An Apology from a Bush voter
Doug McIntyre

There's nothing harder in public life than admitting you're wrong. By the way, admitting you're wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it's out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.

So, I'm saying today, "I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. I believe George W. Bush is unarguably the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. A case can be made he's the worst president, period. I reached the conclusion he's either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.

After September 11th, I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them. I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Colin Powell at the UN, and trusted Tony Blair. The President said Iraq was an urgent threat, and after 9-11, the risk seemed too real. But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies.

I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th. The President says the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war in Iraq won't be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can't do and any commander who does not go along with the administration is sacked, and in some cases, maligned.

I was wrong about Iraq. We're not in the "waning days of the insurgency." We're about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran in our wake. And Bin Laden is still making tapes.

It's unspeakable. The liberal media didn't create this reality, bad policy did. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding were all failed Presidents but the damage this President has done is historic. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.

And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let's look at President Bush's domestic record. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public's money. We're drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren's credit cards. We traded tax and spend Liberals for borrow and spend onservatives.

Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry.

So much for smaller government.

In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, the environment or worker's rights. His open border policy is a disaster for the wages of working people-- he debases the work ethic, "jobs Americans won't do!" He doesn't believe in the sovereign borders of the country he's sworn to protect. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security and calls into question his commitment to sovereignty itself. Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, the war on science, media manipulation, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American's lifetime.

America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don't believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. However, the Republicans run the show and have more to answer for.

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken it's almost inevitable it pukes up mediocrities like Al Gore and George W. Bush. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?

Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? I prefer to see it as realism. For those of you who never supported Bush, it's also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he's down. After all, you were kicking Bush while he was up. You were right. I was wrong.
_____

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

[usmc1]

Great find and interesting post, but, sneering cynic that I am, I can't help but think..

Nothing like a radio talk-show host to sense the way the tide is turning and getting up on top of the curl.

It's easy to criticize Bush now, but I just wish the guy had been this prescient when some of the rest of us were peeking out the blinds before stepping outside after criticizing Bush and the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And like most radio talk show hosts, the guy displays a marvelous grasp of the obvious.

As far as I am concerned, this guy was and is part of the problem of the disintegration of an informed media and electorate and his mea culpa comes a day late and is a dollar short.

But, all that aside, it is certainly an indicator of how Bush has left behind and is losing his staunchest supporters.

[hm0504]

I have no problem applauding Mr. McIntyre and his apology. Indeed, I don't think people who supported Bush in either election should feel they need to apologize, just admit that they were seriously wrong.

Reading between the lines of what the Bush administration is saying with regard to the current Middle East crisis, it seems to me that the U.S. aims to do to the entire Middle East what it wanted to do to Afghanistan and Iraq but is failing now in both places.

Even if such a war, which I think could come pretty close to being World War III, we need new leadership in the U.S. fast. Thanks to Bush, Iraq and now Afghanistan are being lost; we cannot let that kind of incompetence continue.

[usmc1]

Long (4-pages) article regarding Bush's failure to understand the difference between the players in the middleeast and yet another pundit who thinks the Isreali/Hizbollah war is a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran.

And you know what, their guys have fought our guys to a freeking standstill. Everyday that Hizbollah fights back against one of the supposed strongest armies in the world, the more stature they gain in the Arab world.

Three weeks and they're still fighting. Isreal has already lost the real war and has driven Iran and Syria and Hizbollah even closer together.

Just another FIASCO!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14046789/site/newsweek/

[Naturist Mark]

Long (4-pages) article regarding Bush's failure to understand the difference between the players in the middleeast

Here's the short version:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060726.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060727.gif

-Mark

[nacktman]

Ever see an elephant haulin' arse?

[usmc1]

The divine Sarah Bernhardt says it: "Republican women are thin lipped, cringing up-tight...."

http://www.maccosmetics.com/whats_new/plushglass_video.tmpl?ngextredir=1

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by usmc1:
The divine Sarah Bernhardt says it: "Republican women are thin lipped, cringing up-tight...."

http://www.maccosmetics.com/whats_new/plushglass_video.tmpl?ngextredir=1

I understand Sarah was a great actress in her day, but I much prefer Sandra Bernhard. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

-Mark

[NudeAl]

As to the current situation between Israel and the terrorist organization Hammas or Hezbolla. I would say the Israelis are our one ally in that part of the world I know they have their own agenda but wouldn't you if your country was surrounded by it's enemies and they were sworn to defeat you in any way they could? We must stand by Israel they are our last bulwark against the Islamic fascists that would destroy our culture.

[nacktman]

Again, I pose the question ...

[NudeAl]

Our culture, such as it is. I know our way of life is overated but it's the only one we have.

[nacktman]

Our culture, such as it is. I know our way of life is overated buts it's the only one we have.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Conservatives seek to destroy our way of life and culture.
Our culture and way of life are Liberal constructs and are propelled by continued Liberalism.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
The divine Sarah Bernhardt says it: "Republican women are thin lipped, cringing up-tight...."

http://www.maccosmetics.com/whats_new/plushglass_video.tmpl?ngextredir=1

I understand Sarah was a great actress in her day, but I much prefer Sandra Bernhard. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, right. But, at least someone was paying attention. Now I'm off to read Cicero's Essay on Aging!

[nacktman]

I understand Sarah <span class="ev_code_RED">(Bernhardt)</span> was a great actress in her day ...

Depending on your source she was the "Greatest" actress of her day or merely great and she did her own nude scenes!

[nacktman]

As Celopatra ...

[nacktman]

From the "Horse's Mouth" so to speak.

[JohnFourtyTwo]

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I understand Sarah <span class="ev_code_RED">(Bernhardt)</span> was a great actress in her day ...

Depending on your source she was the "Greatest" actress of her day or merely great and she did her own nude scenes! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by nacktman:
As Celopatra ...

At first I thought you were talking about the current actress with the same or similar name. I'm glad you provided pictures to clear that up because I prefer the former to the current actress anytime.

[usmc1]

Here's a big difference. When conservatives get cornered on the issues and can't huff-and puff their way out of it, they throw childish little hissy fits blaming "the media".

Santorum, in Tough Re-Election Fight, Slams (Literally) Newspaper

By E&P Staff

Published: September 18, 2006 10:55 AM Et

NEW YORK Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), in a bruising race for re-election, slammed a Pennsylvania newspaper -- literally -- this weekend.

The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pa., report that Santorum, who trails Democrat Robert Casey in most polls, referred to his "rocky relations with the press" as he moved from room to room to attend regional caucuses earlier at a GOP state committee meeting in a hotel in East Pennsboro.

Later he refused to talk when a Patriot-News reporter, Brett Lieberman, approached with a question about Iran -- and again complained about what he called biased coverage.

"I have to raise tens of millions of dollars because of the junk you feed the people of Pennsylvania," he said, according to the paper. It added that he "then used an expletive to describe the coverage and slammed down a newspaper."

Hey Rick, yah punk! You're having to raise money because you're losing and the good people of PA see through your BS. Now go sit in the corner and suck your thumb.

Dang ole evil-doer paying the piper and he don't like it at all.

[usmc1]

Cato Institute reports, Libertarians are shifting to Democrats.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715

[Naturist Mark]

What's the difference?
Try asking these questions:

Talking to a bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo8cQd6Gdc)

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

No.. it doesn't say this:
Cato Institute reports, Libertarians are shifting to Democrats.
It says this:
Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. In particular, polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. The Gallup Governance Survey consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents giving libertarian answers to a two-question screen. That says about 20% of voting Americans give answers as if they were libertarian. It doesn't say anything at all about the party affiliation of those 20% of voting Americans.

The article is an illustration of how Libertarians (and those who answer questions as if they were libertarians) may be a swing vote.

[nacktman]

As usual LamontCranston gets it wrong.

The piece was about the clear trend of Libertarians to favor Democrats over republicans in larger numbers in recent years.

This is another example of how Liberals realize what something is about and conservatives do not ... just one more difference between the two.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
No.. it doesn't say this: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cato Institute reports, Libertarians are shifting to Democrats.
It says this:
Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. In particular, polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. The Gallup Governance Survey consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents giving libertarian answers to a two-question screen. That says about 20% of voting Americans give answers as if they were libertarian. It doesn't say anything at all about the party affiliation of those 20% of voting Americans.

The article is an illustration of how Libertarians (and those who answer questions as if they were libertarians) may be a swing vote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mole head pops up! WHACK!!!!

"...it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq. If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win."

An 18% shift to democrats of Libertarians from the Gore vote to Kerry vote, with a sense that the trend is deepening. Yep, Libertarians are shifting to Democrats both nationally and in their local congressioanl decisions.

WHACKTY-WHACK-WHACK!! I want my free pizza!

[LamontCranston]

No, it doesn't say this:
The piece was about the clear trend of Libertarians to favor Democrats over republicans in larger numbers in recent years. The words Democrat and Republican do not appear.

It says this:
Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. That says that Libertarians preferred Bush and his party by wide but diminishing margins. Libertarians do not yet favor democrats over Republicans, but may in a coming election.

The Democratic Party has not won the Congress, the Senate or the White House yet, Nackty. Until they do, they are still the minority party by definition.

Wishful thinking does not alter reality, votes do. Here's to all those who try hard but come up short.. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[nacktman]

And here I was lulled into a sense of intelligence by LamontCrantson's post on another thread, oh well.

Whack-a-mole indeed! Isn't time to leave Chuck E.Cheese to the three year olds?

Nope, not as long as conservatives can not grasp reality.

The lack of the ability to grasp reality is but another difference between Liberal and conservatoids.

[usmc1]

Lamont, are you being obtuse on purpose or is it merely a character flaw?

I wrote;

"Cato Institute reports, Libertarians are shifting to Democrats."

The article cited a shift of Libertarian votes from Bush (Republican) to Kerry (Democrat), using the Gore (Democrat) / Bush (Republican) election as the benchmark, and then referenced similar shifts in congressional races. It also cited disallusionment with REPUBLICAN policies and failures as the reason behind the shift.

Too bad, so sad. Truth wins again!

[LamontCranston]

Deliberately obtuse. See how easy it is to take the same 500 words and interpret it any way you wish? Most of what we see and hear is interpretation filtered by a point of view.

Plus, you gentlemen would be disappointed if we all agreed with you. It's a boring tennis game when everyone plays the same side of the net.

Whatever your politics, here's what I find the interesting part --

polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. That's me and millions like me. Neither majority party reaches out to both sides of that sentence. The Cato article argues that if someone did, they could win a large swing vote.

How would Sen. Kerry have done if he used his military background and votes on Iraq and said yes we need to pursue victory against terrorism, defeat the insurgents and bring people home while at the same time talked about healthcare for seniors and education/job opportunity for youth? Adding a speech or two about reversing the tide of plant closings and off-shoring work, and stirring some nationalist pride with an America First slogan and he would've been hard to beat.

Instead he went the anti-Bush route and come up short.

[usmc1]

Whatever your politics, here's the interesting part....

Yet another crooked Republican under investigation:

FBI reportedly probing Rep. Weldon
Investigation allegedly into consulting contracts for Republican’s daughter
The Associated Press

Updated: 7:45 p.m. CT Oct 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.

The inquiry focuses on lobbying contracts worth $1 million that Weldon's daughter, Karen Weldon, obtained from foreign clients and whether they were assisted by the Republican congressman, they said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation.

The two people familiar with the investigation told the AP on Saturday that the inquiry was being handled by agents from the FBI's field offices in Washington and Philadelphia and was being coordinated by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI declined comment Saturday.

Those two people familiar with the investigation confirmed that federal agents were examining Weldon's work between 2004 and 2004 to help two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers connected to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. They had hired Solutions North America Inc., a company operated by Karen Weldon and Charles Sexton, a Republican ally of the congressman.

Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is a Russian speaker regarded by some as a foreign policy expert who has clashed at times with the Bush administration.

Weldon, a 10-term Republican from the Philadelphia suburbs, long has denied any wrongdoing, and his top aide Saturday said no one had notified him of an investigation.

"I think if there was an investigation, somebody would have contacted us," said Russ Casso, Weldon's chief of staff.

‘Caught off guard’
Casso said Weldon and his staff were "100 percent caught off guard" when they learned of the investigation, first reported late Friday by McClatchy Newspapers. This account cited two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation; they declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

Casso, whose boss is in a tight race against Democrat Joe Sestak in the Nov. 7 congressional elections, tried to cast doubt on reports of the investigation. "Unidentified sources mean nothing," Casso said. "There's no substance in that story. It's a flimsy story."

Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Michael Puppio, Weldon's campaign manager, questioned the timing of the mailing and published reports about the investigation. He accused Democrats of "attempting to smear the congressman and his entire family" in the final weeks of the campaign.

Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the DCCC, declined comment.

Sensitive time for GOP
The Weldon investigation comes at a critical time for Republicans who are fighting to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives in a midst of scandals.

On Friday, Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Ney pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which has touched on federal lawmakers, former aides and members of the Bush administration.

At the same time, an inquiry is under way on Capitol Hill into whether Republican House leaders or their top aides covered up questionable behavior of former Congressman Mark Foley toward teenage males who worked as congressional interns.

[LamontCranston]

I think we can all agree that there will always be some crooked politician under investigation, or out there awaiting discovery.

It's not news. Or even surprising.

Next you'll inform us of a GAO report that says (gasp!) a $$ billion dollars was wasted on some GOP congressman's pet project.

[hm0504]

“I am the only drunken Pirate seeking office in this great nation [...] I would have your wife right in front of you. I would smoke the last of your glaucoma medication. Then I will surely drink your liquor cabinet dry. However, know this my friend. I will never break an oath to uphold the public trust.” -- James Hill For Congress

Hope he gets in!

More info here
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/061012/K101216U.html
and here
http://www.jameshillforcongress.com/

[hm0504]

Good story about one of my favourite Republicans --> "Governator 2.0": http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/

I would also add that the idea that nudity would eliminate any U.S. politician's chances for election does not seem to have applied to Mr. Shwarzenegger.

[nacktman]

What's the difference?

Well according to a scientific study that was just completed that included such factors as, economic, education and intellegence the difference is about 35 IQ points.

The average conservative's IQ score was 87.
The average Liberal's IQ score was 122.

[missouriboy]

Well according to a scientific study that was just completed... Wouldn't be just as easy to give us a reference to that new study? Or do we have to wait for Mark to do it for you?

[hm0504]

Does this article fit into this topic?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

:-)

[Big-Thinker]

Originally posted by nacktman:
What's the difference?

Well according to a scientific study that was just completed that included such factors as, economic, education and intellegence the difference is about 35 IQ points.

The average conservative's IQ score was 87.
The average Liberal's IQ score was 122.

At my old job, we had a email discussion forum, but the boss disallowed discussion of religion or politics, just because things tended to get nasty. Well, I can see the point, but on the other hand, freedom to speak out about whatever is good too.

Nacktman,

I'd really like to have a link or something to the supposed "scientitic study". I vote Republican, but I am interested in whatever the truth may be. I couldn't find anything legit in a few minutes of Google searching. This smells like an urban legend kind of thing. I would bet that the true difference is not that much either way. What is certain is that Democrats/Republicans have a radically different approach to solving our nation's problems. It is certainly a different kind of mind, that may have different effects in other cultural/political contexts.

If there ever is a scientific study really done, I'm sure it would show at least a small difference one way or another. Does that mean we should make assumptions about a person's intelligence based on party? I think it would be like that IQ "difference" between human races... there is far more variation within the race than between them! Therefore, it is not only "wrong" to make assumptions of IQ based on race, it is irrational/illogical and useless. I'd bet a million dollars that there is also more IQ/intelligence variation within either political party than the average between them

My main reason for voting Republican is the economic philosophy. I do not identify with the morality camp, although I certainly wouldn't vote for Howard Stern even if he were Republican. I do not consider myself "conservative" at all in the non-political sense of the word. In fact I would vote for sweeping change - in the right direction. I am a lover of freedom. I was born into a low-income, large family and I will always vote for the party that gives me greater hope to get my piece of the American dream, through my own hard work. I don't want hand-outs. I just want freedom, and I will make my own way.

Just to bust another stereotype, I love science and believe 100% in evolution (though I really doubt the scenario predicted in the article linked in the last post above me), and the general scientific scenario of how the earth came to be.

http://www.isteve.com/IQhoax.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

[nacktman]

Sorry but you'll have to wait on a link.
"Just completed" means just that, the final draft for publication isn't ready yet.
I am one of the study's reviewers to assist it's authors in preparing the finished report.
They intend on publishing the report next year (which is pretty quick for most studies).

[usmc1]

OH Bosh!

It does not take a scientific study to determine that liberals are much brighter than conservatives anymore than if you stick your arm down into the workings of a wood chipper you know you're pretty certain to wind up with a bloody stub. Some things are just glaringly obvious.

Sometimes empirical evidence is sufficient.

But, I guess we're not all tht bright since we keep engaging in exchanges with them--talk about fruitless endeavors--sort of like cracking yourself over the head with a ball-peen hammer to make the headache go away, engaging in disputation with a conservatoid.

Nevermind! Continue with your study, PLEASE!

[Baron Lake]

usmc1, d'ya have personal experience with that particular headache "remedy"? Also, ain't nothing to sticking your arm in a chipper without injury. Of course you best make sure it's unplugged first! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
As to your battle of wits with the unarmed...it's a terrible compulsion sometimes. Too bad we can't enrole in some 12 step program.
b.l.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
usmc1, d'ya have personal experience with that particular headache "remedy"? Also, ain't nothing to sticking your arm in a chipper without injury. Of course you best make sure it's unplugged first! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
As to your battle of wits with the unarmed...it's a terrible compulsion sometimes. Too bad we can't enrole in some 12 step program.
b.l.

HI! I'm USMC and I am a compulsive disputor of conservatoid philosophies.

It started years ago during the REEgan years. To my everlasting shame, it continues to this very moment.

Can I please have a desire chip, and maybe NACKTMAN would like to sponsor me during my cold turkey withdrawal phase.

No nevermind, I just don't have the willpower. Plus, if I couldn't mole-whack conservatoids, I'd probably take to kicking puppies, slapping children or pushing ducks into the water.

Oh Lost, Oh Lost!

That last thing there was a bit of homage to Thomas Wolfe.

[nacktman]

That last thing there was a bit of a homage to Thomas Wolfe.

You know what is so funny about that is, that even with the notation of the homage the average conservatoid won't get it.

[usmc1]

Here's something they'll get, from Daily KOS.

20 Sound Bites To Describe Conservative Republicans
by davefromqueens
Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 01:48:25 PM PDT

Steven Colbert once said that "facts have a well known liberal bias." Indeed, I can probably type for weeks and list relevant facts that would back up why liberalism, progressivism, and moderation succeed and conservatism always fails.

But the average American (liberal as he or she may be) doesn't spend significant time reading political blogs on the internet or attending conferences in which information is dispersed.

The average American, while shuffling through the tedious trivialities of everyday life, makes political decisions based on two minutes worth of information. Thus we must do a better job of articulating our case in soundbites. Thus I've compiled a list of effective soundbites to describe Republicans. You then use the facts to back them up.

davefromqueens's diary :: ::
1. Republicans cut and run on Osama Bin Laden and increased terrorism around the world.

2. Republicans believe in helping defense contractors not national defense.

3. Class warfare Republicans believe in raising middle class taxes to cut taxes for corporations and the ultra rich.

4. Republicans put the fear of terrorism over the prevention of terrorism.

5. Republicans believe in illegal wiretapping and illegal surveillance of individuals not court approved warrants.

6. Republicans believe govt owns your womb, not women.

7. Republicans believe in protecting polluters, not people.

8. Republicans believe that HMO bureaucrats and insurance companies should be making health care decisions, not patients and doctors.

9. Republicans invaded Iraq for profit and ignored Al Qaeda.

10. Republicans believe in increasing college tuition costs and decreasing the quality of education.

11. Republicans believe in forced prayer upon people not respecting the individual right to pray.

12. Republicans believe in corporate welfare, not small businesses.

13. Republicans believe that elitists are free to do as they please and that laws don't apply to them.

14. Republicans believe that they should decide what TV shows you watch, not parents.

15. Republicans oppose a meritocracy and believe in the good ole boys network.

16. Republicans support affirmative action for lesser able, lesser qualified inheritors of wealth, and oppose equal opportunity for everyone else.

17. Republicans believe they should regulate your bedroom activities, not individual adults.

18. Republicans believe in increasing deficits and stealing from the treasury.

19. Republicans believe in fiction not science.

20. Republicans oppose individual religious freedom but seek to impose their talibanish views on others through government.

Of course I can add dozens more but this is a good start. Plus it's simple.

[usmc1]

Orderlies! Orderlies! We've got us a loose one. Load the syringes with thorazine and get this place locked down and meet me in the rec room! NOW! STAT!

[LamontCranston]

Well, I've been a registered Republican since the Carter Administration, although I don't always vote that way.

I don't recognize any of these 20 sound bites. I think the author could have come up with better points using fewer cliches... probably why he's a blogger for free, not a journalist for pay.


19. Republicans believe in fiction not science. The Democrat Party candidate for Governor in my state says he's going to provide universal free health care for everyone. And pay for it by taxing companies like WalMart.

If that isn't fiction I don't know what is. I'd like change at the top but how can I vote for such a sweeping but empty promise?

[nacktman]

Darnation another of them loonies done slipped outta they's jacket that ties in the back ...

Where is the rock they keep crawling out from under?
We need to find that rock and fill in the hole beneath it.

Oh, and Haldol works a might better than Thorzine, usmc1, of course a stout length of a two - by - four does it best, especially when applied directly across the bridge of the nose with a forceful swinging motion.

Good start on the soundbite list.

[nacktman]

Question: How can the conservatoids breathe with their olfactory passages crammed so far up their rectums ... (the olfactory passages are part of the nose which is on the face, which is on the head - for you conservatoids)?

[usmc1]

Here's why the fight will not be over after the November elections. The scum-sucking bottom feeders who have gained ownership of the Republican party are out to destroy social security and Medicare for their own profit.

And they will use any subversive tactic they can finance to accomplish that...

A Particularly Poisonous Front Group
by Dave Johnson | Oct 20 2006 - 1:28pm |

This piece originally appeared on The Patriot Project

Yet another big-money front group is working the scene – poisoning America’s pre-election civic discussion, spending $1 MILLION to saturate the radio with ads that say,

"Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," a female announcer in one of the ads says.

"The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote. Why don't they want our lives?"

According to a story at the far-right NewsMax, (based on this NY Sun story)

Another ad tries to link Democrats to David Duke,a white supremacist who served as a Republican in the Louisiana Legislature. The spot refers to Duke's trip to Syria last year, where he spoke at an anti-war rally.

"I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists," a male voice says. "What I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke."

Johnnie Griffin, a sociology professor at Indiana University, told the Sun: "This is so dirty, but it works. These are race ads. It's incredible."

The front group placing these radio ads in districts around the country is named Americas PAC, and research shows that this one is be part of a web of similar organizations. Americas PAC received major contributions just this last quarter of over $1.5 million from “Woodland Group Indiana LLC.”

Almost no information is available on the Woodland Group. However, from the Center for Public Integrity’s, Silent Partners, How political non-profits work the system,

Three different firms listed at the same address—7440 Woodland Drive in Indianapolis, Ind.—combined to give $2,250,000 mostly to Republican-leaning 527s. That address is home to Golden Rule Insurance Company, one of the biggest backers of medical savings accounts and a longtime GOP supporter.

A spokeswoman for Golden Rule said she had never heard of Woodland Group Indiana LLC, one of the contributors listed at that address.

A search on Woodland Groups’ address, 7440 Woodland Drive, Indianapolis, eventually yields “The Golden Rule Building” and Golden Rule Insurance as well as Educational CHOICE Charitable Trust – “A CEO America Affiliate Program” (Childrens Educational Opportunity). The Golden Rule Insurance Company’s former head is J. Patrick Rooney. According to People For the American Way,

J. Patrick Rooney … is well known as one of the largest individual donors to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as well as to his GOPAC and Progress and Freedom Foundation. Rooney is also a founding board member of Republican National Coalition for Life, a PAC founded by Religious Right heavyweights like Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer and Beverly LaHaye to keep the abortion plank in the Republican Party strong.

GOPAC and Newt Gingrich are known for, among other things, introducing the language of incivility into our politics. For example, the 1994 Newt/GOPAC document "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," tells Republicans to use words like, “decay... failure… incompetent… sick… traitors” to describe Democrats – just to use the words for the negative effect the words have on people’s perceptions.

Rooney and his Golden Rule Insurance Company have long been major funders of the far right, especially promoting Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the 2004 Mother Jones article Medicare's Hidden Bonanza may just explain why,

After millions in campaign contributions, an insurance magnate's 10-year lobbying campaign finally pays off.

… there is little doubt about the biggest short-term winner. He is J. Patrick Rooney, a major Republican campaign donor from Indiana who has done more than anyone else to make health savings accounts a reality. Rooney is the chairman emeritus of the Indianapolis-based Golden Rule Insurance Co., which has been selling health savings accounts through a now-expired pilot program that Rooney helped convince Congress to approve in 1996. Just days before the new Medicare bill passed, UnitedHealth Group, the largest insurer in America, paid $500 million in cash for Rooney's family-owned company—a move that analysts said was directly tied to the Medicare bill's provisions broadening the market for health savings accounts.

A $500 million return on the investment in poisoning America’s political environment! It brings to mind a cliche -- but at Patriot Project we don’t think we’re in the wrong business. This is wrong – these front groups are set up to skirt the law, and they harm democracy. And now some of that $500 million is being funneled back into the political system, diverting the public from problems we need to solve, distracting from the real issues of the election, and aimed at obscuring the corruption and poison these groups spread.

In 2004 Americas PAC received large contributions from another front organization – the Republican Leadership Coalition. The Republican Leadership Coalition was established by Scott W. Reed, former head of (yet another front group) the American Taxpayers Alliance, which ran ads blaming California Governor Gray Davis for the energy crisis – which readers might recall later turned out to be a manipulation of markets by Enron. Reed also managed Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, and was executive director of the Republican National Committee under Haley Barbour. Reed started his career with the Christian Coalition (but is no relation to Jack Abramoff associate Ralph Reed), in the past worked as a lobbyist for (yet another front group) Americans for Gun Safety (2002), and was President and Founder of the lobbying firm Chesapeake Enterprises (2004)

While Americas Pac lists its location as Marion, Indiana, in previous years they were listed at an address in Overland Kansas. Americas PAC is affiliated with and gave $260,000 to yet another front group, a 501 (c) 4 “think tank,” Americas Majority, which shared Americas Pac’s earlier address in Overland. From Americas Majority’s website,

Americas Majority was founded to increase the constituency for conservative causes: free market economics, international anti-totalitarianism, and morals based on Jewish and Christian scriptures.

According to SourceWatch, Americas Majority is headed by Richard Nadler, an “Intelligent Design” advocate who also heads the firm Access Communications, which receives money (over $400,000 in 2004) to handle the advertising for Americas Majority. Richard Nadler was listed at the 2004 CPAC conference as Political Director of the front group Republican Leadership Coalition – which made Public Citizen’s 2002 list of “shadowy” 527 organizations.

Patriot Project is working to expose these front groups, set up at election-time to pervert the process, smear honest public servants and poison our democracy.

[LamontCranston]

"Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," a female announcer in one of the ads says.

"The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote. Why don't they want our lives?"

"I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists," a male voice says. So it your contention that these events aren't true? Or that they get raised when they do?

Why do so many Democrats make nice with terrorists?

And if it's true that -- "Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," ... and "The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws..."

Why doesn't that bother folks who vote the Democrat Party? It bothers me.

It is argued that the death penalty is unevenly applied and this (if true, there's no attribution again) seems to indicate that abortion is also uneven.

Why? Seems like a good social ill to shine a light into.

Is it the message or the messenger that you're complaining about?

[usmc1]

First it was the Libertarians, then the NASCAR dads and security moms, now it's the Evangelicals drifting away from the GOP.

Maybe we should all send W our thanks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/

[nacktman]

Another fine example of a total miss in what was being said.

The difference # 37:

Liberals get it!
conservatoids don't.

[usmc1]

Listen, listen! The children of the right! Listen to their agonized shrieks, ahhhh the music they make.

To paraphrase ole Bela Lugosi his own self in Dracula. Seasonally appropriate, I should think.

[LamontCranston]

Us against them... you guys are a one-note band.

Anytime me or anyone else pokes at anything resembling an ISSUE, you bring out the harmonica and blow the "you're stupid we're smart" note.

Ho.. Hum..

I do see what's being said Nackty. There's a shadow group out there funding advertising you don't like.

More BIG CONSPIRACY spook stuff.

Those low IQ, incompetent, dunderhead yet majority party, holders of power are pointing to splinters in the Democrat Party platform. "And that's not fair" Is that the message?

I perceive from you fellows the sort of setup excuse crap you'll roll out when the Dems fail to pull off a win.

If the state of affairs is anything at all like you advertise, why would the election even be close?

Just win baby.. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/annoyed.gif

[usmc1]

"Then a dog began to howl somewhere in a farmhouse far down the road, a long, agonized wailing, as if from fear. The sound was taken up by another dog, and then another and another, till, borne on the wind which now sighed softly through the Pass, a wild howling began, which seemed to come from all over the country, as far as the imagination could grasp it through the gloom of the night."

From Bram Stoker's "Dracula"

[usmc1]

Here's a big difference, when faced with a butt-kicking the conservatives resort to sleeze, racism and homophobia.

GOP sleaze machine: Racism, bigotry & homophobia
By DOUG THOMPSON
Oct 31, 2006 - 6:48:22 AM

With the party's back against the wall, the Republican sleaze machine went into high gear this past week, appealing to the inherent racism, bigotry and homophobia that lie within GOP extremist, hoping that fear and ignorance will turn the tide in an election they can't win on truth or the issues.

The Republican National Committee paid for a television ad in the Tennessee Senate Race, hoping that racial overtones can derail Democratic candidate Harold Ford by suggesting he chases white women and parties with Playboy centerfolds.

Even the executives of Wal-Mart, hardly a bastion of liberalism, found the Tennessee ad so despicable that it severed its relationship with media producer Terry Nelson, who created the ad for the GOP.

"We believe this is the right course of action," Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said.

But in the bowels of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, the sleaze merchants rubbed their hands in glee and patted each other on the back.

"We made race an issue in Tennessee," bragged one GOP political operative. "That always plays in our favor."

Yes, it does. The Republican Party is so overrun with racists, bigots and homophobes that appealing to such stupidity always plays in their favor.

That's why President George W. Bush, the bigot-in-chief, turned away from the taxes and terrorism issues he has trumpeted for the past several weeks and unleashed a homophobic tirade against gay marriage while campaigning among Southern rednecks.

"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday while campaigning in the backwoods of Georgia. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."

But Bush's remarks are just the tip of the GOP's homophobia. In Indiana, rabid right-wing Republican incumbent John Hostettler is running a 60-second radio ad that claims Democrats and San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will pursue a "homosexual agenda" if they win control of the House in next week's November mid-term elections.

"Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home," says the ad. "Go ahead, vote for Brad Ellsworth. Make Nancy Pelosi's day."

This is typical Republican gay-bashing. A few years ago, Republicans tried to win control of the Vermont legislature with a campaign that said Democrats favored programs that urged elementary school children to experiment with gay and lesbian sex.

Equally appalling is the Republican hypocrisy on gay issues. It is, after all, one of their own - former Congressman Mark Foley of Florida - who is caught up in a scandal for pursuing young male pages. The Republican leadership of Congress ignored Foley's antics for years because they considered it more important to hold on to his seat.

Such antics provide more justification for why the party of the elephant must be driven from the halls of power in Congress. Homophobia, racism and bigotry have no place in our society. Unfortunately, these outdated fears, driven by ignorance and stupidity, still exist and they will continue to exist as long as the Republican Party draws its strength from fear and intolerance.

[hm0504]

As Cheney has been pointing out, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism. I think he is being much too lenient: any attempt to diminish the power of the current White House administration sends the wrong message to the terrorists. Elections, voting, debate are all based on pre-9/11 thinking. Thank goodness the Bush administration is working hard to change all that.

[missouriboy]

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals? This brief excerpt from history renders a basic understanding...

HUMAN HISTORY:

Division of the human family into two distinct political groups began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains in the summer and would go to the beach and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement."

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and grooming. This was the beginning of "the Liberal movement."

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created their business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There! A full understanding of the difference is better facilitated by first digesting these fundamental beginnings. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Naturist Mark]

As a compliment to the prehistory of conservatism and liberalism, I think it is time to resurrect the story of Joe Republican:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of Joe's medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. the air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.

Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so the can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the GreatDepression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

After work this evening, Joe plans to visit his father at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

Joe is happy to see his father, who is now retired and lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." [/list]

-Mark

[NudeAl]

Moboy and Mark thank you both.

I think both of these posts were great both gave me a chuckle. They say there is a grain of truth in every cliche, I suppose that may be the case here. Hats off to both you gents. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

[missouriboy]

I agree with both posts too. There is not just simply a one-way criticism that is valid in either direction, as the rabid partisans on either side would have you believe.

Just as on a flying ship, it requires both a left wing and a right wing to keep the ship of state sailing straight and true; each one is needed to keep the other in check.

Can you imagine flying on a plane with either wing missing?

[Baron Lake]

Even a plane with two good wings needs a "pilut" that can pass a physical.
b.l.

[Baron Lake]

Moboy,

Just one quibble with your Nov 4 post. Me and my liberal friends like our beef on the rare side. Been my experience that my conservative buddies tend toward charcoal. Oh, and they always pick the wrong wine to go with it.
Other than that you're purty much right on. I like the part about my ladys having more testostrone, saves me from al lot of heavy lifting.
b.l.

[missouriboy]

[big grin]

[usmc1]

Right Now, Today! Let's Impeach the SOB.

That's a big ole difference - we liberals are ready to do the deal. Start the ball rolling, no more dithering.

The Fierce Urgency of Impeachment
by David Swanson | Feb 20 2007 - 9:00am |

Remarks at Emergency Impeachment Conference in New York City, February 17, 2007

It's an honor to be speaking with these panelists and it's great to be back in New York. But I want to ask you one thing about New York, because there's something I heard Senator Hillary Clinton say and I want to know if it's true. Is it true that if you live in New York you have to support this war? Can you live in New York and work for peace?

That's what I thought.

I got up at 2 a.m. this morning in Charlottesville, Va., my town and the town of Thomas Jefferson, the man whose greatest fear for our republic was of elected despotism. Jefferson and Madison and Mason and the others who drafted the most influential Constitution the world has seen, created a system of elections, but devoted much more attention and many more words to creating a system for maintaining our democracy in between elections. They gave this essential power to the House of Representatives, as the branch most subject to popular control, and they called this power impeachment.

The founders knew that democracy could only be maintained through eternal vigilance. But we – or perhaps more G.E. and Disney than we – have substituted for eternal vigilance an eternal election season. I don't know if the founders could have imagined the way in which elections are killing our democracy, but they certainly imagined that the loss of the power of impeachment would mean a return to tyranny.

No one can say exactly how long our window of opportunity is to get impeachment up and running before it's effectively blocked by the November 2008 election. Is it too late already? Do we have two months? Three months? Four months? Wiser minds than mine seem inclined to think we may have until roughly the end of April to get the impeachment process up and running. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing until January 2009 if need be. But it does mean that if you or your organization are on the edge of accepting the need for impeachment you should bear in mind that it will be much more helpful for you to make that decision right now than later this year or next year.

Seventeen Republicans took a tiny step forward against the war on Friday. They did that because Republican voters are turning against Bush and Cheney. Republicans should think very hard about something. Do you, as a Republican, want future Democratic presidents to have the ability to rewrite laws with signing statements? Do you want them to have the ability to spy on you with no legal oversight? I know Libertarians don't want that. Congressman Ron Paul says Bush should be impeached, but Congressman Paul has not found the nerve to do anything about it – yet.

The Green party publicly stands for impeachment. Every other party should join them.

Impeachment is not a means of empowering a party. It's a way to empower the American people and the first branch of our government, the Congress. But the fact is that if the Democratic Party takes a stand for impeachment, it will gain the respect and support of Americans and of people all over the world, and it will be rewarded. When the Democrats failed to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra, thinking they could thereby win elections, they lost elections and put George Bush I in power – and we are suffering from that still. Americans do not vote for cowardice. They voted for Democrats post-Nixon, but not post-Reagan.

The current crop of Democrats has shown that it will not act to end the war without some sort of kick-start, something to strengthen the hand of opponents of Bush and Cheney. Impeachment is the one thing that might shift the balance.

A labor union member and peace activist sent me an Email yesterday that said: If the peace movement wants to succeed, we can't fail to employ the threat of impeachment any more than a union can promise never to go on strike.

Right now, unions are lobbying hard to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore the right to effectively organize unions in this country. But Cheney has promised to have Bush veto it. It is time for unions to threaten a strike. In politics a strike is called impeachment.

Environmental organizations are concerned that we only have to many years to reverse our energy policy if we are going to reverse global warming. But any bills to do that will be vetoed or signing statemented. You cannot tell me that you care about global warming and that you're willing to sit on your hands for two full years because impeachment is not your focus. It had better become your focus or the rest of us are going to learn about global warming the hard way.

Pick an issue, any issue, and a compelling case can be made that your priority for the next few months should be impeachment. Failing to pursue impeachment will mean two more years of war, detention, torture, and abuse, and the defunding of every useful public project. Two years is a quarter of the Bush, Cheney presidency. Pick any past two years of that presidency, and you have an idea of the catastrophe we're facing. The results of it will last well beyond the end of the two years.

To recognize the gravity of the impeachable offenses that Cheney and Bush have committed and yet not work to end them because your focus is elsewhere is, in many cases, to lose your focus. A citizen who does not work for impeachment when it is merited is a neighbor who watches a murder and does not intervene. We're all busy. We all have vitally important missions. But that's a murder outside the window. You wouldn't watch and do nothing. But the Bush Administration is killing hundreds of thousands of people every year by acts of commission and omission, people of Iraq, of Africa, of New Orleans, of the world. And if we fail to impeach, we will establish the precedent to allow future presidents to do the same and worse.

Impeachment is the nonviolent answer to this crisis. We should feel no animosity toward any human being, and we should condemn all acts of violence. This is absolutely essential if we are to succeed. But we should act with deliberateness and determination to restore the rule of law and hold accountable those who would place themselves above it.

[missouriboy]

I previously posted a whimsical entry on this thread, but now I have come across a more thoughtful description written by another person who, like me, is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but stands back to look at each with objective comparison. I’ll excerpt the relevant portions from his larger monograph, and put it in italics…

(Intro)

…While the mass culture of modern democracy demands that every citizen have an opinion on every issue, the reality is that nobody has the mind, the time, or the interest to do so. Rather than failing in their democratic obligations, people tend to buy into one of many off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all sets of opinions proffered by subcultures and interest groups and pass them off as their own. But all over-the-counter ideologies are not equal, and it does matter which the majority accepts.

(Conservatives)

Christianity is the foundation upon which millennia of Western thought, politics, and social institutions have been built. The typical Christian believes, without needing justification, in the importance of family, the central social role of church and community, the individual’s duty to charity, and in the importance of personal responsibility -- all vulnerable institutions and predispositions, proven through the centuries to protect social stability and resist centralized tyranny.

(Liberals)

Today’s secular left-liberals dismiss or deny the importance of all these traditions. They trade the wisdom and experience of centuries of Western civilization for the destructive doctrines of Noam Chomsky and the propaganda of Michael Moore. They preoccupy themselves with tearing down the traditional institutions of social life and offer little but utopian dreams and the cold, centralized state to replace them.

(Conclusion)

While the recent political moves on both sides of this culture war disturb me, I’d sooner take my chances with a conservative mass of close-minded ignoramuses, who pretty much want things to stay the same, than with these left-wingnuts, who want God knows what.

Well, I’ll not list the man’s name, but I’m sure you can see that isn’t my own work. My own opinion is this: Both sides are needed, so the moderates of each side can stifle and balance the fanaticism of extremists on the other side. If one side or the other were to hold sway strongly, or for very long, it would soon be Hell on Earth.

[Sanslines]

Life is generally like the mathematical bell curve. The majority are dispersed around the middle either slightly left or slightly right. Few are found on the far right and far left extremes. As in life, it generally seems to be the case that when the political establishment shifts either too far right or too far left, then a correction occurs to bring things closer to the center.

[Naturist Mark]

(Conservatives)

Christianity is the foundation upon which millennia of Western thought, politics, and social institutions have been built. The typical Christian believes, without needing justification, in the importance of family, the central social role of church and community, the individual’s duty to charity, and in the importance of personal responsibility -- all vulnerable institutions and predispositions, proven through the centuries to protect social stability and resist centralized tyranny.

(Liberals)

Today’s secular left-liberals dismiss or deny the importance of all these traditions. They trade the wisdom and experience of centuries of Western civilization for the destructive doctrines of Noam Chomsky and the propaganda of Michael Moore. They preoccupy themselves with tearing down the traditional institutions of social life and offer little but utopian dreams and the cold, centralized state to replace them.
Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

[Naturist Mark]

Here's a better description of What Liberals Believe (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,1,1903801.story) , from law professor Geoffrey R. Stone at the University of Chicago: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> 1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." [/list]

-Mark

Outstanding post, Mark! Stone defines liberals for what they really are; not this misguided and deliberate spin by those who oppose the liberal philosophy.

Thanks for the posting.

Allie

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(Conservatives)

Christianity is the foundation upon which millennia of Western thought, politics, and social institutions have been built. The typical Christian believes, without needing justification, in the importance of family, the central social role of church and community, the individual’s duty to charity, and in the importance of personal responsibility -- all vulnerable institutions and predispositions, proven through the centuries to protect social stability and resist centralized tyranny.

(Liberals)

Today’s secular left-liberals dismiss or deny the importance of all these traditions. They trade the wisdom and experience of centuries of Western civilization for the destructive doctrines of Noam Chomsky and the propaganda of Michael Moore. They preoccupy themselves with tearing down the traditional institutions of social life and offer little but utopian dreams and the cold, centralized state to replace them.
Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a vertiable Strawman if there ever was one.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Here's a better description of What Liberals Believe (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,1,1903801.story) , from law professor Geoffrey R. Stone at the University of Chicago: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> 1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." [/list]

-Mark

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Now, if only those that need this information would but heed it.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Here's a better description of What Liberals Believe (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,1,1903801.story) , from law professor Geoffrey R. Stone at the University of Chicago:
That sounds like the best and most complete description that I have ever read.

[Naturist Mark]

I've been trying to find an equivalent list of what Conservatives believe. It's tough to find any that aren't either strawmen or anti-liberal vitriol. But Jane Galt (http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009502.html) offers this list as a response to Geoffrey Stone's: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> 1. Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
2. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result. Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
3. Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
4. Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
5. Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
6. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
7. Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
8. Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
9. Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history. People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
10. Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them. [/list]

Interestingly I agree with these points just about as much as with Stone's. So are real conservatives actually liberals?

Perhaps yes, in a political science sense - we attribute the 'rugged individualist' meme to liberalism, while deference to a natural authority, aristocracy and rigid social stratification are attributed to conservatism - which was never an American conservative trait (until the neo-cons) but was a common feature of European conservatism.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I've been trying to find an equivalent list of what Conservatives believe. It's tough to find any that aren't either strawmen or anti-liberal vitriol. But Jane Galt (http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009502.html) offers this list as a response to Geoffrey Stone's: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> 1. Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
2. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result. Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
3. Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
4. Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
5. Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
6. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
7. Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
8. Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
9. Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history. People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
10. Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them. [/list]

Interestingly I agree with these points just about as much as with Stone's. So are real conservatives actually liberals?

Perhaps yes, in a political science sense - we attribute the 'rugged individualist' meme to liberalism, while noblesse oblige and deference to authority and aristocracy to conservatism - which was never an American conservative trait (until the neo-cons) but was a common feature of European conservatism.

-Mark

Holy cow! Mark! You've put it out in the open there haven't you?


So, are real conservatives actually liberals?

Ding, Ding, Ding* ... that's what we've been saying all along!

*wake up bell for the facsists, neocons and theocons and their syncophants.

[MJ_KC]

In my opinion, the core values are fairly similar, that that is where it ends. When you expand on some of the items on these lists, that is where the differences begin to show.

Take #10 on the conservative list. That is pretty much a given for anyone except perhaps the criminals. The differences come into play when it comes to what to do with the criminals.

These lists show only high level ideas and not the gritty details concerning how these things are actually implemented.

[usmc1]

Liberalism has a long list of accomplishments which affect all of us in a positive way each day of our lives. The question which always draws the silent blank stare is to ask for a list of conservative accomplishments.

Invariably the fall of the Berlin Wall or end of Soviet Communism gets trotted out on their gimpy legs. Then they find out, not only do those horses not run, you can't even force them into the gates.

[missouriboy]

So are real conservatives actually liberals? Well, then, why not ask it both ways: So are real liberals actually conservatives?

Most people only want what is good for everybody. So, applying contentious labels just causes friction as we seek ways to get what is good. Why is that? Is it to satisfy some basic human need for warlike pursuits, something left over from primitive conditions requiring aggressive actions for survival?

If all the energy and effort devoted to squabbling over Liberal/Conservative disconnects were instead focused on achieving what is good for everybody, what a different world it would be, indeed!

[PascoDoug]

THE SNEETCHES
by Dr. Seuss

Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."

With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they'd snort, "
We'll have nothing to do with the plain-bellied sort."
And whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
they'd hike right on past them without even talking.

When the Star-bellied children went out to play ball,
could the Plain-bellies join in their game? Not at all!
You could only play ball if your bellies had stars,
and the Plain-bellied children had none upon thars.

When the Star-bellied Sneetches had frankfurter roasts,
or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,
they never invited the Plain-bellied Sneetches.
Left them out cold in the dark of the beaches.
Kept them away; never let them come near,
and that's how they treated them year after year.

Then one day, it seems, while the Plain-bellied Sneetches
were moping, just moping alone on the beaches,
sitting there, wishing their bellies had stars,
up zipped a stranger in the strangest of cars.

"My friends, " he announced in a voice clear and keen,
"My name is Sylvester McMonkey McBean.
I've heard of your troubles; I've heard you're unhappy.
But I can fix that; I'm the fix-it-up chappie.
I've come here to help you; I have what you need.
My prices are low, and I work with great speed,
and my work is one hundred per cent guaranteed."

Then quickly, Sylvester McMonkey McBean
put together a very peculiar machine.
Then he said, "You want stars like a Star-bellied Sneetch?
My friends, you can have them . . . . for three dollars each.
Just hand me your money and climb on aboard."

They clambered inside and the big machine roared.
It bonked. It clonked. It jerked. It berked.
It bopped them around, but the thing really worked.
When the Plain-bellied Sneetches popped out, they had stars!
They actually did, they had stars upon thars!

Then they yelled at the ones who had stars from the start,
"We're exactly like you; you can't tell us apart.
We're all just the same now, you snooty old smarties.
Now we can come to your frankfurter parties!"

"Good grief!" groaned the one who had stars from the first.
"We're still the best Sneetches, and they are the worst.
But how in the world will we know," they all frowned,
"if which kind is what or the other way 'round?"

Then up stepped McBean with a very sly wink, and he said,
"Things are not quite as bad as you think.
You don't know who's who, that is perfectly true.
But come with me, friends, do you know what I'll do?
I'll make you again the best Sneetches on beaches,
and all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches.

Belly stars are no longer in style, " said McBean.
"What you need is a trip through my stars-off machine.
This wondrous contraption will take off your stars,
so you won't look like Sneetches who have them on thars."

That handy machine, working very precisely,
removed all the stars from their bellies quite nicely.
Then, with snoots in the air, they paraded about.
They opened their beaks and proceeded to shout,
"We now know who's who, and there isn't a doubt,
the best kind of Sneetches are Sneetches without."

Then, of course those with stars all got frightfully mad.
To be wearing a star now was frightfully bad.
Then, of course old Sylvester McMonkey McBean
invited them into his stars-off machine.
Then, of course from then on, you can probably guess,
things really got into a horrible mess.

All the rest of the day on those wild screaming beaches,
the Fix-it-up-Chappie was fixing up Sneetches.
Off again, on again, in again, out again,
through the machine and back round about again,
still paying money, still running through,
changing their stars every minute or two,
until neither the Plain- nor the Star-bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one or what one was who!

Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
the Fix-It-Up-Chappie packed up and he went.
And he laughed as he drove in his car up the beach,
"They never will learn; no, you can't teach a Sneetch!"

But McBean was quite wrong, I'm quite happy to say,
the Sneetches got quite a bit smarter that day.
That day, they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches,
and no kind of Sneetch is the BEST on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars,
and whether they had one or not upon thars.

[missouriboy]

So I wonder how much longer it'll be before our own Fix-it-up-Chappie comes along to elevate us humans to the advanced level of the Sneetches? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

[usmc1]

Here's a big difference, Liberals back in charge of congress and its approval ratings start to go up!

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-c...tionalnews-headlines (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-congress-100-days,0,118787.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines)

[kphoger]

Conservatives want us to believe that financial gain is the loftiest of ideals, and competition is the healthiest way to it.

Liberals want us to believe that the traditional family has no place in modern society.

Both make me sick. I don't like either label. If I'm a conservative, it's because I want the government to loosen its hold on our lives. If I'm a liberal, it's because I don't believe some groups or viewpoints should receive preferential treatment over others.

I'm not only starting to wonder if conservatives are actually liberals in disguise, I'm also starting to wonder if liberals are actually conservatives in disguise. As the libertarian party likes to ask: do you want the government to decide how you live your personal life, or do you want the government's hands in your wallet?

[nacktman]

Originally posted by kphoger:
As the libertarian party likes to ask: do you want the government to decide how you live your personal life, or do you want the government's hands in your wallet?

kphoger, your points in your post are pretty dead on as to the "conservatives", not so much as to the Liberals.
However it is your citation of the libertarian query that is highly misleading.
Both halves of the query are the perview of a single 'party' and it is not the Liberal one.
"conservatives" are the ones to ever want to 'tell you how to live your life (personal or otherwise)' and the grubbiest fingers grabbing for your wallet (and more of it's contents), have all ways been those belonging to the "conservatives" -- they have just mounted a very successful campaign of smoke and mirrors to fool the public into believing otherwise.
The distinction is that Liberals use public money for public projects and thereby garner the public's attention, "conservatives" on the other hand use public money for private projects and thereby avoid the public's attention ... many times until it is too late to reverse or stop their pilfering of the public's purse.

[usmc1]

KP, I disagree with your assesment that Liberals believe the "traditional" family has no place in society. I just do not think that is correct.

If you mean by traditional family, a male dad, a female mom, 2.5 kids, a golden retriever, home in the suburbs, PTO meetings, and all the etc, etc, etc. That sort of family has an important place in society.

But, not to the exclusion of single parent families, widowed Iraq war mom or dads, families made up of grandparents raising grandchildren, adoptive families, families made up of foster children, families of gay parents with naturally born or adopted children, and all the other various permutations of family. All of these also hold imporatant places in our society and are equally as deserving of our respect and support as does your so-called "traditional" family.

No one wants to "destroy" your so-called traditional family. We want it and all families to be free of the threat of war, to have quality and affordable health care, and opportunity for an education that leaves no one in debt for most of their life. We want all families to thrive.

We would like for you to, however, acknowlege the worth of the love and nurturing of the various other sorts of family structures I listed above. None of them threaten your personal choice or preference as to how you construct your family.

[kphoger]

The distinction is that Liberals use public money for public projects and thereby garner the public's attention
i am the public. where does public money come from? is the left wing not historically famous for higher taxes? now, don't get me wrong, i'm actually a fan of high taxes (should i duck now?), but that's a common criticism of the left wing.


If you mean by traditional family, a male dad, a female mom, 2.5 kids, a golden retriever, home in the suburbs, PTO meetings, and all the etc, etc, etc. That sort of family has an important place in society.
you're right, i used language that was too strong. i'm not suggesting that the left wing despises the traditional family. however, you rephrased even better than i could have myself:

All of these [non-traditional families] also hold imporatant places in our society and are equally as deserving of our respect and support as does your so-called "traditional" family.
this i do take issue with. i was raised in a very traditional family. however, i had a daughter out of wedlock; she lives with her mom and stepdad, visiting my wife and me a few times a year now that we've moved farther away. my wife's mom was a drug addict and has been married three times (the current one in prison), she was raised for quite a few years by her (traditional) grandparents, and she only got to know her father in last few years. what i mean to say is that i see both sides of the fence. things for us have worked out pretty well, but i owe that in large part to the following:
1. all sides of my daughter's family get along well together. i've seen a LOT of situations worse off than mine, and i've seen how the children suffer because of it.
2. my wife had the benefit of her grandparents' stability. her sisters have had much more or her mom's chaotic influence, and we all see clearly the damaging effects in each.

now, the argument can be made that many traditional families have their own dysfunctions, and children suffer from that too. but, *all things being equal*, i remain convinced that children are better off in a traditional family than a non-traditional one. i do not buy into the idea that all family structures are equally deserving of our respect. it's madness to toss out centuries of family values because we think we've risen above them.

gay marriage is a whole other can of beans. i still haven't figured out why the government CARES whether or not gay couples have a legal document in their hands. nor have i figured out why so many people citizens freak out at the prospect of legal gay marriage. now, i'm a christian, so i believe marriage is more than just legal status; i believe it is a covenant relationship, the boundaries for which are set by god rather than by us. furthermore, i assert that those boundaries exclude gay couples. however, i don't really care if the government agrees with me or not. as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay weddings, then let the government hand out marriage licenses to whomever it wishes. more power to them.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by kphoger:
i do not buy into the idea that all family structures are equally deserving of our respect. it's madness to toss out centuries of family values because we think we've risen above them.


I'm not personally aware of anyone who is advocating the abandonment of the so-called "traditional" family. I think the point (and I defer to usmc1) is that anyone who is responsibly trying to raise children in a stable, supportive and loving home deserves respect, or at the very least, to be able to do so free from interference. At least that's my opinion.



as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay weddings, then let the government hand out marriage licenses to whomever it wishes. more power to them.

On this we actually agree.



UW

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by kphoger:
i do not buy into the idea that all family structures are equally deserving of our respect. it's madness to toss out centuries of family values because we think we've risen above them.



I'm not personally aware of anyone who is advocating the abandonment of the so-called "traditional" family.

Since this country is made up of a multitude of cultures, I'm curious as to WHO'S "centuries of traditional family values" we're supposed to be preserving. Hindu? Chinese? Swahili? Or is the U.S. supposed to be a Christian values only club?

[MJ_KC]

There are enough differences of opinion even between the various Christian churches that trying to come up with one universal concept of what constitutes traditional family values is a losing proposition.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kphoger:
i do not buy into the idea that all family structures are equally deserving of our respect. it's madness to toss out centuries of family values because we think we've risen above them.



I'm not personally aware of anyone who is advocating the abandonment of the so-called "traditional" family.

Since this country is made up of a multitude of cultures, I'm curious as to WHO'S "centuries of traditional family values" we're supposed to be preserving. Hindu? Chinese? Swahili? Or is the U.S. supposed to be a Christian values only club? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I have seen many types of families in my work. Often the non-traditional families are doing a better job. That does not mean I think the traditional family should be ditched, just that non-traditional be given respect.

I am offended when people say that liberals cannot be Christian. I consider myself both a liberal and a Christian. I am also glad I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal.

I was taught to "You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is a period after love your neighbour. Not any description of which neighbour to love.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I am offended when people say that liberals cannot be Christian.
I do not know where anybody would get that idea from.

One primary thing about being a liberal is to not be afraid of working to change things for the better and to question the establishment way of doing things any time it does not look like the old ways are working.

Conservatives are more likely to want to mantain things the way they are and to resist or attempt to slow down societal changes.

Jesus seemed to constantly be taking the liberal approach to things by frequently questioning why people were doing things a certain way.

[hm0504]

Statistically, it would appear that while conservatives do great in talking about traditional family values, it is liberals who do best at actually realizing traditional family values. e.g. Bible belt areas tend to have the worse stats wrt to divorce, age of first sexual activity, STDs, etc. Case in point, where did the recent story about Grade 5 kids having sex in class occur: was it in a liberal neighbourhood or in a bastion of religious right conservative values? Answer here:
http://creoleneworleans.typepad.com/creole_folks/2007/04/four_5th_grade_.html

[nacktman]

Originally posted by kphoger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The distinction is that Liberals use public money for public projects and thereby garner the public's attention
i am the public. where does public money come from? is the left wing not historically famous for higher taxes? now, don't get me wrong, i'm actually a fan of high taxes (should i duck now?), but that's a common criticism of the left wing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I am the public."

And right you are about that.

"Where does public money come from?"

Taxes in various forms: Income, Property, User, etc., along with investments, fees, permits and liscenses.

"Is the left wing not historically famous for higher taxes?"

Ah, no, the left wing is not, that is story of the smoke and mirror campaign of the right wing mentioned earlier.
In fact the largest tax increases in history have been by the right wing and the largest ever was just a few years ago and was called a "tax break".
But, like all of these "tax breaks" the right wing have given us over the years the only 'breaking' done was to our bank accounts unless you happen to be in the top 1% of the wealthiest who by an odd twist of fate had their bank accounts padded with each of those "tax breaks" we were given.

"But that's a common criticism of the left wing."

Again, I refer you to the aforementioned dog and pony show featuring smoke and mirrors.

As to that 'ducking' thing, you might want to consider it as the incoming rounds from the screech-monkeys' mortar batteries are sure to begin raining high-explosive and incenderary rounds in shortly! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[kphoger]

I'm not personally aware of anyone who is advocating the abandonment of the so-called "traditional" family. I think the point (and I defer to usmc1) is that anyone who is responsibly trying to raise children in a stable, supportive and loving home deserves respect, or at the very least, to be able to do so free from interference. At least that's my opinion.

you haven't heard it said that the traditional family is outdated? granted, it's the far extreme who say that, but i'm surprised you haven't heard it said. do we not remember the "moral of the story" part at the end of mrs. doubtfire? as for "your opinion", i can't disagree with it. of course they deserve our respect and freedom from interference (as i said, i'm one of "them" now). but i just can't swallow it when people try to put dysfunctional families on equal footing with so-called functional ones. you bet i wish my daughter didn't have to juggle four parents, not to mention grandparents and daycare providers. i wish my daughter could have what i had as a kid. we do the best we can, and we deserve respect for it, but it's still not ideal.


Since this country is made up of a multitude of cultures, I'm curious as to WHO'S "centuries of traditional family values" we're supposed to be preserving. Hindu? Chinese? Swahili? Or is the U.S. supposed to be a Christian values only club?

There are enough differences of opinion even between the various Christian churches that trying to come up with one universal concept of what constitutes traditional family values is a losing proposition.
please, let's not get stuck on definitions. we all know what "traditional family" means, and it's not exactly exclusive to western christianity. i'm talking about a mother and a father raising their children.


I am offended when people say that liberals cannot be Christian. I consider myself both a liberal and a Christian.
i am offended by that, too. you're a christian if you trust in christ. let's not add too many details to that sentence. i consider myself to be both conservative and liberal, because i don't think they are antonymns. one of my favorite bumper stickers says "jesus was a liberal". because, let's face it, it's true!

====

back to the topic.
i fear that conservatives and liberals - especially liberals - are losing track of just what exactly they stand for. as the capitol steps impersonating bill clinton said, "[they] changed some of my positions, and now won't tell me which ones." instead of actually standing up for core values, i see both sides campaigning on "we're better than the other guys". that bumper sticker, "had enough? vote democratic" drives me nuts. that's not politics.

[nacktman]

Some of us haven't forgotten what we stand for and we are speaking out.
That scares the begeebees out of some.

[Naturist Mark]

Since this country is made up of a multitude of cultures, I'm curious as to WHO'S "centuries of traditional family values" we're supposed to be preserving.

That's easy, Straight White Christians. Preferably ones who don't ask questions and do as they are told.

They dress up their 'Family Values' rhetoric very nicely, but that is what these Dominionists really mean, and those are the prejudices to which they appeal.

Fox Noise Channel's John Gibson was careless in revealing exactly what their family values mean:

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/bigstory-20060511-babies.wmv

-Mark

[Unwired]

Originally posted by kphoger:

you haven't heard it said that the traditional family is outdated? granted, it's the far extreme who say that, but i'm surprised you haven't heard it said. do we not remember the "moral of the story" part at the end of mrs. doubtfire?

I never saw Mrs. Doubtfire; Robin Williams annoys the hell out of me.

If I ever heard anyone make that statement, I don't remember it because it's not something I would ever have taken seriously. It does sound like the sort of hyperbole that some on the extreme right like to use as representative of all liberal thought, and has no more representative value than ascribing the statements of Dobson or Robertson to all Christians.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by kphoger:
please, let's not get stuck on definitions. we all know what "traditional family" means, and it's not exactly exclusive to western christianity. i'm talking about a mother and a father raising their children.
I never mentioned "traditional family", I wrote "traditional family values". These are two entirely different things.

Even within the structure of a family with a father, mother and children, each denomination within the Christian churches has their own ideas regarding how to raise and teach your children.

When you throw in all of the other religions in the U.S., there are a multitude of different value systems that are part of our culture. It is not appropriate for anyone to try to claim that their particular set of values is the one and only true set of traditional family values. I know that it happens all the time, but that does not make it right or true.

[Boreas]

just can't swallow it when people try to put dysfunctional families on equal footing with so-called functional ones.

Many non-traditional families are much more functional than the so-called traditional ones. It serves no purpose to categorize families in such a way. Each group has its functional and dysfunctional families.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:

Many non-traditional families are much more functional than the so-called traditional ones. It serves no purpose to categorize families in such a way. Each group has its functional and dysfunctional families.

Yeah, what she said.

BTW, Still_Boreas, haven't seen any new posts from you in a while, it's good to see you back.

[nacktman]

As the specter of libertarians has been brought up herein the following editorial cartoon should put your views of them in the proper perspective.

[missouriboy]

Libertarianism is a good bit short of anarchy, though it does have some followers who advocate anarchy. But I think they're a small minority.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:

Many non-traditional families are much more functional than the so-called traditional ones. It serves no purpose to categorize families in such a way. Each group has its functional and dysfunctional families.

Yeah, what she said.

BTW, Still_Boreas, haven't seen any new posts from you in a while, it's good to see you back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too vote for more posts by Still_Boreas!

[Boreas]

Thanks. I have been lurking at times. These are some pretty hefty discussions and I haven't always wanted to jump into the battleground! I have also been spending a little less time on the computer out of respect for my sometimes cranky neck.

I'll pop in now and again as always.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Thanks. I have been lurking at times. These are some pretty hefty discussions and I haven't always wanted to jump into the battleground! I have also been spending a little less time on the computer out of respect for my sometimes cranky neck.

I'll pop in now and again as always.

An idea might be to have the monitor on a flexible arm so that you can shift its position again now and then so that your head and neck are not always in the same position. I've been thinking of getting one but first I have to find my desk which, to my recollection, is somewhere under all these papers.

[usmc1]

KP, definitions and meanings of words are important. Your use of "traditional" resonates of a value that suggests "better". That is why I asked what you meant by "traditional" family.

If by that you mean, male dad & female mom, and all the etcs., then we continue to disagree.

I grew up in a, by your definition, non-traditional family. Divorced parents and spending my summers down near you in White, Wayne and Hamilton counties of southern Illinois where I acquired many of the values given me by my grandfather and aunts & uncles, which I carry to this day and which continue to serve me very well in life.

My mother and father both were very involved and important resources in my life into my young adulthood. But, I grew up divorced in an era in which divorced women were looked down upon and their children suffered discrimination and exclusions from your so-called "traditional" families.

Nevermind that some of those "traditional" families suffered from alcoholism, incest, abuse, debt, malfeasance at work, and unbridled hatred between the parents--somehow they were better. Or so they represented themselves.

So, for me, "traditional" family is a value-laden buzz-word from the radical fundamental Christian right used to disparage and attack the value of other forms of family.

If your church does not want to sanctify the marriage vows of same-sex, previously divorced, inter-generational, poly-amorous, or one-legged couples or groups, (in the case of the poly amorous), that is the option of your church. But, your church or religion ought not involve its self in efforts to impede other churches or religions from making a different decision.

Civil unions are a whole other issue involving many legal issues, and, in my opinion, should not be restricted to male-female.

But, two men or two women sanctifying their love through the marriage rites of their chosen religion does not do a damn thing to threaten you, your marriage, your church, your community, your country or the world at large.

If you're opposed to gay marriage, then don't fall in love with another man.

And certainly, now that Mrs USMC and I are empty nesters, does that mean we're no longer a traditional family? What if we were to adopt or foster 2.5 kids and get a golden retriever to go along with our Missouri squirrel dog and pyrenees/retriever mix. Would I have to move to the burbs and bar-b-que with the neighbors? Would we be traditional again?

[Boreas]

An idea might be to have the monitor on a flexible arm so that you can shift its position again now and then so that your head and neck are not always in the same position. I've been thinking of getting one but first I have to find my desk which, to my recollection, is somewhere under all these papers.

LOL. Your desk sounds like mine often is. It is pretty good right now though. I am getting organized in my old age.

I have a laptop at work, and a desktop at home. The desktop monitor is at a pretty good angle. I am thinking of getting a bluetooth keyboard for the laptop to help things. I have also gotten a new desk and a new desk chair this year and that has helped tons.....I am self-employed so have to buy this stuff myself.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Thanks. I have been lurking at times. These are some pretty hefty discussions and I haven't always wanted to jump into the battleground! I have also been spending a little less time on the computer out of respect for my sometimes cranky neck.

I'll pop in now and again as always.

Oh, join on in the water's fine. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

About that "cranky neck thingy", I like Albinus's idea, but in the meantime I'd like to reccomend the warming hands of your other half. I know mine works miracles with hers. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Thanks. I have been lurking at times. These are some pretty hefty discussions and I haven't always wanted to jump into the battleground! I have also been spending a little less time on the computer out of respect for my sometimes cranky neck.

I'll pop in now and again as always.

Oh, join on in the water's fine. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

About that "cranky neck thingy", I like Albinus's idea, but in the meantime I'd like to reccomend the warming hands of your other half. I know mine works miracles with hers. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

The trouble with the other half giving massages is that they want one in return! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sick.gif I have been getting a professional massage every two weeks for sometime. It is very nice. I can just lay there and soak it up! No need to return any favours.

[kphoger]

KP, definitions and meanings of words are important. Your use of "traditional" resonates of a value that suggests "better". That is why I asked what you meant by "traditional" family.

If by that you mean, male dad & female mom, and all the etcs., then we continue to disagree.

I grew up in a, by your definition, non-traditional family. Divorced parents and spending my summers down near you in White, Wayne and Hamilton counties of southern Illinois where I acquired many of the values given me by my grandfather and aunts & uncles, which I carry to this day and which continue to serve me very well in life.

My mother and father both were very involved and important resources in my life into my young adulthood. But, I grew up divorced in an era in which divorced women were looked down upon and their children suffered discrimination and exclusions from your so-called "traditional" families.

Nevermind that some of those "traditional" families suffered from alcoholism, incest, abuse, debt, malfeasance at work, and unbridled hatred between the parents--somehow they were better. Or so they represented themselves.

So, for me, "traditional" family is a value-laden buzz-word from the radical fundamental Christian right used to disparage and attack the value of other forms of family.

If your church does not want to sanctify the marriage vows of same-sex, previously divorced, inter-generational, poly-amorous, or one-legged couples or groups, (in the case of the poly amorous), that is the option of your church. But, your church or religion ought not involve its self in efforts to impede other churches or religions from making a different decision.

Civil unions are a whole other issue involving many legal issues, and, in my opinion, should not be restricted to male-female.

But, two men or two women sanctifying their love through the marriage rites of their chosen religion does not do a damn thing to threaten you, your marriage, your church, your community, your country or the world at large.

If you're opposed to gay marriage, then don't fall in love with another man.

And certainly, now that Mrs USMC and I are empty nesters, does that mean we're no longer a traditional family? What if we were to adopt or foster 2.5 kids and get a golden retriever to go along with our Missouri squirrel dog and pyrenees/retriever mix. Would I have to move to the burbs and bar-b-que with the neighbors? Would we be traditional again?

The most terrifying evil in the world is a sociopath supported by society!
wow. i think we've reached some sort of agreement. i read that without spitting at the monitor. freaky. can't we all just get along?

[kphoger]

incidentally, usmc1, that part of illinois is my stomping grounds more than you might realize. almost every day, my delivery route takes me through marion, harrisburg, carmi, albion, fairfield, mount vernon, and benton (and places in between and elsewhere). now, i'm fairly new to the area, but i'm none too thrilled with the bigotism and racism here. when i was living near the city, i missed the small town, but i must have forgotten this aspect of small-town living. the city of chicago is still really hateful and racist, but the suburbs are really quite accepting of almost everybody. that's one part of suburban life i do miss. i am so glad i grew up with learned parents who love to travel, that i learned the practice of actually *thinking* and arguing, not just .... alas, i rant. anyway, what did you think of the social mentality down here?

i see the political ads on tv these days, and i really feel for the democrat candidates. i know they really want to improve things in this area, and they must feel like shouting at a brick wall. how could anyone NOT vote for someone with a plan for universal health care (kentucky ads)? once again, though, i think people are too stuck on the label of "republican" or "democrat" to really figure out what's behind the label. logic and philosophy should be required subjects in high school.

[nacktman]

... logic and philosophy should be required subjects in high school.

kphoger, They were 'back in the day' along with music and art.
Also depending on one's age and locality, Husbandry and Domestics were required as well.

Somewhere along the way all that, that made a person fully rounded and able to function in the world was gutted by the 'conservatives' who have turned our proud schools into drone factories churning out mindless blobs that can not function in a vaccum much less the world.

[kphoger]

mindless blobs....yes, that quite accurately describes most of the college students out there today, if you ask me. they all want a degree, but they're not quite sure why, and they'd much rather just pay for one than have to go to the trouble of SCHOOL for it....

[nacktman]

Just to bring this thread back toward topic.
Below is a pictorial representation of the difference.

[Big-Thinker]

Thought I'd throw in a thought I had...
We all know the old "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" phrase.
The problem with liberals, is they throw out the baby with the bathwater, and the baby dies, in that analogy. The problem with conservatives is that they keep the baby in the bathwater, and the baby dies. Why can't we throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby? Of course I'm talking about changing the bad, but keeping the good things in America... if only we could agree on what is good and bad!

[usmc1]

OK, here it is, bottom line. The problem lies not with liberalism. The problem in the United States is that so many Liberals assume an air of moral superiority. And so often these same people are the ones practicing check-book liberalism and playing the "blue-eyed" soul role.

But, liberalism itself is not the problem. Political liberalism gets things done, it builds highways, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and provides protections and assistance for those who need it.

Failures of liberal programs usually can be traced back to two problems.

One: Conservatives and other reactionaries sand-bag and impede the program to the point of failure and then blame the program. Here's an example of how that works. During Jim Crow, African-Americans were denied education opportunities--then were accused of being uneducated. Choke it off and then blame it for its own failure.

Two. Blue-eyed soul and check-book liberalism. Too many liberals would rather throw money at a problem rather than to get a full understanding of the problem and go after the root causes and establish benchmarks and standards of success.

Today's generation of liberals have become much more pragmatic and more willing to get down into the pits and fix problems. They know what they're up against and are willing, most of them, to show up, suit up and step out onto the field.

But, despite some of its failures, political and social liberalism in this country has many, many more successes and accomplishments than failures. And, when challenged, cosnervatives have no successes or accomplishments to point to.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by usmc1:
But, liberalism itself is not the problem. Political liberalism gets things done, it builds highways, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and provides protections and assistance for those who need it.
That is true, but that is one of the main concepts behind the Democratic party. It backs government involvement in spending money on a lot of public projects and programs where the Republicans take more of a hands off approach to many of these same things. I am of the opinion that the Democratic party is better for the country, but limits need to be in place regarding what would be nice to do, versus what we can afford to do.

It sickens me to think of all the money that has been wasted on the war in Iraq and how much good that could have done here in our own country. Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to and he can spin it any way that he wants, but that is very easy to see. Now we just have to find a way to get out of there without making the situation even worse than it is. I do not envy the mess that the next President will be handed.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
...
That is true, but that is one of the main concepts behind the Democratic party. It backs government involvement in spending money on a lot of public projects and programs where the Republicans take more of a hands off approach to many of these same things. I am of the opinion that the Democratic party is better for the country, but limits need to be in place regarding what would be nice to do, versus what we can afford to do.

It sickens me to think of all the money that has been wasted on the war in Iraq and how much good that could have done here in our own country. Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to and he can spin it any way that he wants, but that is very easy to see. Now we just have to find a way to get out of there without making the situation even worse than it is. I do not envy the mess that the next President will be handed.

Un, aren't your two paragraphs contradictory? ;-)

Seriously, which is the party that actually does run up massive deficits and which is the party that reins in the deficit? The answer may surprise you!

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Un, aren't your two paragraphs contradictory? ;-)

No.

[nakedstudent]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
But, liberalism itself is not the problem. Political liberalism gets things done, it builds highways, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and provides protections and assistance for those who need it.
That is true, but that is one of the main concepts behind the Democratic party. It backs government involvement in spending money on a lot of public projects and programs where the Republicans take more of a hands off approach to many of these same things. I am of the opinion that the Democratic party is better for the country, but limits need to be in place regarding what would be nice to do, versus what we can afford to do.

It sickens me to think of all the money that has been wasted on the war in Iraq and how much good that could have done here in our own country. Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to and he can spin it any way that he wants, but that is very easy to see. Now we just have to find a way to get out of there without making the situation even worse than it is. I do not envy the mess that the next President will be handed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the new president will not be handed very much if congress has anything to say about it... You can argue all you want about Bush's motives for going to war... but America is safer with Sudaam out of power. Period. As far as I'm concerned, wipe Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea off the map completely... that would end alot of problems...

I think you misjudge Bush if you seriously think Bush doesn't consider the consequences of his actions on the typical American Soldier when he makes a decision...

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
But, liberalism itself is not the problem. Political liberalism gets things done, it builds highways, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and provides protections and assistance for those who need it.
That is true, but that is one of the main concepts behind the Democratic party. It backs government involvement in spending money on a lot of public projects and programs where the Republicans take more of a hands off approach to many of these same things. I am of the opinion that the Democratic party is better for the country, but limits need to be in place regarding what would be nice to do, versus what we can afford to do.

It sickens me to think of all the money that has been wasted on the war in Iraq and how much good that could have done here in our own country. Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to and he can spin it any way that he wants, but that is very easy to see. Now we just have to find a way to get out of there without making the situation even worse than it is. I do not envy the mess that the next President will be handed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the new president will not be handed very much if congress has anything to say about it... You can argue all you want about Bush's motives for going to war... but America is safer with Sudaam out of power. Period. As far as I'm concerned, wipe Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea off the map completely... that would end alot of problems...

I think you misjudge Bush if you seriously think Bush doesn't consider the consequences of his actions on the typical American Soldier when he makes a decision... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying it don't make it so. Just how are we safer now that Saddam is gone?

What evidence other than "I think" do you have that the dry-drunk sociopath in the White House considers the consequences on the GIs and their families, or the rest of us, of a damn thing that he does?

[nakedstudent]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakedstudent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
But, liberalism itself is not the problem. Political liberalism gets things done, it builds highways, libraries, community centers, playgrounds, and provides protections and assistance for those who need it.
That is true, but that is one of the main concepts behind the Democratic party. It backs government involvement in spending money on a lot of public projects and programs where the Republicans take more of a hands off approach to many of these same things. I am of the opinion that the Democratic party is better for the country, but limits need to be in place regarding what would be nice to do, versus what we can afford to do.

It sickens me to think of all the money that has been wasted on the war in Iraq and how much good that could have done here in our own country. Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to and he can spin it any way that he wants, but that is very easy to see. Now we just have to find a way to get out of there without making the situation even worse than it is. I do not envy the mess that the next President will be handed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the new president will not be handed very much if congress has anything to say about it... You can argue all you want about Bush's motives for going to war... but America is safer with Sudaam out of power. Period. As far as I'm concerned, wipe Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea off the map completely... that would end alot of problems...

I think you misjudge Bush if you seriously think Bush doesn't consider the consequences of his actions on the typical American Soldier when he makes a decision... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying it don't make it so. Just how are we safer now that Saddam is gone?

What evidence other than "I think" do you have that the dry-drunk sociopath in the White House considers the consequences on the GIs and their families, or the rest of us, of a damn thing that he does? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want our troops to know that while the coming year will bring change, one thing will not change, and that is our Nation's support for you and the vital work you do to achieve a victory in Iraq. The American people are keeping you in our thoughts and prayers, and we will make sure you have the resources you need to accomplish your mission. Dec 06...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061223.html

Before you ask a stupid question, please do some unbiased research. Evidently you don't wach national news channels much because Bush ALWAYS reaffirms his support and gratitude to the troops.

I wish I could correct ignorance.

[hm0504]

You'll have to forgive usmc1 for his question; apparently he has this strange idea that there is a world of information out there beyond Bush's press releases and radio addresses.

[Baron Lake]

naked student: "I wish I could correct ignorance".

Good news student, there's hope. Your first step should be to stop watching Faux News and reading Whitehouse press releases.

b.l.

[usmc1]

Ahhhh, the crassness of youth. "Stupid question"?

Sometimes you'd just like to grab them by their arm, drag them inside out of the yard and whale the tar out of them! But Noooo! (Imagine Steve Martin) But Noooooo! You've got to be patient and reasonable, because someday they'll wake up to what's going on around them and you don't want them running around with damaged psyches.

But, Stupid Question? Isn't that a bit much? I think a spanking is in order, or at least a time out. Stupid Question, LMAO!

That's it! No recess and no Graham Cracker with your milk tomorrow.

[Naturist Mark]

Evidently you don't wach national news channels much because Bush ALWAYS reaffirms his support and gratitude to the troops.
And then his policies show the opposite.

No administration has ever shown as much contempt for the troops at the present one.

-Mark

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Nakedstudent
Evidently you don't watch national news channels much because Bush ALWAYS reaffirms his support and gratitude to the troops.

My computer can show as much support and gratitude if I feed one of Bush's speeches into a text-to-speech utility.

[kphoger]

As far as I'm concerned, wipe Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea off the map completely... that would end alot of problems...

wipe america off the map completely and it would end a lot of problems, too. but that would be bad, right? babies and music teachers and pregnant women and brain surgeons and all sorts of people dying is bad, right? right.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by kphoger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As far as I'm concerned, wipe Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea off the map completely... that would end alot of problems...

wipe america off the map completely and it would end a lot of problems, too. but that would be bad, right? babies and music teachers and pregnant women and brain surgeons and all sorts of people dying is bad, right? right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey just remove the entire human species off the planet and you will eliminate just about every problem there is.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[Boreas]

Before you ask a stupid question, please do some unbiased research. Evidently you don't wach national news channels much because Bush ALWAYS reaffirms his support and gratitude to the troops.

Of course he says he supports the troups....he sent them over there.

BTW, I am against the war. That does not mean I do not support your troups or our Canadian troups in Afghanistan. I do support our troups.

One day we MIGHT acheive the goal of WWI....the war to end all wars.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
naked student: "I wish I could correct ignorance".

Good news student, there's hope. Your first step should be to stop watching Faux News and reading Whitehouse press releases.

b.l.

b.l. I believe it was Ron White who said ... "you can't fix stupid".

Ignorance is not the problem, as those that follow Faux News and Whitehouse briefings are well informed on current events ... current events in Fantasy World on the planet Denial a million light years from here, but current events all the same. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Now as to here in Reality World on the planet Earth, the rock third in line from the star Solus ... the Faux News devotees are just plain old fashioned stupid and as you know you just can't fix stupid. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Before you ask a stupid question, please do some unbiased research. Evidently you don't wach national news channels much because Bush ALWAYS reaffirms his support and gratitude to the troops.

I wish I could correct ignorance.

If Bush cared about the health, safety, and well being of our troops he wouldn't have risked their lives and limbs by invading Iraq. His careless and cavalier actions speak much louder then hollow words!

We are now seeing members of Team Bush defect.More then one of the ex-Busher's have come out and said that the invasion was based upon manufactured and tailored evidence requested by the White House. (Perhaps you too would benefit from watching the national news.) The blood for each and every troop is on Bush's hands as is the blood from all of the (10,000+) innocent Iraqi women, children, and non-combative adult males that have lost their life due to our illegal invasion of a soverign nation.

Too bad Bush didn't focus on the Afghani arena. How embarrassing it must be for Bush to not have captured Bin-Laden; somebody who not only was a threat to us but also invaded the United States. By GWB's own quote, he no longer cares about OBL. Tell me, how secure does that make you feel?

[nakedstudent]

Chris you're dilusional. The purpose of a standing army is the defense of its nation. All members of the US military signed a contract saying that their life was property of the US government.

They exist to protect the people. If Bush was an Imperialist, why would he have started in Iraq (please don't use the oil arguement, there's enough oil in Alaska to suffice any of Bush's oil desires.)

You say stuff like what you just posted from the safety of your own home. If we were ever invaded (or attacked by terrorists again) do you think you'd still have that luxury?

And as for OBL... firstly, he's probably already dead. Secondly, Al-Queda is focused on us in Iraq at the moment. Taking his aim off of our sky scrapers, gov buildings, and homes is exactly what Bush wants.

I don't ask any anti-Iraq war person to change their mind. I assume you all feel as strongly about it as I do. Just on the opposite side. But not supporting the troops is inexcusable. And to say that anyone who has the power to send another man to his potential death doesn't think about it alot seems like a knock on humanity.

Besides sending more troops to Iraq, what has Bush ever said or done to make you think he doesn't care?

[gymnoboi]

Well said naked student http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[nacktman]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Chris you're dilusional. The purpose of a standing army is the defense of its nation. All members of the US military signed a contract saying that their life was property of the US government.

Student, sorry but tis ye that be delusional.
"Defend" its nation is correct, ours is not at the moment.
Funny that's not what my "contract" said when I was serving in the Corps.


They exist to protect the people. If Bush was an Imperialist, why would he have started in Iraq (please don't use the oil arguement, there's enough oil in Alaska to suffice any of Bush's oil desires.)

But there's the rub, t'ain't enough oil in Alaska buddy-boy, besides his butt buddies the Saudis wouldn't like him as much if he went for oil other than theirs.


You say stuff like what you just posted from the safety of your own home. If we were ever invaded (or attacked by terrorists again) do you think you'd still have that luxury?

Yep, I sure would, because we have been invaded and attacked by terrorists for seven years now and we are only shouting louder, especially when some idiot mouths off supporting the terrorists as you have done here.


And as for OBL... firstly, he's probably already dead. Secondly, Al-Queda is focused on us in Iraq at the moment. Taking his aim off of our sky scrapers, gov buildings, and homes is exactly what Bush wants.

Ok, there's this land I want to unload about five miles east of Miami, I can let you have it real cheap.
You seem like the sort to go for the deal.


I don't ask any anti-Iraq war person to change their mind. I assume you all feel as strongly about it as I do. Just on the opposite side. But not supporting the troops is inexcusable. And to say that anyone who has the power to send another man to his potential death doesn't think about it alot seems like a knock on humanity.

No bucko you DO NOT support the troops, otherwise you'd be calling for them to be brought back home.
Also, the shrub has no capacity to think, therefore his sending troops to their deaths is naught but the act of a psychotic sociopath.


Besides sending more troops to Iraq, what has Bush ever said or done to make you think he doesn't care?

Oh, I dunno, maybe just everything the shrub has ever said or done.

**********

I sometimes marvel at the youth and their potential, then one shows how stupid they are in reality.

[usmc1]

Naked sudent you are in error on several points:

One, we're not fighting Al Queda in Iraq. Al Queda has inserted its self into that conflagration. But, in essence, we are occupying a country at war with its self. The Iraqi War is over, we won it a long time ago. We are now mired in the pointless occupation of a fractured county engaged in self-inflcited criminality, civil war, tribal, and sectarian warfare.

If you have a sincere interest in Al Quaeda, here's a link to a report that will show you their worldwide activities since 1998 through 2005.

http://billroggio.com/flashplayer.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480

Additonally, the DIA and German Intelligence sources are telling us that the greatest threats from Al Queda come from training camps alog the Pakistani/Afghani border reegions where Al Queda is training a whole new generation of terrorist for their worldwide campaign of murder, chaos and mayhem.

One ought to ask one's self why we continue deplete our treasury, strap our military, divide our country, destroy our leadership role in the world for a failed policy and occupation in Iraq, when very real threats to world peace, international stability and our democracy are allowed to continue to grow unchecked.

Two. There's enough oil in Alaska to meet our needs? For how long? At what cost? And, in what time span?

Three. Defending ourselves in Iraq? Against who and what? Saddam had no WMD. Was not involved in 9/11. And did not harbor Al Queda. So against whom are we defending ourselves? Some IEDs, suicide bombers, Al Sadr? And how are these boogies gonna come here and git us? Swim, charter some Jet Streams, borrow some cigarette boats from the drug dealers. Iraq was and is no direct threat to the United States.

Student, you are either uninformed or trolling, if uninformed, please take this opportunity to verify everything I've writen here. You will find it all to be true.

If trolling, well, pal that will take care of its self, won't it?

[nakedstudent]

Come on Nacktman?

Did you honestly expect to never be deployed when you joined the marines?

******* Liberal just trying to freeload off the government...

Saying I don't support the troops because I'm not protesting the war is rediculous.

That's like saying those who protest the war at a dead soldier's funeral are patriotic...

And USMC, what would a drug dealer do if he was given 6 months notice that the police were going to move in on him? He'd ship everything he had along with all the paperwork to his buddy's place. It's not that hard to figure out with Syria and God know's how many other anti-US groups over there...

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Come on Nacktman?

Did you honestly expect to never be deployed when you joined the marines?

******* Liberal just trying to freeload off the government...

Saying I don't support the troops because I'm not protesting the war is rediculous.

That's like saying those who protest the war at a dead soldier's funeral are patriotic...

And USMC, what would a drug dealer do if he was given 6 months notice that the police were going to move in on him? He'd ship everything he had along with all the paperwork to his buddy's place. It's not that hard to figure out with Syria and God know's how many other anti-US groups over there...

Wow, you need to watch something other than Fox news and American news in general. I would suggest you check out news from other countries to get a more balanced view.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
...
And USMC, what would a drug dealer do if he was given 6 months notice that the police were going to move in on him? He'd ship everything he had along with all the paperwork to his buddy's place. It's not that hard to figure out with Syria and God know's how many other anti-US groups over there...

Sorry to bother you with the facts, but Saddam simply had no WMDs, at home or elsewhere, in 2003. The Iraqi WMD program had stopped after 1991. Even the White House, the source of all truth in the world, has admitted this (post-2003).

And if those WMDs, so imminently dangerous to the U.S. were now in Syria, why hasn't the White House invaded Syria by now?

[nakedstudent]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakedstudent:
...
And USMC, what would a drug dealer do if he was given 6 months notice that the police were going to move in on him? He'd ship everything he had along with all the paperwork to his buddy's place. It's not that hard to figure out with Syria and God know's how many other anti-US groups over there...

Sorry to bother you with the facts, but Saddam simply had no WMDs, at home or elsewhere, in 2003. The Iraqi WMD program had stopped after 1991. Even the White House, the source of all truth in the world, has admitted this (post-2003).

And if those WMDs, so imminently dangerous to the U.S. were now in Syria, why hasn't the White House invaded Syria by now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oh I'm sorry... I forgot he killed the Kurds with tulips and roses. Thanks for reminding me hm....

Don't kid yourself Boreas... Even CNN, BBC and MSNBC said this... I will not stop watching the only channel that puts both sides of an issue on... and if you tell me they don't, watch Hiraldo and O'Reily debate illegal immigration sometime. I'm sure Canadian media is just as biased... All I ever saw up there was a dial-a-hooker program on all day.

Not having WMD's for 15 years makes all one's crimes against humanity dissappear?

And it was the CIA, Brittish Intel, and numerous other GLOBAL sources that told the White House that Hussein either had WMD's or the intent and capabilities to build them.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
...
Oh I'm sorry... I forgot he killed the Kurds with tulips and roses. Thanks for reminding me hm....

Don't kid yourself Boreas... Even CNN, BBC and MSNBC said this... I will not stop watching the only channel that puts both sides of an issue on... and if you tell me they don't, watch Hiraldo and O'Reily debate illegal immigration sometime. I'm sure Canadian media is just as biased... All I ever saw up there was a dial-a-hooker program on all day.

Not having WMD's for 15 years makes all one's crimes against humanity dissappear?

And it was the CIA, Brittish Intel, and numerous other GLOBAL sources that told the White House that Hussein either had WMD's or the intent and capabilities to build them.

If you read very, very carefully, you'll note I said "after 1991". Of course Saddam had WMDs before, he got them from the U.S. when he was the West's friend.
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg

[nacktman]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Come on Nacktman?

Did you honestly expect to never be deployed when you joined the marines?

Actually I knew full well where I was going.
You don't have the ability to dot the "eye" at 1500 yards and not know where you're heading off to.


******* Liberal just trying to freeload off the government...

Heh ... wrong again. Centerist, that has never gotten anything from the government, save a whole lot of ribbons with shiney metal baubles attached to them.


Saying I don't support the troops because I'm not protesting the war is rediculous.

There is not war to protest, there is an unending occupation however and supporting that occupation is not supporting the troops no matter what fantasy you are deluded by.


That's like saying those who protest the war at a dead soldier's funeral are patriotic...

That depends on who is doing the protesting.
I know of a lot of families protesting the occupation at the services for their dead child and asking the simple question ... WHY?!


And USMC, what would a drug dealer do if he was given 6 months notice that the police were going to move in on him? He'd ship everything he had along with all the paperwork to his buddy's place. It's not that hard to figure out with Syria and God know's how many other anti-US groups over there...

I'll usmc1 address that little nugget of horse hockey.

********

Now get this through you head ...

Saddam was never a threat to the USA.
He was the "buffer" between the Saudis and the Iranians (read: Sunnis and Shi'tes).
He HAD and USED WMDs on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s.
He had them because we gave them to him.
He used them because we showed him how.
(I know, I was there)
He got and used his last WMDs from us in 1991 as the shrub's daddie was leaving office.
President Clinton never allowed him to be given any more.
He never had the capacity to manufacture WMDs himself.

********

Oh and that's "GERALDO and O'Reilly" by the way.
And if you think that is an example of "both sides", then you are even more stupid than your posts thus far have shown.

Tell the truth now, you are just another troll trying to infest these forums again, right!

[MJ_KC]

To Bush and his cronies, this invasion of Iraq evidently sounded like a good idea. Boy were they wrong. Now we have Turkey and Iran causing problems in the region and I don't see us doing anything about it. The entire region is more unstable because of what we have done.

Nacktman is correct when he says that Saddam was acting as a buffer. He was also keeping his own people from going to war with each other. Now that he is gone, there are a lot of people getting their revenge against neighbors who they see as enemies.

Saddam was ruthless enough to use whatever means he wanted to get people to see things his way. We are just not willing to be like that so people do not fear us like they did Saddam.

[nakedstudent]

See Nacktman, that's where you and I differ. Have your oppinions about the war. I don't give a flying fart in hell what you think about it. I'm not out to change anyone's mind or push a particular view.

You need to remember your last name isn't Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc. And until you sit in that big house in DC or another room with any power, you're just another Joe buddy.

This debate isn't healthy. By being a nudist, you claim to be tollerant of all body types and probably races too. Why can't you be just as understanding with Right vs Left arguements? You could hardly pass as a centrist in Europe.

If you think Hussein didn't pose a threat against the US, you can't be helped. Even the "centrist" UN said they needed to "Disarm, disclose, blah, blah, blah". And if they didn't, they were to be held accountable. THAT was international law.

And as far as Geraldo (evidently not knowing how to spell one word is enough to condemn a man) and O'Reilly are concerned, I refered to them on the topic of Immigration. And if you can't tell that Rivera is left of center and O'Reilly right, then you can't be helped.

When's the last time you sent a care package overseas Naktman?

[usmc1]

Oh my! We're witnessing proof of part of what has become wrong with education in this country. We blame the schools, the NEA, the lack of teacher pay and respect, under funding, crass local politics, and religious and political agendae. But, we seldom mention one contributing factor:

We have some students who are uneducatably ignorant!

[nakedstudent]

So now I'm ignorant because I'm different? Because I look at the world around me and come to a different conclusion than you do?

No USMC, I'm not ignorant. You're jaded.

Wake up and smell the coffee buddy, there's more to life than posies and dafodils. That little field you see yourself skipping through doesn't exist. Unfortunately it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and you either eat or get eaten.

Who's supposed to stick up for the Kurds? Who was supposed to stick up for the Jews in Nazi Germany? The people of NY, DC, or Shanksville?
Without war, you wouldn't be able to call me ignorant.

I refuse to sit around and allow more innocent Americans to die without defending ourselves. We already learned how well trying to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world worked after WWI. And argueably again directly before 911.

There are people out there who hate us. They always will because Progressivists feel they need to shove everything about America and the west down everyone else's throat. And this happened FAR before "shrub" ever took office. It happened when Brittain felt the need to divide that entire region of the world up the way they did after WWI.

The second we stop feeling there is a need to change people's minds, international healing can begin. The tough part of the situation is who blinks first?

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
So now I'm ignorant because I'm different? Because I look at the world around me and come to a different conclusion than you do?

No USMC, I'm not ignorant. You're jaded.

Wake up and smell the coffee buddy, there's more to life than posies and dafodils. That little field you see yourself skipping through doesn't exist. Unfortunately it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and you either eat or get eaten.

Who's supposed to stick up for the Kurds? Who was supposed to stick up for the Jews in Nazi Germany? The people of NY, DC, or Shanksville?
Without war, you wouldn't be able to call me ignorant.

I refuse to sit around and allow more innocent Americans to die without defending ourselves. We already learned how well trying to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world worked after WWI. And argueably again directly before 911.

There are people out there who hate us. They always will because Progressivists feel they need to shove everything about America and the west down everyone else's throat. And this happened FAR before "shrub" ever took office. It happened when Brittain felt the need to divide that entire region of the world up the way they did after WWI.

The second we stop feeling there is a need to change people's minds, international healing can begin. The tough part of the situation is who blinks first?

I stand by my characterization. Thank you for applying it to yourself and proceeding to do your best to prove it true.

[Baron Lake]

I'm gonna take back the statement about there being hope.

b.l.

[nakedstudent]

Please enlighten me USMC. Tell me why sticking up for those who don't have a voice is ignorant?

When for you is war ever justified?

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Please enlighten me USMC. Tell me why sticking up for those who don't have a voice is ignorant?

When for you is war ever justified?

How are you sticking up for those who don't have a voice?

War is not justified when it is started on false premises. The US had international support and sympathy following 9/11. It was soon turned into anger and dislike when Bush declared war.

Are there not other ways to stick up for those who cannot speak for themselves? How do you determine whether or not someone can speak for themselves? When is it presumptious to put words into another's mouth?

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Please enlighten me USMC. Tell me why sticking up for those who don't have a voice is ignorant?

When for you is war ever justified?

There are ways of course to stick up for people besides war. In Iraq, for example, the no fly zones under Clinton kept the Kurds free from Saddam's tyranny.

Today, in Iraq the "war of liberation" has left about 1/2 million Iraqis dead and 10% of the population has fled the country. Heck of a body count for a country of about 25 million (before the war, much less now).

BTW, guess which country is telling the Kurds to put up and shut up now? Hint, it starts with a 'U' and ends with an 'S'.

[nacktman]

Back to topic:

The last few postings of our latest troll highlight the biggest differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

Mindless ignorance of the "conservatives" as opposed to thoughtful learning of the Liberals.

It's of little wonder the color designations of the "conservative" (read: republican), political party and the Liberal (read: Democratic) politcial party are red and blue respectively.

As we all know red is the color of anger, hate, heat, death and destruction, storms and disasters ... pretty much sums up the "conservatives", now doesn't it?!

While, as we know blue is the color of calm, cool, peace and love, life, relaxation and growth ... pretty much sums up the Liberals, by jinkies!

You know the Cosmos has a way of setting things aright no matter how hard we humans try to f@%k it up. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[Boreas]

As we all know red is the color of anger, hate, heat, death and destruction, storms and disasters ... pretty much sums up the "conservatives", now doesn't it?!

While, as we know blue is the color of calm, cool, peace and love, life, relaxation and growth ... pretty much sums up the Liberals, by jinkies!


Interesting.

The colours are reversed in Canada. The Liberal party uses red, and the Conservative party uses blue. In this case, would red mean passionate and ready for change, while blue would mean a cool icy steadfast holding on to dogma?

What is your assessment of this sir? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif


http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Interesting.

The colours are reversed in Canada. The Liberal party uses red, and the Conservative party uses blue. In this case, would red mean passionate and ready for change, while blue would mean a cool icy steadfast holding on to dogma?

What is your assessment of this sir? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif


http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif

Assessment: The Cosmos are still working to align the stars!

[nakedstudent]

HAHAHA... typical!!!


And the no fly rules are exactly the type of things that in conjunction with true UN sanctioned inspections would have prevented the current "occupation" and "former" war in Iraq. The US did have international support. In the form of resolution 1441.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Hey!?!?!?!?! Those dates are from the CLINTON era!!! Surely THAT wasn't mistaken intel???

[nacktman]

Yep, trolling.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Back to topic:

The last few postings of our latest troll highlight the biggest differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

Mindless ignorance of the "conservatives" as opposed to thoughtful learning of the Liberals.
So, all it takes is for someone to take a conservative position to be labeled a troll? Not very creative or original. It takes more than that for someone to be labeled a troll

I don't think that his being conservative would make him a troll, but rather the fact that many of his ideas are off base regardless of his political leanings.

[Naturist Mark]

Interesting.

The colours are reversed in Canada. The Liberal party uses red, and the Conservative party uses blue. In this case, would red mean passionate and ready for change, while blue would mean a cool icy steadfast holding on to dogma?

Until 2000 red and blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide) were not 'assigned' to a particular party in the US. It was the tradition to use those two colors as the presidential election returns came in to show the results for each state - white was used for the undecided states. There was no set color assignment, different networks would use different colors in the same election, and would often change them for the next election.

That all changed in 2000 when all 3 major networks used the same colors and then large expanse of red states representing the Republican party covered the entire middle of the country in a single contiguous expanse, while the blue seemed to be pushed to the margins. Thus the talk began of "Red States", and the illusion that the entire country was going red.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png/300px-2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
Results of 2004 Election

In fact the country was almost perfectly split, but because of the winner take all nature the electoral system and differences in population density and geography made it look much more one sided than it was. In any case, since 2000 "Red" and "Red State" now means Republican. The networks didn't even consider doing their usual switch in 2004. After all, they serve the Republican party, and switching would kweer 4 years of meaningless propaganda.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png/200px-2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png)
2004 Election results by County (click for larger)

In truth there is not a red and blue state divide. There is an Urban and Rural/Suburban divide. Those states with the highest Urban populations are reliably Democratic Party majority, and those without are reliably Republican.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Cartlinearlarge.png/200px-Cartlinearlarge.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cartlinearlarge.png)
2004 Results by county - with size
adjusted for population (click for larger)

Because urban areas within states, and urban states in the nation are underrepresented in government, near parity between the parties means the Republican Party usually gains an edge. Throw in some mid session gerrymandering and elections run on proprietary electronic machines owned by private corporations that serve the interests of a single party, plus a bit of voter intimidation, caging lists, and outright fraud, and you have the dream of a permanent majority.

-Mark

[Boreas]

Assessment: The Cosmos are still working to align the stars!

LOL.....sounds about right!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[nacktman]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:

I don't think that his being conservative would make him a troll, but rather the fact that many of his ideas are off base regardless of his political leanings.

Ah, but it is his ideas and his method of expressing them that show him to be a troll.
His being "conservative" just shows his lack of good sense and ignorance.
Two things he so proudly displays with each post.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Ah, but it is his ideas and his method of expressing them that show him to be a troll.
His being "conservative" just shows his lack of good sense and ignorance.
Two things he so proudly displays with each post.
The problem that I have with this kind of comment is that I frequently participate in an RV discussion group where the most vocal and prolific posters are conservatives. They say the same thing or worse about any Democrat or heaven forbid anyone who admits to being liberal. All you have to do is admit that you are a registered Democrat to set off a hail storm of negative comments. They also still seem to want to blame Bill Clinton for anything and everything.

If I am bored, I will poke them in the eye by reminding them that I am a Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice and he would certainly be a lot better than who we have now.

[nacktman]

But, Mark don't you think it a bit of Kismet, that the colors "assigned" to the two parties in 2000 fit their party personas to a tee.

Serendipity had her hand in on that decision to be sure.

[oldbob]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:

I refuse to sit around and allow more innocent Americans to die without defending ourselves. We already learned how well trying to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world worked after WWI. And argueably again directly before 911.



Does this mean that you have enlisted? That would be the best way to support the troops if you think that we should continue to occupy Iraq. Some of the troops have been there three times now (or is it more?) And now the deployments are being extended. I'm sure that whoever you replaced there would really appreciate not having to go one more time.

Bob

[nakedstudent]

Bob that's not the point. I strongly considered enlisting in the military after HS. I am still considering enlisting after College. I decided that I was called to do something else.

The point is that the troops all volunteered to protect the people and take their orders from a man who lives in a big White House in DC. They didn't sign up to take their orders from Nacktman, USMC, or anyone else who calls me a troll. To say that someone who so selflessly gives themself up to that extent shouldn't do their job is, in my opinion, an insult.

If the war was so wrong as being portrayed here, why was Bush re-elected?

Notice... The people here calling me a troll respond to only bits and pieces of my arguements. Leaving commentary about 1441 out of this forum tells me alot about their character.

[nacktman]

All talk -- no action i.e., a troll.

Actually they did sign up to take orders from myself and usmc1 or any other citizen as did the occupant at 1600.
And as far as myself and usmc1 they signed up to follow our orders directly for many years.
Also, ask any serviceman and the odds are he'll tell you that they aren't doing the "job" they signed up for and if calling for their return home is an insult ... then insult them all you want to (by the way I have asked quite a few fellow Marines still in harms way and all have expressed the desire to be brought home before the next hidden coffin is theirs).

The war WAS wrong,
The occupation IS wrong.
The shrub WAS NOT re-elected.
One has to be ELECTED first in order to be re-elected.

You know nothing about character as your posts continue to prove.
Another of the differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
...Leaving commentary about 1441 out of this forum tells me alot about their character.

Whuh..me!

Oh OK. UN resolutions are not necessarily statements of fact, they are political statements by countries trying to do political things. Sometimes politics and facts do intersect but don't bet your life on the idea that every poltical statement is factual.

No doubt it will fascinate you to know that the Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter strongly opposed the idea that Iraq had WMDs way back in 2002. His successors Blix said much the same thing. Why aren't their perspectives in the UN resolutions? Because they didn't write them; the politicians did.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.cnna/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

BTW, Scott Ritter is another one of those darn U.S. Marines. Why is it that so many Marines don't support the troops?

[Boreas]

Bob that's not the point. I strongly considered enlisting in the military after HS. I am still considering enlisting after College. I decided that I was called to do something else.

How convenient. I would think that someone so committed to the ideas you have would eagerly enlist.

[fred950]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Bob that's not the point. I strongly considered enlisting in the military after HS. I am still considering enlisting after College. I decided that I was called to do something else.

How convenient. I would think that someone so committed to the ideas you have would eagerly enlist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is he like the 'draft dodger' Clinton accepting a Rhodes scolarship or 'Patriot' Cheeney with "other priorities"?

[Big-Thinker]

Originally posted by nacktman:
As we all know red is the color of anger, hate, heat, death and destruction, storms and disasters ... pretty much sums up the "conservatives", now doesn't it?!

Depends on the culture...

From Wikipedia:
"In Chinese symbolism, <span class="ev_code_RED">red</span> is the color of good luck and success".

Now, who wouldn't want that?

[usmc1]

I think the way red has come to be assocaited with the GOP or right in the USA is this. In the recent past, communists were always called "Reds", which goes back to the side which prevailed in the Russain Revolution.

However, when the Dragon Lady (Nancy Reagan) came on the scene she very often was attired in a red dress. Republican women, being group think sheep, followed the style. Republican men, being whipped and wussies, alos joined in wearing red sweaters.

Soon GOP gatherings and conventions were seas of red which were seen on the TV coverage. From that evolved the term for states where the GOP dominated as being "Red states". Since there was a green party and yellow would have negative connotations Blue became the alternative designate color for the states in which the brave, honorable, individualistic, courageous Democrats prevailed.

And that grasshoppers is how Red cme to represent communism in the USA while it represents the left in the rest of the world. Never underestimate the impact of TV to get things twisted up.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
From Wikipedia:
"In Chinese symbolism, <span class="ev_code_RED">red</span> is the color of good luck and success".

Now, who wouldn't want that?
I would agree with that.

http://home.mindspring.com/~mejones/CorvetteSmall.jpg

[nakedstudent]

USMC that's the biggest load of horse s**t I've ever heard...

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
USMC that's the biggest load of horse s**t I've ever heard...

As a student who is studying in college I am sure you have access to all the new brilliant ideas. I'd love to hear your brilliant explanation of the theory of red and blue.

[nakedstudent]

I have some liberal friends. But the big difference between them and the liberals on here is that they actually posess ears, brains, and hearts.

"And one of the things I made absolutely clear to the Iraqi representatives [Sunday] -- and I will continue to do so with any government officials I have the opportunity to meet with -- is that Iraq must allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors and grant them unfettered access to sites designated by the weapons inspectors for inspection."

That was taken from by Scott Ritter from the CNN Ritter piece. Violation of a law(no matter how unhonerable) is grounds for punishment in any country. You walk down the street naked in just about any state or country and get caught, there are serious consequences.

Now if you want to change that law you actually have to write to someone important and form a credible coalition. Not band into twos and threes on a forum and criticize an individual with an opposing view by throwing left wing jargon around.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175681,00.html

That arguement seems logical to me. Why would the UN even consider drafting a resolution against Iraq if they knew there were no WMD's? Surely Bush didn't decieve the entire world? He may be conservative but the man is far from a genious. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif Why would so many people listen to him?

[nakedstudent]

Still_Boreas, I have better things to waste thought on than contemplating colors... I did plenty of that in preschool.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Still_Boreas, I have better things to waste thought on than contemplating colors... I did plenty of that in preschool.

Well, you were able to contemplate enough to form an opinion of usmc's opinion.

Have you been able to listen to or read news sources beyond what is found in the US media? Even beyond what Faux news provides?

[Boreas]

Now if you want to change that law you actually have to write to someone important and form a credible coalition. Not band into twos and threes on a forum and criticize an individual with an opposing view by throwing left wing jargon around.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175681,00.html

That arguement seems logical to me. Why would the UN even consider drafting a resolution against Iraq if they knew there were no WMD's? Surely Bush didn't decieve the entire world? He may be conservative but the man is far from a genious. Why would so many people listen to him?


I do not believe that it is Bush alone that is responsible for what is happening down there. For one thing, I do not believe he is smart enough. Do some reading on neoliberalism and make some informed decisions. Some of this stuff has been going on since Reagan, Thatcher (former British PM FYI) and Mulroney (former Canadian PM) in the 80's. Frankly, I am not sure it is our elected officials that run things. I know that makes me sound paranoid. I am not.

As for forming coalitions and such, as opposed to just yapping in here, how do you know we do not do this? How do we know that you are not only words with no action? How do you presume to assume what we do in real life? You must be brilliant indeed. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

I have seen a lot of right-winged rhetoric flying around your posts. Do enlighten me on how any rhetoric is a good thing...right or left.

[nakedstudent]

The point was that in your eyes, it seems that what I have to say has absolutely no merit here. Like you look at my concerns and can't even accept the period at the end of this sentence let alone the views presented in it. Liberals I know in real life at least pick up the parts of my views that are legitemate concerns (ie protection of our citizens) and we work at a compromising view point.

This has happened on several topics including the war, gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion to name a few.

When I'm on here it seems that I get nothing of merit back and all I recieve is bashing because I'm conservative and you're liberal. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

In another forum, legitamate concerns were raised about our education system and being a future teacher, all I recieved was suggestions to change my career aspirations from Nacktman and USMC because I had an opposing view.

I find it rediculous that people can look at either party's line and agree with them completely while remaining true to themselves. I also find it rediculous that compromise is never a proposed solution.

That's why theres such a dichotomy in our system both political and social. There's no attempt to personalize the opponent's concerns or views.

[Boreas]

I find it rediculous that people can look at either party's line and agree with them completely while remaining true to themselves. I also find it rediculous that compromise is never a proposed solution.

That's why theres such a dichotomy in our system both political and social. There's no attempt to personalize the opponent's concerns or views.

I agree. I have seen no sign of compromize on your side either. I am a liberal and I believe that we need to find ways to help people become self sufficient. Often conservative views/policies squash the underdog and makes it very difficult for them to succeed. All in the name of business or economic growth. In order for us to succeed economically, we have to find ways for our weaker members of society to contribute as well. I left Ontario because I got tired of what then Premiere Mike Harris did in the name of Common Sense Revolution. It was not a good representation of conservative values. I do not believe that Bush and the administration's views are a good representation of conservative values either.

May I suggest that if you are going to become a teacher that you improve your spelling. That will help your credibility as well.

[nacktman]

Ahem, student, precisely when did you receive any suggestion from myself as to altering your career aspirations?
I do not recall ever being aware of your career aspirations afore now.
Though as Still_Boreas pointed out improvement in your spelling would only help.
Opening your mind would be of greater help in such a career.

As to your views, well, they're yours. And that's all fine and dandy, but wrong is wrong.
You have not aquitted yourself with any semblance of worthiness thus far with your postings, so do not expect any worthiness or credence without first demonstrating a smidgen of your own first.

Also, some of us have done more and are doing more to help this nation and the lives of its residents than you will ever do given your current mindset.

***********

Yet another typical difference between "conservatives" and Liberals ... the "WHINE FACTOR".

"conservatives" are forever howling about 'compromise' -- as long as it means agreeing with them.
(And then accusing all others of being the ones all have to agree with.)

Liberals seek solutions to benefit all and work to make them happen.

"conservatives" whine and moan when there is no "compromise" to their way of doing and thinking.
(Especially if it means something actually good for the majority of the people, instead of a select few.)

Liberals move through, over, or around 'roadblocks' such as 'compromises' that "conservatives" demand to accomplish things rather than whine and moan and do nothing.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
USMC that's the biggest load of horse s**t I've ever heard...

Several points here...

One) Above is indicative of why I suggested that you were uneducatabley ignorant. You lack knowlege and do nothing to gain knowlege and when presented with knowlege, you reject it without testing it. You've defined yourself.

Two) You recently called me stupid. I'm many things. But, stupid is not one of them. If you read through this link below, you'll find that I'm not the only person who believes the evolution of Red as a Republican marker evolved from Reagan Red and Nancy's red dresses.

http://www.studio360.org/yore/transcript110604.html

Three) And, while I sometimes forget what I've done with the car keys, I, apparantly unlike Nacktman, do have pretty damn good recall, and your suggestion that Nacktman and I were the only ones left askance at your revelation that you were aiming to become a teacher is SO not true. Chemistry, wasn't it?

Rejection of a premise without testing, or examination, or presentation of alternatives is indicative of a closed, dogmatic mind or else someone lacking in critical thinking skills.

These are just not the characteristics of a good teacher. I don't know where you plan on teaching, but you bring that sort of brutish ignorance and authoritarianism into some classrooms and the college-bound kids are going to eat you alive. Worse, the class rebels will be building the cooking fires.

It's not so much that you're wrong, it is that you are so wrong and will not even consider that you might be wrong. Nacktman and I are not the only ones telling you this in this thread, as we weren't the only ones in taht earlier thread.

Four) Now, I could be wrong about how Republican Red evolved, but, since I was there and part of the process... However, there are some who make a strong case for it starting in 2,000 with Russert on Meet The Press, others claim Letterman authored it.

I like my explanation better, since I was watching it unfold. But, you, you don't know, and can't be bothered to find out. Lack of intellectual curiosity is just not something one expects of a teacher.

[nacktman]

Actually, usmc1, I do not recall ever knowing he was going to try and be a teacher afore now ... I guess that tidbit of information was filed under the heading "Don't rate as high as a far t in a dust storm so drop it on the refuse pile".

As you say with his demonstrated lack in his postings; teaching would not be the best choice of a career.

[nakedstudent]

Boreas we haven't discussed the idea of a time table yet. I think that wether you agree with the decision to go to war or not, it is easy to see that we shouldn't be there much longer and need to get out. But on the other hand, picking up and flying out right now is irresponsible.

Nacktman wrong is a point of view. My point of view is that the entire world had enough evidence against Suddam to draft a resolution saying he needed to allow inspectors in and disclose all. Did he do that? I happen to believe he didn't. Numerous news programs at the time pointed out that too much time was being taken before inspectors were allowed to view priority locations.

And as far as whining is concerned, there are topics when compromise is either A. the best interest of the country. or B. A step in the right direction.

Namely Bush's policies on medicare and illegal immigration respectively.

Tax write offs on medicare are just as effective as subsidizing it. Congress should take a further look at this and both the White House and Congress should compromise. It puts money in the hands of poor Americans.

Bush's guest worker program allows illegals to stay but provides an ability to document them so we know who's coming in, where they are, and what they are doing. It may not be perfect (I'm not even sure we know where perfect is right now) but it's a step in the right direction.

Neoliberalism was brought up earlier... this seems to be mostly economic in nature. Why bring it up in a political forum? Besides Keynes seems to make sense to me... it was the indirect enaction of his ideas in the form of government demand for WWII that brought us out of the great depression.

USMC... you don't think I've tried to view the Iraq war as wrong? Believe me when I say before the war started I was against it. I thought we needed to focus on OBL and other threats. But when I saw this picture, I realized that if Hussein didn't yet have the ability to hurt us, he was looking for it.

http://www.americanprotest.net/images/rally/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

Now go-ahead, dismiss it as an artistic work or whatever you want to say, believing that "it's just art" But it happens to scare me.

USMC I must say I can't recall calling you stupid and if I ever did I appoligize for it. I just get frustrated because you guys seem to look at secondary sources such as newspapers, polls, etc and accept it as truth. The above picture came from the ground. I just can't dismiss the idea that Suddam was bad for the world and while we have some mopping up to do, we will eventually be better off without him.

[hm0504]

Thanks for the link to the painting, nakedstudent. It clearly justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Apparently, the only mistake the U.S. made was that instead of worrying about WMDs, they should have justified the war based on Iraq's PMDs -- Paintings of Mass Destruction.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:

http://www.americanprotest.net/images/rally/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg

Now go-ahead, dismiss it as an artistic work or whatever you want to say, believing that "it's just art" But it happens to scare me.
...

Boo!
http://www.rri.res.in/~srik/scream_3.jpg

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
... My point of view is that the entire world had enough evidence against Suddam to draft a resolution saying he needed to allow inspectors in and disclose all. Did he do that? I happen to believe he didn't. Numerous news programs at the time pointed out that too much time was being taken before inspectors were allowed to view priority locations.

...

Tax write offs on medicare are just as effective as subsidizing it. Congress should take a further look at this and both the White House and Congress should compromise. It puts money in the hands of poor Americans.
....

Saddam didn't admit to NOT having WMDs because if the world knew he was powerless, his enemies would slaughter him. And I'm not just talking Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, but also the Iraqi Shia, Kurds, and Islamist Sunnis.

I'm sure Naturist Mark can cover this better than I can, but I doubt that the pennies saved by poor who pay taxes (and the very poor who do not make enough to pay taxes in the first place), will find that a few pennies does not buy a lot of health care in the U.S.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Now go-ahead, dismiss it as an artistic work or whatever you want to say, believing that "it's just art" But it happens to scare me.
The only thing that I get from this piece of artwork is that Saddam was happy that we were successfully attacked. Not a surprise at all.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Now go-ahead, dismiss it as an artistic work or whatever you want to say, believing that "it's just art" But it happens to scare me.
The only thing that I get from this piece of artwork is that Saddam was happy that we were successfully attacked. Not a surprise at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, no. Let's put this in the Bush mindset. One of Saddam's "drones of death" (remember that term, turns out the drones of death were only somewhat more dangerous than a kid's paper airplane), but I digress...one of Saddam's could fly one of these painting from Iraq to America where it could be released and fall on someone's head. Hence, the need to invade Iraq.

[MJ_KC]

I don't think that Bush needed any reason for attacking Iraq other than the fact that he wanted to.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I don't think that Bush needed any reason for attacking Iraq other than the fact that he wanted to.

Totally agree...and frankly, that 99.99% of why the U.S. is there today; everything else (WMDs, UN resolutions, etc.) fits into the irrelevant 0.01%.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I don't think that Bush needed any reason for attacking Iraq other than the fact that he wanted to.

Totally agree...and frankly, that 99.99% of why the U.S. is there today; everything else (WMDs, UN resolutions, etc.) fits into the irrelevant 0.01%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ding, Ding, Ding!

We have a winner folks!

Or make that two winners ... MJ_KC and Albinus!

[MJ_KC]

Bush wanted to go into Iraq and I do not think that anything could have stopped him. He only wanted people to provide him with any information that would support his decision and wanted them to keep any non-supportive info to themselves.

You can see what happened to Valerie Plame when her husband didn't keep his mouth shut.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Bush wanted to go into Iraq and I do not think that anything could have stopped him. He only wanted people to provide him with any information that would support his decision and wanted them to keep any non-supportive info to themselves.

You can see what happened to Valerie Plame when her husband didn't keep his mouth shut.


Yep. I remember seeing Colin Powell on TV making some announcement about the alleged weapons of mass destruction. He looked like he was reading off a script and it stuck me that he was totally uncomfortable with the lies he was telling. I believe he resigned shortly after that.

The US would not need to pull out if they had not gone in in the first place. IF they were after Osama and his crowd, they would have had support to go into Afghanistan at the time. The world was moderately supportive of that. Iraq was just plain stupid. There were probably other, less destructive ways to get rid of Saddam.

[Naturist Mark]

Yep. I remember seeing Colin Powell on TV making some announcement about the alleged weapons of mass destruction. He looked like he was reading off a script and it stuck me that he was totally uncomfortable with the lies he was telling. I believe he resigned shortly after that.
Colin Powell has said that that speech to the UN is a blot on his record. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm)

It was not Powell's speech, it was given to him by the White House, later parts of it were discovered to have been plaigerized (http://mediastudy.com/articles/av2-13-03.html) from the internet. Powell's ex-aide says he didn't want to give it and asked for and got some revisions, but was pressured by the Vice President to give as strong a speech as possible. Publicly Powell only says that it represented the faulty intelligence they believed at the time. But it has since been widely reported that he and his aides had strong doubts about the reliability of the evidence - he did in fact know better.

Since leaving the administration shortly after the Bush reselection, Powell has increasingly become more critical of the war, and could now be counted among the war opponents - he has publicly stated the US has lost in Iraq, and opposed the 'surge'.

His resignation in 2004 was actually a firing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html) for his disloyalty in opposing the legalization of torture - which he saw as a threat to our troops and his constant conflicting opinions on the genius of Donald Rumsfeld.

Thus fell a good and capable man - at one time the most popular member of the administration, and certain to become America's first Black president. Unfortunately he hitched his star to the rising neocons, and although he was their 'good soldier' for far too long, in the end he couldn't make himself believe in them.

He was the best man they had, and they led him to leaving his reputation in shambles.

Of course, unlike the real neocons, Colin Powell was a soldier, and the neocons did to him what they always do to the troops. Use them, ruin them, and discard them.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Bush wanted to go into Iraq and I do not think that anything could have stopped him. He only wanted people to provide him with any information that would support his decision and wanted them to keep any non-supportive info to themselves.

You can see what happened to Valerie Plame when her husband didn't keep his mouth shut.


Yep. I remember seeing Colin Powell on TV making some announcement about the alleged weapons of mass destruction. He looked like he was reading off a script and it stuck me that he was totally uncomfortable with the lies he was telling. I believe he resigned shortly after that.

The US would not need to pull out if they had not gone in in the first place. IF they were after Osama and his crowd, they would have had support to go into Afghanistan at the time. The world was moderately supportive of that. Iraq was just plain stupid. There were probably other, less destructive ways to get rid of Saddam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are mostly right about Powell's speech at the UN; I would say he maybe believed it at a 40% level. I heard he threw out previous versions saying he just couldn't say such nonsense in public.

Just found this link of an interview from about a year ago with Colonel Wilkerson, Powell's ex-chief of staff.



“What I’m saying is the aftermath, the lack of planning, the lack of (Iraq) post-invasion thought, even, was an ineptitude of the first order and possibly even the greatest ineptitude of the history of America -Col. Wilkerson.”


Geez, another American top military guy who doesn't support the troops. More here:
http://faelnarr.gnn.tv/blogs/13898/Colin_Powell_s_ex_ch...ff_spills_some_beans (http://faelnarr.gnn.tv/blogs/13898/Colin_Powell_s_ex_chief_of_staff_spills_some_beans )

[hm0504]

Some more commentary by Wilkerson here:
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_08_14_firedoglake_archive.html
(search for "Wilkerson")

Also, love the article (same page) about " What Do You Want For a Lousy $200 Billion?".

[Boreas]

Thanks for the validation Mark and Albinus. I don;t remember the content of the speech, other than he was taling about the weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war. He always struck me as an honourable man and one with integrity. I just remember how distinctly unconfortable he looked giving such a speech. He looked like he did not believe a word of it.

I guess when you are part of the upper echalons you must toe the party line.

[nakedstudent]

Thanks again for picking and choosing what you respond to. There are several other topics both foreign and domestic that also constitute as politics.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Thanks again for picking and choosing what you respond to. There are several other topics both foreign and domestic that also constitute as politics.

Hey, you are welcome!

It is normal discourse to rebut one idea per post. Otherwise it becomes a long and unwieldy punchlist that will be skipped over.

Let's start with tax incentives for the poor to buy health insurance. 1) The poor can't afford health insurance with or without 'tax incentives'. 2) Insurance companies have no interest in signing them up - so they will inflate the required premiums and lower coverage to worthless levels - if they offer any plans at all. 3) Tax incentives provide the least incentive to those at the bottom of the economic scale, and the most to those at the top. So tax incentives for health care would mostly only help the very rich poor. Try going to an insurance company and telling them you don't have the money to pay their premium, but you'll be glad to pass on your tax savings later - assuming you have no health emergencies that require them to pay out while you can't work and lose income.

Bush's proposal would give low income purchasers of private health insurance (not medicare) a tax break paid for by a new tax on the health care premiums paid for by those with 'gold plated' (meaning "good") health plans. It is a total non starter.

Can tax deductions cure U.S. health care? (http://www.startribune.com/168/story/988106.html)

BUSH'S HEALTH-CARE TAX (http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6040)

Gold-Plated Indifference (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/01/paul_krugman_go_1.html)

Additional Notes on Gold-Plated Indifference (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/01/paul_krugman_ad.html)

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Bush's guest worker program allows illegals to stay but provides an ability to document them so we know who's coming in, where they are, and what they are doing. It may not be perfect (I'm not even sure we know where perfect is right now) but it's a step in the right direction.

Bush's guest worker program is little more than a new system of indentured servitude. Workers would be permitted to work in the US only under the auspices of an employer who would have the power to have them deported. Does anyone think this would not devolve into slavery? Corporations love the idea.

Conservatives are furious (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13565) at Bush's proposal because they see it as a form of Amnesty.

Others (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/OPINION/60731052/-1/OPINION04) say it won't work to control illegal immigration.

I've given my views on the issue many times. We could very easily stop illegal immigration if we wanted to, not by 'tightening the border' which is an impossible task. But by not allowing the employment of illegal immigrants. The existing laws against illegal employment are not being enforced - except in a few show raids and cases of political retribution. They are not being uniformly enforced because US corporations will not allow them to be enforced. All the right wing hysteria over illegal immigration is just playing to the base, they don't dare let the issue be resolved - fear of illegal immigrants brings them too many votes (Never resolve a wedge issue).

-Mark

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Thanks for the validation Mark and Albinus. I don;t remember the content of the speech, other than he was taling about the weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war. He always struck me as an honourable man and one with integrity. I just remember how distinctly unconfortable he looked giving such a speech. He looked like he did not believe a word of it.

I guess when you are part of the upper echalons you must toe the party line.

Still_Boreas and everyone else, this 5 minute video captures it all beautifully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4

[nakedstudent]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Bush's guest worker program is little more than a new system of indentured servitude. Workers would be permitted to work in the US only under the auspices of an employer who would have the power to have them deported. Does anyone think this would not devolve into slavery? Corporations love the idea.

Conservatives are furious (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13565) at Bush's proposal because they see it as a form of Amnesty.

Others (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/OPINION/60731052/-1/OPINION04) say it won't work to control illegal immigration.

I've given my views on the issue many times. We could very easily stop illegal immigration if we wanted to, not by 'tightening the border' which is an impossible task. But by not allowing the employment of illegal immigrants. The existing laws against illegal employment are not being enforced - except in a few show raids and cases of political retribution. They are not being uniformly enforced because US corporations will not allow them to be enforced. All the right wing hysteria over illegal immigration is just playing to the base, they don't dare let the issue be resolved - fear of illegal immigrants brings them too many votes (Never resolve a wedge issue).

-Mark

Mexicans have the right not to come. They choose the risk because the measly pay they recieve here is better than what they did recieve in Mexico. So indentured servitude would be a choice not a law and therefore far different than slavery.

Corporations already have the power to deport illegals. They load their "employees" into a van and drop them infront of an immigration office. Formalizing this process is trivial.

Mexicans contribute a lot to our economy and if there was a legal pathway, groups such as the minutemen wouldn't be as necessary as a quick, streamlined path to our economy would be present. Therefore, more private and public money could be used elsewhere.

And think of the new government jobs at the border. Raising the economy, documenting this new workforce, taking advantage of their income in the form of taxes, and lowering our own unemployment in the process.

[nakedstudent]

Point taken on the healthcare deductions on income tax. Income tax (atleast nationally) is already rather progressive and there isn't much more that the government can give back in that area. Maybe a consideration should be that a different write off could be given... maybe in the welfare or medicaid areas? They aren't contributing much anyways. Such taxes (and argueably all taxes) should be more progressive.

[Sanslines]

Hi Mark,

Here is an actual scenario for your input. I was in Manhattan yesterday and there was an article in the local newspaper about the following:

There is a 36 year old man who lives in government subsidized rent controlled apartment housing in lower Manhattan. This man is a filmmaker by profession and his income is considered middle income. As such, he is normally eligible for subsidized rent control. The issue revolves around the fact that when applying for subsidized housing, he neglected to include the $4000 income that his cousin earned last year. His cousin was living in the same apartment as this man was. He was required to report total household income but instead made a mistake and reported only his income. The city's Department of Housing learned of this mistake and has since revoked his sudsidized housing status thereby increasing his monthly rent from $984 to $3882 per month. He can now no longer afford the increased rent and will be evicted and must move.

Many people generally agree upon the problem of affordable low and middle income housing for people. The questions are these: Should government subsidize housing at any cost and keep paying out more and more money to make housing developers wealthier and wealthier? Can the free market system work to force down the price that the government will pay for the subsidized housing? Should government regulate the amount of money that housing developers can charge thereby providing affordable subsidized housing to the working poor and middle class and restricting the amount of money that government will pay out to deveolpers?

[usmc1]

Affordable housing is an important issue for boomers and seniors and becoming more so every day.

The Bush administration is saying to these age cohorts; seniors are going to have to age in place, there's not enough money to provide health care and long-term care, so you'd should eat healthy, exercise and be prepared to provide care to your senior parents without government programs.

Now that is fine. Right? Fine. But, not so fine when you're trying to prepare for your own retirement--and aging in place, fighting for your own health care, trying to help your kids get an education and both of your working to try to pull all this together and now you will also be the primary care giver for your aging parents.

Nothing wrong with that, in fact that's how it used to be just a generation or so ago. But, that was before an economy built on two-incomes, moving half way or all the way across country to find a decent job, and real community based support and cooperation.

How to Billy Bob and Betty Brenda Boomer get their parents from East Cupcake Ohio and the neigborhood they grew up, married and raised their family in out to silicon valley and into the 1700 square foot 3-bedroom, $450K tract brick on a slab house with their 2.5 kids to provide care for dad who leers at school girls and mom who often forgets to wear her depends?

As to tax credits for Medicare. Huh? Most seniors relying on Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid for their health care already are close to or in the earned income tax credit bracket, I should think. Tax Credits don't help them.

The answer is very damn simple, Single payer, universal, cradle to grave health care!

Last week, Senate Bill 3, came out of the finance committee for debate in the Senate. Only the NYT had any meaningful coverage of what happened. Instead of debating the bill and sending it on to conference committee so that it could be sent to Bush to sign or veto, all but a handfull of Republicans threatened to filibuster and the Democrats were four votes short, with a number of Republicans joing them, in overriding the Filibuster. For now SB3 is moribund. Reid used a procedural way to get it up for vote again at some time in the future.

Oh yeah. Right? You ask, what would the bill have down.

It would have allowed Medicare to bid for drugs in bulk as the Veterans Administration does now efffecting great savings for we veterans. Don't other seniors deserve the same break?

The bill would have given Medicare and other government agencies the authority to compare the various drugs and their varying efficiences that are a part of all the hundreds, and hundreds different plans that seniors have to choose from.

Common sense stuff, buy in bulk and study and anlayze the efficacy of different plans. Why would Bush and the conservative Republicans be oppossed. Maybe its because of the sweet heart deals with the drugs companies and the...well you get the picture.

So, I guess one difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals care about seniors and conservatives would like to see them shut up and go away.

[nakedstudent]

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

The problem with public healthcare is it would be nearly impossible to cover the areas that citizens need anyways. That's why I personally believe it shouldn't be open to ALL Americans but there should be an income level that would represent the maximum people can earn and get government benefits.

I once heard in my sociology class that Canadians sometimes have to wait an extreme amount of time (I want to say like 3 months???) to get specialty care in areas such as CATSCANS, MRI, advanced cancer treatment etc... The above article hinted at it but I'm looking for more articles to confirm this... maybe Boreas could shed some light?

I think having a cutoff line could work but as far as insuring everyone goes, it still seems to me like we wouldn't get a "gold plate" plan and it would effectively do little.

In fact I also believe US hospital ER's are required to care for anyone who walks through the door. Taxpayers pick up the tab for the uninsured. How is this different than a basic healthcare plan?

[nacktman]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
In fact I also believe US hospital ER's are required to care for anyone who walks through the door. Taxpayers pick up the tab for the uninsured. How is this different than a basic healthcare plan?

Not quite accurate, student.
The Mrs., worked in the ER/Trauma units of two hospitals for over twenty years and she can tell you that the assumption that hospitals are required to care for anyone entering their building is incorrect.

Only government run or funded hospitals are mandated to care for anyone who comes through the door and here again that is not correct in all cases, to wit, VA and Specialty Clinic Hospitals are exempt from the mandate.
Private run hospitals are under no obligation to care of anyone period.

The assumption is reached from the mandate that all hospitals (save VA and Specialty Clinics), are to triage anyone that comes through the door to the point they can be moved to a government run or funded hospital for care.

Tain't the same as a basic healthcare plan by a long shot!

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

The problem with public healthcare is it would be nearly impossible to cover the areas that citizens need anyways. That's why I personally believe it shouldn't be open to ALL Americans but there should be an income level that would represent the maximum people can earn and get government benefits.

I once heard in my sociology class that Canadians sometimes have to wait an extreme amount of time (I want to say like 3 months???) to get specialty care in areas such as CATSCANS, MRI, advanced cancer treatment etc... The above article hinted at it but I'm looking for more articles to confirm this... maybe Boreas could shed some light?

I think having a cutoff line could work but as far as insuring everyone goes, it still seems to me like we wouldn't get a "gold plate" plan and it would effectively do little.

In fact I also believe US hospital ER's are required to care for anyone who walks through the door. Taxpayers pick up the tab for the uninsured. How is this different than a basic healthcare plan?

I knew you would bring up Canadian health care. Yes we do have wait times for some things. Just try to get a hip replacement in a reasonable amount of time. If you do need emergent health care, it is usually available quite quickly. I learned this personally this fall. My neck was sore. The doctor suggested an x-ray and gave me the slip for that. I walked across the street to the hospital and got an x-ray within a half hour or an hour. It was not long at all. The doctor had the results of the x-ray in his office within the week or so. The x-ray suggested something was weird, and suggested that a CT scan would be adviseable. I went to my doctor and talked to him about this on a Monday. I could have had that CT scan on the Friday of the same week, had I not been in Vancouver on that day. I was able to get one shortly after I got home, the following week. The results for that were in very quickly.

I live in a fairly remote northern town. We have all the medically necessary services. If we need specialized services such as hip replacements or neurosurgery we might have to go to Edmonton or Vancouver. Edmonton is in another province, yet we can still get medical care there. If I break my neck in Nova Scotia, across the country I will get service.

Yes, Canada does have wait lists for certain things. So does the US. The medical systems in many countries are undergoing much change because of the costs and efficiencies of higher technologies and such. Also, the people who are sick in hospitals are sicker than before because they are not hospitalized as quickly. (most things are care for in an outpatient basis and that is okay.) The health care cuts of the 90's are biting us all now.

Bottom line. In spite of the flaws and hiccups, we still have a darned good health care system. It is cheaper per capita than the one in the US. And it is a universal system. People use propaganda to make sweeping changes that suit their agendas. I get frustrated when the only two options for healthcare are public vs private.

My views are still: Health care SHOULD be available from cradle to grave for ALL citizens regardless of their ability to pay. This can be provided in many different ways. For instance, our local physiotherapy clinic is a private clinic, but it is accessible. Some labs are also private and accessible. NO ONE should have a financial crisis because they got ill and had to pay for medical services.

Each province in Canada looks after its own healthcare system. There is federal funding that comes as well. We have to pay health care premiums in this province, but they are not much. Also everyone is covered. Often employers will pay. No one is denied insurance because of having a chronic illness or condition.

Now I feel like I am rambling. This is a soapbox for me. I have worked in health care most of my career and have some concerns and frustrations of course. I also like a lot of what we have. I have no desire to have an Amercian model of health care.

[Naturist Mark]

Here is an actual scenario for your input. I was in Manhattan yesterday and there was an article in the local newspaper

That particular case is clearly a 'gotcha' situation where an innocent mistake is taken advantage of. The result of an uncaring bureaucracy serving the interest of developers instead of citizens.

I'm not an expert on the NYC housing market. But I'd approach this with the following questions in mind;

1) What is in the interest of the community as whole. Is there a value to keeping the neighborhoods available to middle and low income residents? Or is the tax base that high income residents bring worth exiling the others? With good public transportation the eviction of lower and middle income residents doesn't have to unduly inconvenience commerce.

2) What is fair to the owners of the property? Are they entitled to the highest dollar value developers can produce? Is it fair for government to intervene and subsidize housing in exchange for the services it provides to the owners? So long as the owners are making a profit, why should the city owe them the opportunity to make the maximum profits possible even if it is to the detriment of the residents?

3) Do building owners and developers have any responsibility to the city and community? Or is responsibility only owed to them? The city makes their enterprises possible, do their taxes fulfill their obligations in return? What is fair?

4) What are the alternatives to housing controls and subsidies?

Generally most cities have the opposite problem as high income workers voluntarily remove themselves from the urban environment, first moving their residences to the suburbs, then their businesses - as more and more office buildings go vacant downtown and office parks pop up in the ring suburbs. The poor are bussed in from the inner city to work in the suburbs and bussed home again.

The reverse - urban gentrification, is a relatively recent and still minor process in most cities, with notable exceptions like San Francisco.

NYC's system of rent controls and subsidies is unusual in its long history and extent. But NYC has always been a special case. The problem of maintaining affordable and livable neighborhoods where they are needed is not unusual, many approaches have been tried, including a strict laissez faire approach - which invariably is the least successful.

One of the more recent alternatives to strict rent controls is inclusionary zoning - wherein developers are required or given incentives to including a mix of affordable housing in their projects. Still to early to see how that works out ... imagine Trump Tower including housing for working class families between floors with luxury flats.

-Mark

[nakedstudent]

Originally posted by nacktman:


Only government run or funded hospitals are mandated to care for anyone who comes through the door and here again that is not correct in all cases, to wit, VA and Specialty Clinic Hospitals are exempt from the mandate.
Private run hospitals are under no obligation to care of anyone period.



Then perhaps that is the answer? Make it law that no patient can be turned down at any ER in the nation. A documented number of cases could be refunded by the Fed.

I still think subsidizing a definded income level (and may I also add all children) with taxpayer dollars would be reasonable. I don't beleive that subsidizing the CEO of Verizon, NBC, or "Faux" News http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif is necessary. They flat out don't need it... I venture to say I won't need it as most PA teachers get really good plans during tenure and retirement from their districts. I really think a hybrid system would work best.

[Naturist Mark]

I once heard in my sociology class that Canadians sometimes have to wait an extreme amount of time (I want to say like 3 months???) to get specialty care in areas such as CATSCANS, MRI, advanced cancer treatment etc... The above article hinted at it but I'm looking for more articles to confirm this... maybe Boreas could shed some light?
Still_Boreas did a fine job at explaining what happens in Canada. I'd just like to point out that in America most people have to wait long periods of time for non-emergency proceedures if they don't have the ability to pay. Many have to do without. Those with poor health plans face long waits and repeated denials until they give up, get worse enough to be an emergency, or die. It isn't the most expensive system in the world for nothing. But at least we've passed Cuba in quality of care.

-Mark

[nakedstudent]

Just for example, in the district I graduated from, teachers start at 35k with a(among other things) a healthcare plan where they pay a $10 copay and the district takes care of the premiums. And it far from drains our tax income.

[Naturist Mark]

Then perhaps that is the answer? Make it law that no patient can be turned down at any ER in the nation. A documented number of cases could be refunded by the Fed.
Waiting until you have to go to the ER is the very most expensive and least effective way of providing health care there is.

Until 20 years ago almost every hospital in the nation was either a public hospital or non profit which would not turn away emergency patients. That didn't mean the health care problems of the nation were solved.

-Mark

[nakedstudent]

HAHAHA Mark people hardly WAIT to go to the ER anymore... and that was my point. Though thinking about it maybe the ER isn't the place then? Set up a whole nother department in hospitals for routine healthcare.

My parent's plan (on which I am still covered as I am in college) allows me to get new glasses every year, visit the dentist twice, and go to the doctor when I need to. The premium is taken care of by my father's employer but we still have co-pay.

I am just thinking that subsidizing (without either cutting back elsewhere or increasing taxes) will not allow for things like dentistry and vision to be covered and these are things people tend to need more. What programs do we cut though? Education? Defense maybe some. Foreign aid(only represents a hundredth of our GDP)?

I think there are some things the private sector could pick up and form more of a charity based funding for different things so that might be on the table as well.

[Big-Thinker]

Nakedstudent, I had heard first-hand from a man, originally from El Salvador, how disappointing the Cadiadian health care system is, and yes, he said the same thing, waiting weeks or months to see any doctor in his experience. Quality medical care does cost money, and the more we try to deny or hide that fact, the worse things will get. A socialist system would make the natural feedback loops that control costs even more broken that they are already. Socialist health care and socialism in general is a sick joke that betrays the very people that think it's what's best for them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

[Naturist Mark]

HAHAHA Mark people hardly WAIT to go to the ER anymore... and that was my point. Though thinking about it maybe the ER isn't the place then? Set up a whole nother department in hospitals for routine healthcare. There is another department for routine healthcare, it is called every other department. Unfortunately even at public hospitals you don't get care there unless you agree to pay or have some sort of health coverage.

My parent's plan (on which I am still covered as I am in college) allows me to get new glasses every year, visit the dentist twice, and go to the doctor when I need to. The premium is taken care of by my father's employer but we still have co-pay.
Count yourself lucky, that is one of those 'gold plated plans' that Bush wants to add an extra tax onto. Most of us don't have those options.

I am just thinking that subsidizing (without either cutting back elsewhere or increasing taxes) will not allow for things like dentistry and vision to be covered and these are things people tend to need more. What programs do we cut though? Education? Defense maybe some. Foreign aid(only represents a hundredth of our GDP)?
The best national health care system in the world is France's. It is also the most expensive in the world, except for ours. The French pay less than half of what we pay per capita. In fact they pay less per person than our government already pays per person in health care expenditures. In other words, if we provided universal health care to every American for the same price as the most profligate nation in the world (other than ours) we wouldn't have to raise a single penny in additional taxes.

I think there are some things the private sector could pick up and form more of a charity based funding for different things so that might be on the table as well. Uh huh.

-Mark

[nakedstudent]

Once again Mark, how effective are the French at covering things such as dentistry and vision? Furthermore as I said before, Paris Hilton and Donald Trump have no need for the government to pay for their illnesses or even major surgeries. Why waste that money?

[LamontCranston]

That's why I personally believe it shouldn't be open to ALL Americans but there should be an income level that would represent the maximum people can earn and get government benefits. This is called Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Disability. In Connecticut last year taxpayers contributed $4.6 billion to fund these programs. That figure covers half the expense. The federal government matches 50% of the need.

No judgement here on right, wrong or effectiveness. Just pointing out that these programs exist and are in full-swing.

[Naturist Mark]

A socialist system would make the natural feedback loops that control costs even more broken that they are already. Socialist health care and socialism in general is a sick joke that betrays the very people that think it's what's best for them.
Single payer universal health care is NOT socialism. Under single payer the government takes over the role of insurance companies, not doctors or hospitals. This is something our government already does very effectively in running the Medicare system - whose administrative costs and overhead total less than 3% of its budget. Private health plans typically spend more like 25%.

I've written quite a bit about national healthcare, you might want to look over some of these past posts. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=Health+care&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=Naturist+Mark&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

-Mark

[hm0504]

As Naturist Mark, and others, have pointed out, the U.S. has about the most expensive health care system and yet in terms of the biggies, life expectancy and infant mortality, one of the poorest in terms of results for the population as a whole.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

[LamontCranston]

Under single payer the government takes over the role of insurance companies, not doctors or hospitals. And state or federal gov't isn't likely to squeeze coverage out of concern for their shareholders.

[Sanslines]

Let's start by getting the fed gov't to competitively bid for pharmaceuticals. As it stands now, law prohibits Medicare from doing so (unlike the VA system).

[Boreas]

Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
Nakedstudent, I had heard first-hand from a man, originally from El Salvador, how disappointing the Cadiadian health care system is, and yes, he said the same thing, waiting weeks or months to see any doctor in his experience. Quality medical care does cost money, and the more we try to deny or hide that fact, the worse things will get. A socialist system would make the natural feedback loops that control costs even more broken that they are already. Socialist health care and socialism in general is a sick joke that betrays the very people that think it's what's best for them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

Where are you getting that information? Yes, some areas have doctor's shortages, but you can always get in to see a doctor quite quickly. I live in a remote-ish area and we have three medical clinics (doctor's offices with several doctors in each) and each of these clinics has walk-in clinics. If you need to, you can see a doctor the same day you decide to go to one.

Whenever I see Canada being referred to as a "socialist system" I wonder if that person watches too much Faux News.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
I once heard in my sociology class that Canadians sometimes have to wait an extreme amount of time (I want to say like 3 months???) to get specialty care in areas such as CATSCANS, MRI, advanced cancer treatment etc...

What makes you thik Americans don't wait for proceedures? My wife was injuured on the job, and after 2 years of hassles she finally got her surgery. Two years in which she was in major pain, and ended up losing most of the use of her right arm. If the surgery had been done earlier, she would be in much better shape now, and would be able to get a job, as it stands now she can't.

What happaned? The doctor had to get permission from the insurance company for every little thing. It took a month to make the doc appointment, then anothe month or 2 to get permission from the insurance company to do treatment, then another month to get the treatment appointment. Rinse and repeat. All in all it was 3 years before the insurance company refused to do any more, even though my wife still has issues, they refused to help out.

This is the major problem with US healthcare. If we were in Canada this would have, at most, taken a year from start to finish, and she would be the best she could be, which would be a large bit better than she is now.

Qikdraw

[nakedstudent]

Malpractice is a whole other beast quickdraw. It happens for the same reason loosers burn their genitals with coffee and think their entitled to cash rewards.

Everyone is looking for an easy way out to take advantage of our system. The bottom line is Doctors are human. And while unintentional pain to a patient is a horrible thing, doctors have the best of intent and I'd rather a doctor cut me open and make a mistake than a carpenter cut me open an not.

Their rising insurance costs are part of what pushes our premiums up.

[nacktman]

Student you really are clueless, aren't you?!

What Qikdraw described in his post was not "malpractice" of any kind it is standard practice.

Insurance companies in the US are nothing but collossal frauds.
The common misconception is that they are there to "help" out on a 'rainy day' as it were ... wrong ... that is just the 'bill of goods' they've been selling the public on since their inception(s).

They are nothing more than a money making scheme done good.
If they would be in any "other" industry they would be shut down, prosecuted and imprisoned for their crimes, though due to very successful lobbying and bribery they have exempted themsleves from such action with the passage of laws and regulations protecting them and requiring their "services" be made mandatory for the public to "purchase" by those same laws and regulations.

Research and developmnet of new technologies (in all fields), is hindered by insurance companies as they have to have time to think of ways to make more money on it and to deny any claims by those thinking they have a right to the monies they were promised when they "purchased" the insurance in the first place.

Deductables, co-pays and the like are but ways of denying the fullfilment of the insurance company's "obligations" disquised so that their 'consumers' won't recognize them as such and with them and the outright denial of their obligation(s) it is quite possible that you, their 'consumer' will "owe" the insurance company MORE monies for making a claim against what they have sold you as yours.

**************

Just another example: Cluelessness!

[Naturist Mark]

Once again Mark, how effective are the French at covering things such as dentistry and vision?
You mean other than being the best in the world?

Be aware that MOST Americans do not have insurance coverage for vision and dental. Those are very costly add-ons.

In France everyone does.

They may be rude cheese eating surrender monkeys, but they do care for their population, and they do it for less than half the price we spend while not even coming close to meeting our citizens needs.

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Deductables, co-pays and the like are but ways of denying the fullfilment of the insurance company's "obligations" disquised so that their 'consumers' won't recognize them as such and with them and the outright denial of their obligation(s) it is quite possible that you, their 'consumer' will "owe" the insurance company MORE monies for making a claim against what they have sold you as yours.

Deductibles and co-pays are a way to keep monthly premiums from immediately jumping up high enough to make up for the difference.

Companies can get a break on what they are paying out each month by shifting the burden to the employees by increasing the deductible or co-pay and then smiling and proclaiming that they have done a great job at keeping premiums down. What a load of BS.

[nakedstudent]

No nackman, I misread... and I appologize for it. I honestly though he was talking about malpractice insurance.

Of course insurance companies are money making machines. American society dictates that the only reason one is in buisness is for the rewards. While the philantropy of positive externalities are wonderful, the entire world these days rarely consider them as profits. It's a shame but it is how life is.

Nactman, where is the money you want to pay for government controlled healthcare coming from? The talk is to increase the national budget by upwards of $200 to $500 premiums a month times 12 months times 300 million people in the US each year.

If I did my math right that is atleast $720 Billion dollars each year. I still don't understand how we can swing something like that without increasing taxes. Sure we could cut pork and spending in some areas but unless the Feds stock pile cash in some bunker like they do oil, I don't understand where the balance is coming from.

[nakedstudent]

http://www.nchc.org/facts/France.pdf

I'm still finding issues in France Mark. Look at some of the issues. Sure people are happy with it but they're running up debt and there are still people taking advantage of the system. I also have yet to find evidence that securite sociale covers vision and dental.

They also have private systems available so it isn't completely subsidized either.

[nacktman]

Student, please refer to NaturistMark's previous postings on this subject for quite detailed answers to your question.

Not a red cent is needed in the form of increased taxation to have univeral care from craddle to grave in the US. The monies are already there and will be as long as the current tax system is in place (even with very substantial "real tax cuts"), or even the adoption of a flat-tax rate system (which will actually INCREASE tax revenues as it will eliminate the breaks and loopholes exploited by those that have no need of breaks or loopholes, i.e., you make $1.00 on a flat rate system set at 10%, you pay $.10 ... you make $1,000,000.00 you pay $10,000.00, something quite easy to figure out and maintain).

[nakedstudent]

So I am to assume we are not smart enough as a nation to come up with a plan to insure all Americans even though we are spending more than enough government money to do it in your opinion? Could you please direct me to the numbers if this is the case?

If it's true then I'll concede the point that cutting as much from the administrative end of the system and paying for it with taxpayer money will work. I still have hesitations about coverages some people can afford that wouldn't be covered... which is part of why I think a hybrid system would work best.

I think it is probably a falacy to beleive that everyone in France gets everything they need from the government healthcare system.

Once again, numbers for verification would be appreciated.

[Boreas]

nakedstudent you are fixated on an idea. For one thing, the US medical system costs a lot more per capita than the Canadian system does. Ours is universal and yours is private. Please explain.

The idea that a universal healthcare system is an unachievable, expensive venture is propaganda put out by the right-winged financial folks who are only interested in the almighty dollar. They are not interested in healthcare per se. We see it here. Yes, the healthcare system could spend money more wisely. We could be doing more to help people stay healthy (we do have the resources) and therefore be less likely to need to more expensive stuff. For example, if they covered chiropractic and physiotherapy (physical therapy) fully, they would possibly avoid more expensive surgeries and long term opiate use.

For the record, vision care is not covered in this province anymore, thanks to our right-winged provincial government. Often eye specialists see other health problems whene they are at an early stage. It is too bad they cut that. We do not get dental covered in most provinces, though most people have reasonable dental plans through their employers.

I noticed that you have not responded to any of us who have told you about real life situations. Do you prefer to listen to rhetoric or are you actually interested in learning?

You asked how the US could cover all of its citizens. Well, it happened in Canada over a period of many years. Tommy Douglas was a politician and premiere of Saskatchewan in the 50's and 60's. His goal was to have universal healthcare for all Saskatchewan citizens. He fought big battles, including doctors who went on strike because they didn't not believe in it. Ultimately, universal healthcare became a sacred cow in Canada. Unfortunately, there are those who would dismantle it. In fact, I no longer work at our local hospital because I cannot work under a corporate model of healthcare. This model has caused staffing shortages and extremely low staff morale because in the corporate model, you have minimal staffing without recoginzing the strain you are putting on the helpers. That is thanks to the conservative view of healthcare.

[Boreas]

If it's true then I'll concede the point that cutting as much from the administrative end of the system and paying for it with taxpayer money will work. I still have hesitations about coverages some people can afford that wouldn't be covered... which is part of why I think a hybrid system would work best.

Actually, I agree with you on the idea of a hybrid system. This is happening in some parts of Canada. I am not sure it is happening in a totally good way, but it is and the discussion is happening. Also, the discussion does not have to be private vs. public. We could get creative and find other models that work.

I wish the administrative end would take cuts. In our province we had a big strike three years ago. My colleagues and I at our level took a 15% pay cut from an already inadequate pay. (another reason why I no longer work there) The CEO's and directors ironically got at least 15% raises at that time. How convenient. They lost a lot of good people at that time.

[nakedstudent]

Boreas I think on the contrary I have learned quite a bit. I have found a few sources (that don't appear credible to me) that suggest numbers in line with what mark and others have said. Like I said though, the sources seemed a little elementary to me and I didn't find any credentials.

If we can truly cut money to the administrative end by having the government control healthcare and still operate the system on the CURRENT government budget, I'm all for it. If not, I don't mind paying a little bit out of my pocket. I still believe that citizens who can afford a higher level of healthcare should have that luxury if they can afford it and choose it.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Boreas I think on the contrary I have learned quite a bit. I have found a few sources (that don't appear credible to me) that suggest numbers in line with what mark and others have said. Like I said though, the sources seemed a little elementary to me and I didn't find any credentials.

If we can truly cut money to the administrative end by having the government control healthcare and still operate the system on the CURRENT government budget, I'm all for it. If not, I don't mind paying a little bit out of my pocket. I still believe that citizens who can afford a higher level of healthcare should have that luxury if they can afford it and choose it.

What sort of "higher level" healthcare are you suggesting? Quality healthcare is quality healthcare and there is nothing about single-payer, universl healthcare that suggests low standards or sub-quality care. Why make such an elitist assumption.

If you have a serious concern about administrative costs, you would find that the current system's insurance, drug company and hmo administratives costs are staggering, were you to do the research.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by usmc1:
If you have a serious concern about administrative costs, you would find that the current system's insurance, drug company and hmo administratives costs are staggering, were you to do the research.
This is exactly why it will be so difficult to change the system. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off the current system and they will give a lot of campaign money to see that it does not change.

[nakedstudent]

USMC if you read my last post you would notice two things:

1. I started agreeing with you!!!

2. I have done research. This research has led me to find that France also has something close to what I suggested. I'm not saying France is what we should have. Maybe we could get by with more or less percent of GDP from the feds... I don't get paid to make those decisions.

Unfortunately I am strapped for time at the moment... but just wanted to say that I tend to think in a Libertarian mindset. Everyone should be free to pursue what makes them happy with as little government interference as possible. Thinking that the government owes me something is a touch hard to swallow. I'm working on it though in some areas (obviously including this one).

[Boreas]

If not, I don't mind paying a little bit out of my pocket. I still believe that citizens who can afford a higher level of healthcare should have that luxury if they can afford it and choose it.


This is such a difficult issue and I have discussed with people in this town in real life. On the one hand, if you make more money and have worked hard to earn that money, why shouldn't you be able to buy a higher quality of services, products etc. You get to live in bigger houses and such too. On the other hand, does that give you the right to "jump the queue"? Two tiered healthcare is a big issue right now in Canada. There are folks pushing for that. Where will the extra health care providers come from in a system that is already shortstaffed? What happens to the "mere mortal" who needs services and can't get them because you have taken away their resources?

There is a group (can't remember specifics right now) that is proposing giving money to employees of the Health Authority if they help recruit new staff. I think there are ways to improve services where they might be lacking. Like usmc said, when you suggest that you be able to pay for better services, you are implying that the regular services are substandard. They are not.

The Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives is one source of information that supports the idea that we can have good social/health policies that are also fisclly responsible.

http://policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=95...=article&pA=BB736455 (http://policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=956&do=article&pA=BB736455)

http://policyalternatives.ca/Editorials/2006/03/LessonsFromAlberta/

This is another link that talks about the Canada Health Act and some of the threats to it: http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca/learn/canada_health_act.html

This is probably another good source of info, though I have not gone through it all. http://www.canadians.org/healthcare/issues/index.html

Happy researching.

[Boreas]

Everyone should be free to pursue what makes them happy with as little government interference as possible. Thinking that the government owes me something is a touch hard to swallow. I'm working on it though in some areas (obviously including this one).

I agree with your statement that government should be interfering as little as possible. At the same time, the government is in an excellent position to be an "umbrella organization" that can oversee certain things and mediate on occasion. I realize that Canada's federal system is much more conducive to this than the American Republic type system. Bottom line is I think that government can oversee without significant interference....if they have the right mindset. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[nakedstudent]

My point was that there are things that will invariably not be covered(some of which shouldn't) in standard health care such as plastic surgery, EXTENSIVE things in the area of vision (both contacts and glasses), and probably a few other things out there.

People wanting this coverage who can afford it should be allowed to pay for it. This is allowed in France if you look in one of my previous posts.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/France.pdf

I'm still finding issues in France Mark. Look at some of the issues. Sure people are happy with it but they're running up debt and there are still people taking advantage of the system. I also have yet to find evidence that securite sociale covers vision and dental.

They also have private systems available so it isn't completely subsidized either.

The French National Health System (http://tinyurl.com/32l8mk) does include vision and dental care.

It is NOT a nationalized system like Britain's, it is a private/public mix. It covers 100% of French citizens. It is not cheap - indeed I believe I emphasized that it was very expensive and profligate. But far far cheaper than the US system.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Unfortunately I am strapped for time at the moment... but just wanted to say that I tend to think in a Libertarian mindset. Everyone should be free to pursue what makes them happy with as little government interference as possible. Thinking that the government owes me something is a touch hard to swallow. I'm working on it though in some areas (obviously including this one).

I would highlight that larger government is not necessarily a more interfering government and, conversely, that smaller government means less interference.

For example, I would say personal freedom is highest in places like Denmark, Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, etc. which have what some might call 'big' government.

And on the opposite side, the Taliban in Afghanistan could be considered small government but they interfered tremendously in people's lives.

It is not so much the size of the government but the core freedom values that the country's people hold and how well the government, big or small, reflects those values.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by nakedstudent:
Malpractice is a whole other beast quickdraw. It happens for the same reason loosers burn their genitals with coffee and think their entitled to cash rewards.

Well the malpractice issue has been handled, but I see an area where the insurance companies have brainwashed you.

Just for you, the real McDonald's coffee case (http://knoxlawyers.tripod.com/McDonalds.htm). Drastically different from what the insurance companies let you think.

Not only that but the whole issue that malpractice costs are the reason for the high cost of insurance is also false. According to the Congressional Bugeting Office (http://democrats.senate.gov/%7Edpc/pubs/108-2-026.html) malpractice lawsuits take up 2% of total health care costs. Administration of 'healthcare' is around 25%. Why is that not the issue of the politicians?


Boreas I think on the contrary I have learned quite a bit. I have found a few sources (that don't appear credible to me) that suggest numbers in line with what mark and others have said. Like I said though, the sources seemed a little elementary to me and I didn't find any credentials.

Why is this the standard right-wing arguement? 'Your links are no good', is the standard line, without bringing anything decent to the table. To have a debate you have to come to the table in an honest manner, yet right-wingers rarely do this. Why is that?

Qikdraw

[nakedstudent]

Mark,

In addition, 90% of the population subscribes to supplementary health insurance to cover other benefits not covered under NHI.33

Taken directly from your source. That is my point. There's supplementary health insurance. Meaning there are components that aren't covered that some people either a)want, or b) need. I simply want to find out what these components are to see just how far the system actually goes. Gimme a break bud I'm still trying to swallow the idea of lowering our % of GDP spent on healthcare from %16 to somewhere around probably %10 and still be able to effectively cover ALL Americans. (Though this is a %25 reduction... the pieces are slowly coming together.)

HM,


For example, I would say personal freedom is highest in places like Denmark, Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, etc. which have what some might call 'big' government.

And on the opposite side, the Taliban in Afghanistan could be considered small government but they interfered tremendously in people's lives.

Actually the libertarian arguement only takes into account personal freedom and defines government size as how much the government infringes on personal freedom. So while small (by numbers) governments may influence people's lives in a great way, they are still defined as big governments by libertarians.

To think about it, countries such as the US, Netherlands, etc need a bigger government(by numbers) than smaller countries do. So size must be relative to population anyways...


Qikdraw, one does not order coffee and expect it to come to them in the form of frozen cubes. People burn themselves with household coffee every day. There's a certain level of common sense to be taken in placement of hot beverages and dollars to donuts says she knew that the coffee she was recieving was not meant to sit beside her vagina. And if she was stupid enough to realize it was a bad idea and a cup holder would be far more effective and safe, she deserved to get burned.

As far as the malpractice only representing %2 of the medicare budget, every little bit helps. And if you read my former posts, I agreed that administrative budgets should be reduced through publicly funding heathcare if possible.