Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / October 2006
"Something wicked this way comes."
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Oklahoma Joe - 20 Oct 2006 18:53 GMT In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be trusted to speak truthfully about what they knew prior to 9/11 -- what is to stop them from stealing an election? Considering the fact that the administration and congressional Republicans could face serious legal consequences should Democrats control congress, why wouldn't they do all they could to prevent that from happening? And that is why so many people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked this way comes." _________________________________________________________ http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1314
This November A. Alexander, October 18th, 2006
"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes," said the witch in Shakespeare's "Macbeth." The witch uttered these words in reference to Macbeth himself, who, by that point in the play, was known to be a traitor and murderer. As the November elections approach and the Republicans grow ever more desperate it becomes impossible to turnoff the voice inside many peoples' heads, "Something wicked this way comes."
It wasn't that long ago, George W. Bush, his entire administration, and the Republican Party were viewed by a majority of the American people as possessing impeccable integrity and being honest almost to a fault. Whenever progressives and others tried sounding the alarm and warning that the man behind the curtain was anything but a wizard, or waved red-flags when Bush or his party members were caught in a lie; many were quick to paint the naysayer as being "shrill" or "un-American" or even a "traitor." Today, however, a large majority of Americans see their president and his party for what they are: an emperor without any clothes who is prone to lying and manipulating, and a band of fools willing to do anything or nothing at all -- whatever the situation requires -- in order to protect their naked king and to preserve their hold on power.
Recent polls have revealed some rather startling facts: A large majority of Americans now believe the president and his administration willfully lied the nation to war in Iraq. Incredibly only 16 percent believe the administration is telling the truth about what they knew prior to the terror attacks on 9/11. What is more stunning than the findings is the reality behind them. The American people suspect their president and his party have lied about the biggest events in their lifetime, because the evidence leads to those conclusions.
Indeed, legal experts and Constitutional scholars have all expressed their disbelief over the Republican-led congress failing to investigate many of the administration's actions and, too, their obstinate refusal to exercise their authority and halt the administration's tyrannical consolidation of power. Serious and accomplished legal minds point to several instances wherein the president may have committed impeachable offenses. Still, the Republicans have flatly refused to hold Bush to account.
Then, of course, there is the mountain of illegal and unethical actions committed by the Republican congress: How much of the peoples' government have Republicans sold to big oil, big pharma, and big Jack Abramoff and others just like him? How many laws have they discarded, while pursuing their power-mad lobbyist kickback schemes? Besides laundering money, covering up pedophiles, and handing out lobbyist checks on the House floor - how many laws have DeLay, Hastert, and Boehner violated? Finally, what did GOP congressional insiders know about pre-war Iraq intelligence that the administration kept hidden from Democrats and the American people?
Despite poll after poll showing Democrats leading Republicans by wide margins and despite the nation's most prestigious political organizations, Cook and Rothenberg Reports, predicting that Democrats will pick up between 18 and 30 seats in the House of Representatives; Bush, Cheney, and Rove remain eerily optimistic that Republicans will maintain control of congress. They remain insanely optimistic even though several Republican pollsters have confirmed the impending GOP losses. Bush and his people have absolutely no factual basis for believing Republicans will maintain control of congress -- nothing! That they continue to believe otherwise, considering they have proven themselves willing to lie the nation to war and capable of hiding pre-9/11 facts from the public, is nothing short of scary.
In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be trusted to speak truthfully about what they knew prior to 9/11 -- what is to stop them from stealing an election? Considering the fact that the administration and congressional Republicans could face serious legal consequences should Democrats control congress, why wouldn't they do all they could to prevent that from happening? And that is why so many people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked this way comes."
MonkeyHawk - 20 Oct 2006 19:06 GMT "Oklahoma Joe" <Okie@nospam.com> wrote in
> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to > falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked > this way comes." "Comes?!"
Unless there's lewd connotation you wantws to make, it seems like it's already arrived.
Under the law Shrub signed last week, anyone the President of the United States wants can be arrested, incarcerated, even executed without due process.
That's something wicked.
And it's here.
Today.
Now.
_________________________________________________________
> http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1314 > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked > this way comes." Yaketyak - 20 Oct 2006 22:48 GMT then those who aid and abet should be careful, huh ?
>"Oklahoma Joe" <Okie@nospam.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >> people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked >> this way comes." Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
them as Democrats. Yaketyak
Joe S. - 20 Oct 2006 19:12 GMT > In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to > falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > people cannot banish the thought from their minds: "Something wicked > this way comes." Which is all the more reason for us liberals to exercise our Second Amendment rights -- God invented the 9mm pistol, the 12-gauge semi-auto shotgun, and the .30-cal rifle just for this reason.
Scotius - 20 Oct 2006 23:37 GMT >> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >Amendment rights -- God invented the 9mm pistol, the 12-gauge semi-auto >shotgun, and the .30-cal rifle just for this reason. Which you've argued in other posts that people don't have the right to own.
PerfectlyAble - 20 Oct 2006 23:49 GMT > >> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to > >> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > Which you've argued in other posts that people don't have the > right to own. There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. i.e. a gun club. Gun owners should have backgrown checks. Most of the time law enforcement just needs to know who has the guns and who is likely to be using them illegally (advanced warning). The problem with rampent gun ownership is just that. Owning guns ain't the problem, its who uses them. Gun owners should put forth a code of conduct and stop buying guns from gun sellers who sell to non-gun clubs. Then you can have you auto-matics and have gun control. But hey, America is doing stupid something rotten laterly, stirringup the stupid godsoaked idiots and having them put one of their idiot number in the Whitehouse. Communities run best when they are secular and moderate.
Doesn't America know there is no God.
Don T. - 21 Oct 2006 00:13 GMT > There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and > the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. > i.e. a gun club. Gun owners should have backgrown checks. Looks like your head has backgrown plumb up into your silly a.s. What the f.ck does an idiot in New Zealand know about living in a place where "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" were not just hollow words spouted at the subjects of the Crown? Take your "Gun Club Militia" and stick it next to your head. Right up your a.s.
 Signature Don Thompson
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
Tom Sr. - 22 Oct 2006 00:14 GMT > What the > f.ck does an idiot in New Zealand know about living in a place where "Give > me Liberty or Give me Death" were not just hollow words spouted at the > subjects of the Crown? In the past 6 years, it is the United States's own neoconservatives and right-wing extremists who have *willing* give up our Liberties by supporting the Patriot Act (and its passage twice), warrantless spying on American citizens, and even giving up habeas corpus, the central right of all law and justice in Western Civilization for over *800* years!
You and the radical right have given up so many of ours and yours basic liberties and yet you are still alive. So just what the f.ck do YOU know about "give me Liberty or give me Death", Don T?
Other than being a hypocritical, un-American fool, that is? -Tom Sr.
i2p6 west - 22 Oct 2006 05:23 GMT >>What the >>f.ck does an idiot in New Zealand know about living in a place where "Give [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Other than being a hypocritical, un-American fool, that is? Yep.
Habeas corpus applies ONLY to prisoners, right? (said with dripping cynicism) ;-)
An excellent video of msnbc's Keith Olbermann on habeas corpus: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Olbermann_laments_death_of_habeas_1011.html
Yaketyak - 22 Oct 2006 09:22 GMT WRONG..
It applies to ALIENS.
>>>What the >>>f.ck does an idiot in New Zealand know about living in a place where "Give [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >An excellent video of msnbc's Keith Olbermann on habeas corpus: >http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Olbermann_laments_death_of_habeas_1011.html Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
them as Democrats. Yaketyak
letoured@nospam.net - 22 Oct 2006 13:46 GMT >WRONG..
>It applies to ALIENS. Lie: Stop living in your right wing kook dream world; the law applies to American's too. You right wing kooks have removed the right habeas corpus and seeing the evidence against you from United States law at the whim of the authorities.
>>>>What the >>>>f.ck does an idiot in New Zealand know about living in a place where "Give [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>An excellent video of msnbc's Keith Olbermann on habeas corpus: >>http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Olbermann_laments_death_of_habeas_1011.html
>Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
>and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
>them as Democrats. > Yaketyak miles - 21 Oct 2006 03:56 GMT > There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and > the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. Crap. I've had it all wrong. I thought we had a constitutional right to arm bears.
PerfectlyAble - 21 Oct 2006 05:15 GMT > > There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and > > the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. > > Crap. I've had it all wrong. I thought we had a constitutional right > to arm bears. Man you Americans are lazy and stupid. Your constitution says...
""""A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.""""
You have the right to bear arms to secure a well regulated Militia. Not 100 million single unregulated insecure militias, a violant society, with more American in jail, i.e. NOT free, because you frigging don't read you own damn constitution. You do not have the right to individually bare arms. You can be regulated as long as that regulation doesn't inhibit the freedom of the people. Any owner of a gun should be a member of a gun association. Guns are a tool, not a toy. They have one purpose, to kill, and we the people should expect the people to keep and bear arms in a regulated Militia. That of course can not be run by politicians since that would infringe on the freedom of the people, a free state isn't at the dictate of a few pork guzzlers.
So stop you frigging lefty hand "it all over to government", and stop all your frigging righty "my way or no way". And create associations of gun owners as the constitution describes, to keep a free State.
miles - 21 Oct 2006 05:18 GMT >> Crap. I've had it all wrong. I thought we had a constitutional right >> to arm bears.
> Man you Americans are lazy and stupid. Your constitution says... um...read before you reply
Calif Bill - 21 Oct 2006 07:26 GMT >> > There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and >> > the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And create associations of gun owners as the constitution > describes, to keep a free State. Politics do not belong here, but every abled bodied man was considered part of the militia in 1770's. The right to own guns was put in the Constitution to keep politicians somewhat honest. We won our freedom from a corrupt king, via the gun. Had nothing to do with hunting, or home protection. Was 100% for politicians.
PerfectlyAble - 21 Oct 2006 23:24 GMT > Politics do not belong here, but every abled bodied man was considered part > of the militia in 1770's. The right to own guns was put in the Constitution > to keep politicians somewhat honest. We won our freedom from a corrupt > king, via the gun. Had nothing to do with hunting, or home protection. Was > 100% for politicians. Exactly. Those brown nosers for Bush who claim to be for small government, fiscal responsiblility, anti-corruption, etc yet let Bush do all that and more.
Fact is every America has the right to bear arms only to take back their government and sustain a free state.
All the Jesus freak jobs think it means something it doesn't. They live their lives fearful of ever technological progress, worrying about the criminals who they hand gun because of their fear.
Yaketyak - 21 Oct 2006 14:06 GMT f.cking moron... if you knew your own govt as well as you claim to know ours you wouldnt be a socialist serf today..
dumb sh.t.
>> > There is a difference between an individual owning a gun and >> > the constitutional right to bear arms as a member of a militia. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >And create associations of gun owners as the constitution >describes, to keep a free State. Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
them as Democrats. Yaketyak
PerfectlyAble - 22 Oct 2006 10:29 GMT > f.cking moron... if you knew your own govt as well as you claim to > know ours you wouldnt be a socialist serf today.. So the hardworking Americas who actually make a buck, who can't afford insurance, have to wait behind Medicare recipients welfare recipents. Thats what you guys have on offer.
Sorry, but what don't you understand? That middle and worker class people have unified to have their health coverage provided for them in bulk! Thats not socialism, thats hardnosed capitlaism! I mean are you completely stupid, America is the socialist paragon for corporations, for the religious faith base movements, individuals take a backseat to America public and private collectivisation! Oh yes, what a remarkable piece of bull they sell to you, rich corporations, big churches, they can all recieved government welfare but individuals cannot negotiate statewide insurance programs for all. Oh, no, that would be sacrelgious to big corporate socialists like you. How pathetic, you call me a socialist dog yet you've all instutitionalise socialism for the rich and super rich, banning the middle and worker classes from getting the same deals.
You have collectivised farming provided by government, huge subsides to farmers as a group. Thats socialism that is. Individuals having to bow their hats to the party apparatus in washington as they wade through the minefield of programs big government demands they comply with. All so you can stomp on the global free market. Hey, what gives, its ok for a US socialised farm to get subsides for health care for their cows but not the individual America! Ha, you favour your farm animals better than people! Talk about lunacy, a man can be dying without medical coverage yet be paying for the medicine for the beast that provided his rotten fat infest burger he's chomping on, hey that probably gave him the heart disease to start with!!
Americans have become such pigs they forgotten they are human beings.
Ok, vouchers, why is it ok to give some student vouchers for religious schools because the religious freaks in the legistlator send their kids to the fancy posh schools and run down public schools. Yet totally unthinkable just to give everyone with child in their care a frigging tax. Why pander so some and not others. Ain't that the hallmark of socialism, we all do it my way so what if some come off worse! Its fair. Oh, and will need to build a huge bureacracy of public and private bureaucrats to run it all and you'll be paying for the extra. Get off the people back you pig! Its easy to provide programs for the public, if you treat them all the same as individuals and stop give handout to the rich, corps, faith, and growing government to boot. Everyone has there hand in and nobody seems to care.
Americians have become such pigs they forgotten they are human beings. They even look like pigs!
Gun ownership was predicated on defending freedom, not rom foriegners but from politicians selling snake oil. Growing pork, and I'm not talking about warm blooded piglets but cold hard paper pork, in the legistlators and you call me the frigging socialist. You have no idea what the word means, Socialism is alll about a few tell the many that they have to jump through x,y hoops, go round p,q loops and be worse off and pay for it. Private socialism off the taxpayer in America is rampent.
> dumb sh.t. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > them as Democrats. > Yaketyak miles - 22 Oct 2006 15:46 GMT > Sorry, but what don't you understand? That middle and > worker class people have unified to have their health > coverage provided for them in bulk! Most decent jobs have health care. Earn it rather than just take it.
> Thats not socialism, > thats hardnosed capitlaism! Redistribution of wealth is socialism. You're jealous of someone having more than you and you want what they have. You also seem bent on punishing people for being successful. Government needs more money, tax the crap out of those that are successful. Need more money still? Then tax them some more. The liberal left refuses to set any limit to a fair ceiling amount for the successful to be taxed. No limit at all.
The liberal left wishes to stop one of the foundations this country was built on. The opportunity for anyone to strive to achieve what they want. Now it seems the left is hell bent on punishing those that do achieve the American dream by taxing the crap out of them as soon as they are successful. Please state how much is too much of a tax rate for the successful? Where will it stop? When they have none left to take?
Oklahoma Joe - 22 Oct 2006 23:30 GMT miles go get foeley and have a night on the town, you seem so up tight.
> > Sorry, but what don't you understand? That middle and > > worker class people have unified to have their health [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > they are successful. Please state how much is too much of a tax rate > for the successful? Where will it stop? When they have none left to take? -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it."
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 00:37 GMT > > Sorry, but what don't you understand? That middle and > > worker class people have unified to have their health > > coverage provided for them in bulk! > > Most decent jobs have health care. Earn it rather than just take it. Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay for healthcoverage, which we all need, in bulk. Or you can pay individually more to a new industry of middlemen call healthcare providers. Seems to me that the best deal is to wringe out the middle men and have them us rather than against us. i.e. by basic care for all being free on delivery and private. Its like you want every road to be tolled and justify it by saying that it will save us money. Toll booths, people to sit in toll booths, is socialism, its dumb communism, its the soviet way of making full employment happen. Dumb stupid jobs that are taxes in another form. Health care cost too much money because the US is aflicted by socialised capitalism. The easiest deal to for everyone who needs health care, EVERYONE, to do a deal as a block.
> > Thats not socialism, > > thats hardnosed capitlaism! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tax them some more. The liberal left refuses to set any limit to a fair > ceiling amount for the successful to be taxed. No limit at all. Yes, socialism is about creating jobs that are unnecessary, that raise the cost to the consumer. So it costs more to hire in a healthcare provider, more paper work, more time, more energy, etc. THATS redistribution mate! Socialised Capitalism! The free market deal is to let consumers block buy their health care, now why is it ok for them to do that privately but not publically when its obviously cheaper. Governments are the paid for by the consumers, we the taxpayer are consumers of government. So why when it works for us to lower overall cost don't we buy from government those services that we all need! Yes, privatise hospitals, yes, provide luxury beds for the rich, option extras for private rooms with spas, but everyone gets health care free. i.e. put the capitalist to use where he is best able to serve the consumer, lowering cost behind the scense not by playing one group of near death against another. Socialism is heartless, so is the present health care system in the US. Europe gets that we all play the lottery of life and death, and we all pay taxes to insure ourselves.
> The liberal left wishes to stop one of the foundations this country was > built on. The opportunity for anyone to strive to achieve what they > want. Now it seems the left is hell bent on punishing those that do > achieve the American dream by taxing the crap out of them as soon as > they are successful. Please state how much is too much of a tax rate > for the successful? Where will it stop? When they have none left to take? I'm no liberal. I'm a pragmatic libertarian. I want as little government as possible. Stupid does hack it for me. And its stupid to pay big business to provide paperwork that has not market pressure because you the consumer do not choose get cancer, to be run over, to be hit by a genetic flaw. There is no way the US system can work to lower costs because there is no way consumers can dodge the bullet. Capitalis works by matching demand to supply, demand changes, bu disease never does. Get out of your arse mate, you're the big government redistributer socialiser.
miles - 23 Oct 2006 01:17 GMT > Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't > you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay > for healthcoverage, which we all need, in bulk. Or > you can pay individually more to a new industry of > middlemen call healthcare providers.
> Yes, socialism is about creating jobs that are unnecessary No, that would be communism where the Gov. creates jobs to stem unemployment.
> market deal is to let consumers block buy their health care, Buy or provide on the ability to pay? Most people already block buy through their employer. What we need is to find a way to reduce health care costs and not just alter who pays for it. A single healthcare plan is not a good idea. It does away with competition between insurance companies in the industry and thus the only way is to regulate it. Once that happens the services rendered will dwindle as the only way for health care providers to increase profits (thats why they are in business).
Don T. - 23 Oct 2006 03:29 GMT First, let us kill all the lawyers.
 Signature Don Thompson
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
>> Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't >> you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that happens the services rendered will dwindle as the only way for health > care providers to increase profits (thats why they are in business). miles - 23 Oct 2006 03:35 GMT > First, let us kill all the lawyers. lol, yep!! They cause too many of the problems.
MonkeyHawk - 23 Oct 2006 03:55 GMT "Don T." <-painter-@louvre.org> wrote in
> First, let us kill all the lawyers. A line delivered by the villian in Shakespeare's play.
This is just one of the literary references people quote and, by doing so, tell the world they don't know what they're talking about.
"Good fences make good neigbors" is another one.
Robert Frost's poem is a scathing attack on such attitudes.
Maybe "It's not that all conservatives are stupid people, but that all stupid people are conservatives." Maybe it's just conservatives have no sense of irony.
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 03:32 GMT > > Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't > > you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that happens the services rendered will dwindle as the only way for > health care providers to increase profits (thats why they are in business). People in Britian block buy their health coverage from the government because there are obvious savings from economics of scale. A single healthcare plan is simple and so naturally cost effective, this should not preclude private beds, spas, tvs for those willing to pay extra, or stay longer.
A public healthcare system doesn't need to be provided by the state. The state can tender out service delivery. So a system that at the door is free can be provided by the private sector. Obviously the way to go. Why? Simple, the market place for washing machines, toys, soap, brownies, are all demand driven. Disease is not demand driven. We do not want it to become so! Companies realise that if they pay someone to distribute cold flu, or lice, or any number of items into the population to raise demand for their porducts and services.
It is immoral and unethical to profit from disease, health care insurance is self-defeating at best and evil at worst. But I don't live in America, and have no interest in doing so. We all choose our poisons and even go into denial when told they are state run socialised policies to provide unnecessary jobs and investor opportunities at even more cost to the taxpayer (who undoubtly already paid for the system anyway). So get over yourself, your social redistrubtion is less fair than mine, go figure why you would defead such a thing. Yes, I pay more taxes, yes I have less oversight on how its spent, yes there needs to be a better way, but not a backward arseward loonifest that is America pioneering socialised anti-freedom system. If you live in a country of the free why don't some states provide free health coverage to all and raise local taxes to pay for it. Simple, the big health care corporations would steal, bribe, lie the program off the map (while bidding to provide the services! lol).
miles - 23 Oct 2006 03:39 GMT > People in Britian block buy their health coverage from the government > because there are obvious savings from economics of scale. A single > healthcare plan is simple and so naturally cost effective, this > should not preclude private beds, spas, tvs for those willing to > pay extra, or stay longer. The UK social system is heavily subsidized through taxes. It is a system that can't sustain itself. Already cuts have had to be made in other social programs to fund their health care system. Furthermore health care in the UK is mediocre at best. Socialized medicine reduces the incentive for innovation along with keeping professionals in the market. Many have come to the USA rather than work for the lower wages found in the UK in the medical industry.
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 03:33 GMT > > Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't > > you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that happens the services rendered will dwindle as the only way for > health care providers to increase profits (thats why they are in business). People in Britian block buy their health coverage from the government because there are obvious savings from economics of scale. A single healthcare plan is simple and so naturally cost effective, this should not preclude private beds, spas, tvs for those willing to pay extra, or stay longer.
A public healthcare system doesn't need to be provided by the state. The state can tender out service delivery. So a system that at the door is free can be provided by the private sector. Obviously the way to go. Why? Simple, the market place for washing machines, toys, soap, brownies, are all demand driven. Disease is not demand driven. We do not want it to become so! Companies realise that if they pay someone to distribute cold flu, or lice, or any number of items into the population to raise demand for their porducts and services.
It is immoral and unethical to profit from disease, health care insurance is self-defeating at best and evil at worst. But I don't live in America, and have no interest in doing so. We all choose our poisons and even go into denial when told they are state run socialised policies to provide unnecessary jobs and investor opportunities at even more cost to the taxpayer (who undoubtly already paid for the system anyway). So get over yourself, your social redistrubtion is less fair than mine, go figure why you would defead such a thing. Yes, I pay more taxes, yes I have less oversight on how its spent, yes there needs to be a better way, but not a backward arseward loonifest that is America pioneering socialised anti-freedom system. If you live in a country of the free why don't some states provide free health coverage to all and raise local taxes to pay for it. Simple, the big health care corporations would steal, bribe, lie the program off the map (while bidding to provide the services! lol).
miles - 23 Oct 2006 03:47 GMT > If you > live in a country of the free why don't some states provide > free health coverage to all and raise local taxes to pay for it. Because a socialized system can't sustain itself indefinetly. As a population grows tax rates can't simply be increased to keep up. At what tax rate can you set a limit and say thats enough, expenses have to be cut elsewhere? Any system that does nothing to reduce costs and only transfers the costs to someone else is doomed.
MonkeyHawk - 23 Oct 2006 04:44 GMT >> If you >> live in a country of the free why don't some states provide [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > elsewhere? Any system that does nothing to reduce costs and only > transfers the costs to someone else is doomed. This is one of those arguments based on faulty logic and reveals prejudices that, perhaps, the advocate doesn't realize.
A century ago, people decided that water and sewage were comodities that weren't worth of profit.
Now, there certainly *have* been isolated episodes of corrupt public officials profiteering on water and sewage projects across the nation and over the years. But civilization has generally caught up with life in America and has generally delivered potable water and competent sewage-processing systems by transcending the profit motive of capitalism. Public water and a flushable toilets are socialism! So's all those pesky laws that expect you to drive on the right side of the dotted line.
The requirement that the guy flying your airliner might have to provide some evidence that he knows what he's doing (i.e., a license) is socialist. That, say, "miles" can't walk into a nearby hospital and perform neurosurgery on a whim, without providing some evidence that he's been trained to do so and proven his abilities to an official governing body...is "socialist."
Social Security has proven itself to be the most successful governmental program in the history of Western Civilization.
The most obvious flaw in MediCare is its providing health coverage to precisely the people most likely to need it. MediCare for all Americans would widen the risk pool and lower individual patents' costs. Universal MediCare is the 21st (actually 20th...Americans have been slow to get the message) Century equivolent of public water and sewer systems replacing individual cysterns and septic tanks. The old system worked more-or-less okay for a while, but there needs to be a different system.
People can make a fine living working for non-profit operations (Pat Robertson, for example). What's come absolutely clear is that the delivery of adequate health care is rapidly becoming a standard of living that no longer justifies a for-profit economic model. A Crip who's been shot on the street, a redneck who never rode with a helmet, a little girl who picked the wrong mother and is born prematurely... all already get medical care that's "socialized," paid for by the taxpayers who subsidize ambulances and emergency rooms and neonatal units. The key flaw in this system is that not everyone who benefits from health care is contibuting into the cost of medical care.
And there are too many weasels in insurance companies who cut out a significant share of money spent toward health care to pay for their vacation homes and private jets.
If the money Americans *spend* on health care would be actually dedicated to health care, it would cost less to be healthier.
Oooooooh! But *that* would be "socialism."
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 07:59 GMT > >> If you > >> live in a country of the free why don't some states provide [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Oooooooh! But *that* would be "socialism." I see nothing wrong in pay a taxman to give me a better deal than a bunch of sharks in the health care industry. Its not a left-right wing things, its just plain common consumer capitalism. Its cheaper! for me to pay a flat fee through the tax man. Like I do for the military, for roads, for water, etc.
Don T. - 23 Oct 2006 15:39 GMT Are you old enough to remember when there was no "medicare" in the USA? In those days there were multidiscipline doctors offices in every town and a full service hospital in every county seat with specialist services in every large town. A man, or his wife, could take a sick or broken kid in to the doctor and get treatment without going broke _even if they had no insurance_. It was not until AFTER the feral government started f.cking with medical care that the costs got out of hand to the point it will bankrupt a family to have a broken arm treated. Oh wait. I see you are the New Zealander dipshit that doesn't know f.ck-all about living in a FREE land.
 Signature Don Thompson
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
>> >> If you >> >> live in a country of the free why don't some states provide [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > flat fee through the tax man. Like I do for the military, > for roads, for water, etc. Yaketyak - 23 Oct 2006 22:45 GMT amen
>Are you old enough to remember when there was no "medicare" in the USA? In >those days there were multidiscipline doctors offices in every town and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >family to have a broken arm treated. Oh wait. I see you are the New >Zealander dipshit that doesn't know f.ck-all about living in a FREE land. Secure ALL the Borders
Kill ALL the Terrorists
STOP helping our other ENEMY
http://leftistwatch.0catch.com
Yaketyak
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 23:15 GMT > Are you old enough to remember when there was no "medicare" in the USA? In > those days there were multidiscipline doctors offices in every town and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > family to have a broken arm treated. Oh wait. I see you are the New > Zealander dipshit that doesn't know f.ck-all about living in a FREE land. Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that self-slavery.
> -- > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > flat fee through the tax man. Like I do for the military, > > for roads, for water, etc. miles - 24 Oct 2006 02:06 GMT > Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that > self-slavery. Getting something for nothing is called stealing.
PerfectlyAble - 24 Oct 2006 03:32 GMT > > Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that > > self-slavery. > > Getting something for nothing is called stealing. Yep. But thats not what we are talking about is it.
miles - 24 Oct 2006 03:44 GMT >>> Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that >>> self-slavery. >> Getting something for nothing is called stealing. > > Yep. But thats not what we are talking about is it. Some people believe in working for what they want. Some people believe in letting others work for what they want under the concept of redistribution of wealth.
PerfectlyAble - 25 Oct 2006 01:31 GMT > >>> Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that > >>> self-slavery. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in letting others work for what they want under the concept of > redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is what capitalism is all about buddy. The question you need to ask is redistrubition for whom? If I want bananas then by having bananas widely available the whole economics of scale kicks in and we all get bananas cheap. The same thing applies to health care, if I want cheap health coverage, and the collateral effect of not pickingup disease from the uninsured, etc. I pay good money to put other peoples kids through school, so that I can buy stocks in companies that hire them, I don't want my investment lost because they die because they don't have health coverage, or run around to do charity on the side because their little uninsured relative has some nasty disease. I want workers who are on the ball. I want to live in a society were my nieghbours do well. I don't wnat to cheat and undermine the playing field because I'm some lowlife who thinks winning badly is all there is.
miles - 25 Oct 2006 01:49 GMT > Redistribution of wealth is what capitalism is all about buddy. Uh no. That would be a form of communism where people are paid based on need rather than abilities.
>The same thing applies to health care, if I want cheap > health coverage, and the collateral effect of not pickingup disease [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't wnat to cheat and undermine the playing field because > I'm some lowlife who thinks winning badly is all there is. Socialized health care won't give you what you want. It does nothing to lower the costs. It only transfers them to someone else to which you ignore the negative impacts of doing so.
PerfectlyAble - 25 Oct 2006 04:09 GMT > > Redistribution of wealth is what capitalism is all about buddy. > Uh no. That would be a form of communism where people are paid based on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lower the costs. It only transfers them to someone else to which you > ignore the negative impacts of doing so. I agree, but you can still have a free system that is provided privately. I'm not the ideological strapped leftidt or rightist here. I get that a free market to exist there wmust be demand and supply. Why won't you get that nobody demands to be ill, to fall dying to the floor! Contracts should be bid too supply free service to all. Not on their demand for services, since that demand isn't demand its necessity.
miles - 25 Oct 2006 04:17 GMT > I agree, but you can still have a free system that is provided > privately. Health care costs. Somebody has to pay for it. There is no such thing as free. What you refer to is tax payer funded. Taxes would have to be raised to an absurd level to even come close. Furthermore with only one source of funds to providers it has to be regulated. That cuts off innovation and investing in new treatments.
miles - 26 Oct 2006 03:20 GMT > A bunch of BS snipped! Quit with the cross posting.
Yaketyak - 25 Oct 2006 23:16 GMT you ignorant uneducated sot..
you prove by example the socialist ideal that you arent qualified to take care of yourself and require managing... fool.
as a managed citizen you have no real or legitimate right to lecture free men about their freedoms..
go piss up a rope serf.
>> >>> Free to get rich or die trying. No thanks, thats not freedom that >> >>> self-slavery. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I don't wnat to cheat and undermine the playing field because >I'm some lowlife who thinks winning badly is all there is. Secure ALL the Borders
Kill ALL the Terrorists
STOP helping our other ENEMY
http://leftistwatch.0catch.com
Yaketyak
miles - 24 Oct 2006 02:03 GMT > I see nothing wrong in pay a taxman to give me a better > deal than a bunch of sharks in the health care industry. The Government has always been one of the most inefficient providers of services around. How many services where both Gov. and private business provide does the Gov. provide a better service at a lower cost? By cost I refer to the amount spent by the provider (overhead).
letoured@nospam.net - 24 Oct 2006 04:39 GMT >> I see nothing wrong in pay a taxman to give me a better >> deal than a bunch of sharks in the health care industry.
>The Government has always been one of the most inefficient providers of >services around. How many services where both Gov. and private business >provide does the Gov. provide a better service at a lower cost? By cost >I refer to the amount spent by the provider (overhead). Dead wrong on government heathcare programs. We have the data to show the government programs are much more efficient, then any other programs.
You are letting your ideology think for you.
miles - 24 Oct 2006 05:03 GMT > Dead wrong on government heathcare programs. We have the data to show > the government programs are much more efficient, then any other programs. What socialized heath program in the USA is more efficient than privately run providing better service at a lower cost (again, cost is the overhead cost spent and not what an individual might pay).
Or were you trying to say programs such as that in the UK are more efficient? In the UK health care is horribly poor care and their system is going broke in recent years not to mention absurdly high tax rates to pay for it. Efficient? Hardly.
letoured@nospam.net - 24 Oct 2006 12:01 GMT In <dgg%g.34523$to5.24044@fed1read10>, on 10/23/2006 at 09:03 PM, miles <nope@nopers.com> said:
>> Dead wrong on government heathcare programs. We have the data to show >> the government programs are much more efficient, then any other programs.
>What socialized heath program in the USA is more efficient than >privately run providing better service at a lower cost (again, cost is >the overhead cost spent and not what an individual might pay). Both the US government employee systems, and the California state employee programs for two. They run somewhere between 20% to 35% less then private programs. (And the case close. There is no more debate on this).
BTW, there is a another government program that works extremely well. Its the one Congress has for itself.
>Or were you trying to say programs such as that in the UK are more >efficient? In the UK health care is horribly poor care and their system >is going broke in recent years not to mention absurdly high tax rates to >pay for it. Efficient? Hardly. Hmmm. Healthcare sucks up something like 12-15% of the economy, and is growing by the year. Can't see any tax ever approaching that kind of national expense -- and you can't either.
PerfectlyAble - 25 Oct 2006 01:29 GMT > > I see nothing wrong in pay a taxman to give me a better > > deal than a bunch of sharks in the health care industry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > provide does the Gov. provide a better service at a lower cost? By cost > I refer to the amount spent by the provider (overhead). Efficiency of private healthcare providers in fleecing money from sick people is not the goal of a healthcare system. There can be no demand driver, sickness is neither desired or predictable. For a market place to operate there need to be customer demand for the services. Niffy new Aids packages out, you better rush to get HIV so you can take avantage of this sale price, we can't hold this price for long!
PerfectlyAble - 23 Oct 2006 03:33 GMT > > Your ideological straitjacket is showing again. What don't > > you get about fiscal responsibility. You can either pay [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that happens the services rendered will dwindle as the only way for > health care providers to increase profits (thats why they are in business). People in Britian block buy their health coverage from the government because there are obvious savings from economics of scale. A single healthcare plan is simple and so naturally cost effective, this should not preclude private beds, spas, tvs for those willing to pay extra, or stay longer.
A public healthcare system doesn't need to be provided by the state. The state can tender out service delivery. So a system that at the door is free can be provided by the private sector. Obviously the way to go. Why? Simple, the market place for washing machines, toys, soap, brownies, are all demand driven. Disease is not demand driven. We do not want it to become so! Companies realise that if they pay someone to distribute cold flu, or lice, or any number of items into the population to raise demand for their porducts and services.
It is immoral and unethical to profit from disease, health care insurance is self-defeating at best and evil at worst. But I don't live in America, and have no interest in doing so. We all choose our poisons and even go into denial when told they are state run socialised policies to provide unnecessary jobs and investor opportunities at even more cost to the taxpayer (who undoubtly already paid for the system anyway). So get over yourself, your social redistrubtion is less fair than mine, go figure why you would defead such a thing. Yes, I pay more taxes, yes I have less oversight on how its spent, yes there needs to be a better way, but not a backward arseward loonifest that is America pioneering socialised anti-freedom system. If you live in a country of the free why don't some states provide free health coverage to all and raise local taxes to pay for it. Simple, the big health care corporations would steal, bribe, lie the program off the map (while bidding to provide the services! lol).
Yaketyak - 23 Oct 2006 22:46 GMT good, we dont want you here.
>But I don't live in America, and have no interest in doing so. Secure ALL the Borders
Kill ALL the Terrorists
STOP helping our other ENEMY
http://leftistwatch.0catch.com
Yaketyak
MonkeyHawk - 21 Oct 2006 05:22 GMT > Crap. I've had it all wrong. I thought we had a constitutional right to > arm bears. Nope.
Actually, it's been proven that the 2nd Amendment is the sad result of an 18th Century typo. (Quill-O?)
What's guaranteed is the right to bare arms.
It was a little piece of pork-barrel politics on the part of "T for" Thomas Jefferson, who'd cornered the t-shirt market in France and wanted to establish a t-shirt monopoly in the States.
Jeff had an eye for the ladies and knew exactly what the Right to Bare Arms would mean on warm rainy days if milk maidens, skullery girls, and innkeepers' daughters if they'd only wear thin cotton tees that shrunk every time they were boiled with lye soap by t-shirt-clad hot sweaty laundresses.
The Second-most inportant Bill of Rights is has nothing to do with guns. It's the right to Bare Arms!
It's the T-Shirt Amendment!
God bless America!
Yaketyak - 21 Oct 2006 14:05 GMT managed citizens have no rights you fool.. eurotrash from down under should know their place in the world.. underfoot.
stupid f.ck
>> >> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >> >> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > >Doesn't America know there is no God. "The Federal agent who shot Vicki Weaver in the face, deliberately, while she was unarmed and holding her child is named Lon Horiuchi. Remember that name. He is still walking around loose.
That man must eventually pay for his crime, here or hereafter." -Jeff Cooper EXACTLY !
Don T. - 21 Oct 2006 00:17 GMT >>Which is all the more reason for us liberals to exercise our Second >>Amendment rights -- God invented the 9mm pistol, the 12-gauge semi-auto >>shotgun, and the .30-cal rifle just for this reason. > > Which you've argued in other posts that people don't have the > right to own. Joe might have written a lot of things. But your claim is not part of what he has written. Joe is just old fashioned enough to have missed out on what today's "liberal" stands for. If he would read a few other sources than CNN he might learn to avoid mislabeling himself a socialist scum.
 Signature Don Thompson
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
!Jones' Sock Puppet - 23 Oct 2006 15:15 GMT >>Which is all the more reason for us liberals to exercise our Second >>Amendment rights -- God invented the 9mm pistol, the 12-gauge semi-auto >>shotgun, and the .30-cal rifle just for this reason. > > Which you've argued in other posts that people don't have the >right to own. I think you have the wrong person, actually.
But 2A has never, in practice, been treated as a right in the United States. The courts have never interpreted the "right to keep and bear arms" clause independently of the "well regulated militia" clause... I know, I know... I've heard 'em all... I ain't arguin' one way or the other, just quoting federal judicial position. 2A has been the subject of five SCOTUS cases; on each challenge, they upheld the restrictive law under review.
When you think of "rights" per se, these are those fundamental elements of our society without which we could not continue to be who we are... the right to free speech, to free exercise of religion, the right to a trial, etc. One simply may not lose these rights... period. Upon conviction for an utter abomination, for example, one does not lose the right to be a Methodist... one still has the right to an attorney if accused of any further crimes, yet, upon conviction of a crime... even a nonviolent one... one loses his or her "right" to possess a weapon from that point on. Therefore, I argue, it is not a *right*.
Various states and local municipalities have passed a plethora of laws regarding guns. A small town in Georgia (I think) once passed an ordinance requiring all people to have a gun... or that's what I heard, anyway. San Francisco has effectively banned handguns. In Texas, the legislature says that you can carry one, just not where *they* are working. The average person can't quote the second amendment correctly, Heck, even the NRA grossly misquoted it when they chiseled it above the portal of their national offices in Washington DC (i.e., they truncated the part of it they didn't like). The bottom line is that no local law has ever been ruled unconstitutional based on 2A.
So... gun ownership, as it is and has been practiced in the United States, is simply not a right. The courts do not recognize it as such, it may be stripped from a person without jury assessment, and local governments can and do interpret it as they find expedient.
Jones
Joe G Nut - 21 Oct 2006 00:18 GMT >>In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >>falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > Amendment rights -- God invented the 9mm pistol, the 12-gauge semi-auto > shotgun, and the .30-cal rifle just for this reason. I want to be ready to defend America. If not yet illegal, will someone please post how patriotic homeland defending Americans can make an IED.
(why should only iraqis/arabs/muslims be the only people who can defend themselves)
Be prepared! Vigilance! God and Country! ;-)
GUN-SMITH - 21 Oct 2006 00:44 GMT JACKASS!
>>> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >>> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > Be prepared! Vigilance! God and Country! > ;-) Yaketyak - 20 Oct 2006 22:47 GMT Just like our other enemies..
the leftist scum never accuse anyone of anything they arent already guilty of.. they tried to steal the election in 2000 and will try again.. they wont be happy until there is a traitor in the white house again.. just like Clinton or his pig.
> what is to stop them from stealing an election? Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
them as Democrats. Yaketyak
letoured@nospam.net - 21 Oct 2006 00:02 GMT >Just like our other enemies..
> the leftist scum never accuse anyone of anything they arent already >guilty of.. they tried to steal the election in 2000 and will try again.. >they wont be happy until there is a traitor in the white house again.. >just like Clinton or his pig. I'd be happy if would just stop being a *coward and get you're right wing kook a.s to iraqnam for bush...
>> what is to stop them from stealing an election?
>Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists
>and STOP helping our other enemy by misidentifying
>them as Democrats. > Yaketyak the_blogologist - 21 Oct 2006 03:04 GMT > In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to > falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war.,..... blah blah blah, liberal lies on a broken record.
TRY TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
911 commission found ties and the press lied: http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4241/911commtiesandlies7my.jpg
Links between Saddam and al Qaeda: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264
Bush must be really slick to have fooled both Clinton and Kerry for 7-1/2 YEARS before Bush ever came to Washington:
Kerry lying about WMD, caught on video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk hi-res version: http://media.putfile.com/WMD-LIAR-big
Text of full interview (scroll down near bottom): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/15/ftn/main573309.shtml
Lots of Clinton quotes about WMD in Iraq: 33 megs: http://www.republicanfilms.com/
kerryoniraq trailer video- 11 megs http://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC132004T.mov
kerryoniraq video- 41 megs http://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC082304.mov
FULL Kerry on iraq website archived, with all updates: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kerryoniraq.com
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/4053/seenowmd1td.jpg
Newt - 21 Oct 2006 06:41 GMT > In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to > falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be Take your political crap out of this news group. What does a rv news group have with politics????
Newt
Billzz - 21 Oct 2006 06:55 GMT >> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Newt Just plonk OK Joe and there will be no more problems.
Busman - 28 Oct 2006 01:39 GMT When people respond to obvious trolls who are cross-posting to multiple newsgroups, what do you expect? Me, I'm getting ready to go camping next weekend to get away from this crap. Andy
>> In the end it boils down to this: If a group of people are willing to >> falsify evidence in order to bring the nation to war and, too, can't be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Newt
|
|
|