Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed
Friends With Brains
- Air America
- Belief Net - Steven Waldman
- Bill Maher
- Black Planet
- Buzz Flash
- CBS News 60 Minutes
- CBS News 60 Minutes
- Charlie Rose - PBS
- Chris Cillizza - The Fix
- Common Dreams
- Conservative Bloggers
- Daily Beast
- Daily Kos
- Daily News New York
- Democratic Underground
- Etalkinghead Directory
- Faux News Network
- Halosccan
- Huffington Post
- International Herald Tribune
- Jon Stewart - The Daily Show
- Keith Olbermann
- Larry King
- Laura Flanders
- Left Blog Solutions
- Media Matters For America
- Mike Malloy
- Minnesota Star-Tribune
- Mother Jones Radio
- MoveOn.org
- New York Post
- News Hour With Jim Lehrer
- Nova M Radio
- Politically Direct
- Politico
- Rachel Maddow
- Randi Rhodes
- Real Clear Politics
- Right Wing News
- Ring of Fire
- Ron Reagan Show
- Rush Limbaugh Sucks
- Salon
- Sam Seder
- State of Belief
- Stephanie Miller
- The Atlantic Politics
- The Huffington Post
- The Nation
- The New Republic
- The Revolution Starts Now
- The Young Turks
- Thom Hartmann
- Top 10 Racist Limbaugh Quotes
About Me
Friends E-Mailed
- Ariana Huffington - The Huffington Post
- Media Matters for America
- Mike Malloy
- Mike Malloy Producer, Kathy Bay
- Randi Rhodes @ Nova M Radio
- System @ Nova M Radio
- The Nation - Submissions
- Thom Hartmann
147 comments:
Trying to compare apples and oranges, I see.
Which are the apples -- police unions? And, which are the oranges -- all other unions?
Government unions that control necessary services vs. corporate unions whose interest is profit.
What is so great about a union sucking a company dry? Look at GM! Another great example would be Boeing, their union went on strike in the middle of a recession.
Why not be happy you have a job, instead they want a pay raise and more benifits. Worthless.
I think they should work for 40 cents an hour, 80 hours a week. But, then again, what do I know?
Like you say, Brandon, Workers are Worthless.
Anonymous:
You had a typo there. I'm sure what you meant to say was "corporate unions whose interest is protecting corporate workers".
If you were an employer and could find someone who would work for 40 cents and hour. I would say go ahead and hire them, but my guess is you wouldn't find anyone willing to work for that pay.
If you did find someone, they would be a worthless employee.
Employers pay high rate to get top quality employees, but some jobs dont need top quality employees. Example: McDonalds and Wal-Mart.
Why do you need to keep raising min. wage for those individuals? If you dont like min. wage then go get another job!
CJP: Dont try to put words in my mouth! I never said "workers are worthless". I was refering to Boeings union that was striking during a recession, they are worthless and another fine example of greedy unions.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
Yes the right loves the police and their unions. And the right loves its liberty, almost as much as it loves its prisons.
Wow, brilliant comeback! LOL, way to stay on topic. Throw in a completely false and unrelated element ("The right loves its prisons") and call it a rebuttal; that's about the best you guys can muster, I suppose.
And the right loves its freedom, as long as its their version of freedom. This is a partial list of the rights version of freedom:
no abortion
no drugs
tax payers need to pay for my kids school
tax payers need to pay for my 20 kids through tax breaks or deductions (god commanded me to have them so you have to pay)
god is good so long as your talking about my god.
etc.
Obviously you've never had to pay union dues, suffer through local's meetings, or have been forced to go on strike. Unions suck. Even the employees of the LA Times, a largely liberal institution for at least the last 40 years, have steadfastly voted "no" on union membership.
And if you don't know that the Teamsters Union in particular is notoriously corrupt, then you have been living under a rock for decades. They operate under the guise of "protecting the workers" but that's a sham; they are ultimately only interested in profit for themselves. They will even illegally sue employees to join the union and pay dues.
http://www.nrtw.org/en/press/2009/06/los-angeles-times-employees-illegall
Unions are worse than worthless. (By the way, nice attempt at a spin, there, trying to claim that Brandon stated that "workers are worthless" rather than "unions are worthless." Or is your reading comprehension that poor?) Unions are worthless at best, and all too often are corrupt, evil entities at worst.
Why do you right wing nuts hate freedom so bad?
From one "Anonymous" to another, it may surprise you that I am:
1. Pro-abortion (I believe that the waiting soul or entity is intimately aware of and involved in every stage of development of the new life that it plans to inhabit. Typically the entity will enter the new body within the last several days or hours prior to birth -- sometimes even after birth. So, for example, if you are anticipating a new life, and the mother decides to abort, then you are very much aware of the mother's decision. You'll most likely wish the mother well in her decision, and simply go on to plan another Earth life.)
2. Anti- War On Drugs. Total waste of taxpayer dollars, and has been completely ineffective.
3. Pro private schools, school vouchers, and home schooling. And exactly how would a socialist, government-run educational system exempt you from the fact that it all ultimately comes from taxpayer dollars anyway?
4. Anti-welfare. (That WAS what you were describing, right? Taxpayers paying for people with 20 kids? Because no true conservative would ever condone taxpayer-charitable dependence for such a family. You decided to have 20 kids? Don't look at us taxpayers to bail you out! YOU work hard and support them, bucko!)
5. Non-religious. I don't care what you believe, and I'm not about to force my beliefs on anyone else. I can't STAND right-wing religious fundamentalists.
And exactly what does any of this have to do with unions -- the topic of this thread? I'll tell you what, if you want to talk about "hating freedom," join a Union. Being in a union and being therefore tied to their decisions, their politics, their rules, their bullying tactics, all while paying them their union dues (which keep going up and up) -- that, my friend, is the antithesis of freedom.
Nice post Anonymous, but most of ye aren't that sane. The lovers of Palin and Bush, are in large part total religious fanatics and dangerous to the country and humanity in general.
Regarding a danger to humanity, don't most zealots believe in Armageddon? And if the zealot has an invisible being whispering in your ear, why not help Armageddon along with the easier and easier to acquire nukes? And the right wing nuts have a firm grip on zealotry. Of many kinds.
Anon, the dear zealots with the many kids, and all the resulting exemptions, pay very little in federal income tax. Why do I have to contribute more so they can pay less just because they have kids? And why do I have to pay property tax, 50 percent of which goes to educating the right wings little cretins?
I liked Bush the wiser (elder), Ford, Regan (he was right for the times, but the times have changed) and a few others. But the Bush the dumber and Palin are nuts. And so are the people that follow them.
Just seems the right wing nuts, want to be free and everyone pay their own way, unless you're talking about their kids. Then lock up the non payers of cretin education. And locking them up is where the police come in, and to support the police you support their unions, hence pertinence to this thread :-)
Well, here's a tip for you:
Never confuse conservatives with Republicans. And never confuse conservatives with neocons.
The author of this blog seems to be making that same mistake. Even the URL of his blog, "conservatives are communists," shows a profound lack of understanding of conservatism. The two concepts are polar opposites.
Regarding Armageddon, again you're speaking of the religious fundamentalist nuts, not conservatives. True, there are conservatives who are also religious fundamentalists, but I am not one of them. I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian (gotta be careful with that word -- emphasize the small "l," not a capital "L" Libertarian, 'cause I think they're off the deep end).
As far as actual conservatism goes, the Republican Party is pretty much bankrupt right now in that regard. It has been overrun by neocons, overspenders, and "democrat-lites." It needs to clean house (and Senate, so to speak).
The current Democrats aren't any better, in my opinion -- in fact, far worse in many, many respects. I could vote for a Harry Truman or even another JFK. But the Pelosis, Reids, Waxmans, et al, of the current crop of Democrats has got to go. You want to talk about hating freedom? Just look at things like the CSPIA. Unbelievable governmental power-grab and control of freedom of enterprise, under the false guise of "protecting the children." Big-Brother Bullcrap, that's what it is. Again, the antithesis of freedom.
And I agree that unions like the UAW are over the top in their demands. An average of 70 dollars per hour for work that does not require much training or specialization is to much. But I probably wouldn't think that's true if I was part of the UAW and reaping that check whose size is completely stemming from the UAWs representation.
Same with the long shoreman out west. A secretary starts at 80k per year and there is nothing the owners can do. The owners want to computerize the whole operation and guess who prevents that? So unions definitely help workers, but now a days I feel that help is too much.
But you must admit it is a little funny that the cons are all over the cops and military with their praise and undieing loyalty? And funny that both those institutions are used in essence to enforce ones will on others. The cons might say to protect their freedom, but again its to protect a version of freedom whether that version is right or wrong. And that version is constantly evolving.
Regarding freedom, and the cons hated enemy regulation, don't you think it's time we had a little more regulation on Wall Street etc? You really think all those big time money grubbers are just benevolent, honest hard working folks? Don't you feel, maybe just a little, that they system is fixed?
If all they did was "help workers," I wouldn't have that much of a problem with them (although I'd think that they were still largely unnecessary).
But they end up being 800-pound gorillas with a bad attitude. They throw their weight around in the political arena, they bully and even sue the employees that they claim to "protect," and they become corrupted due to their money and power. Really, not unlike a Mafia, albeit a more regulated one.
Add that all up and toss in the fact that I was a member of a union for a few years and saw all of this going on, and you can probably see why I think unions largely suck and should be eliminated. At least in their current form.
I don't have any "undying loyalty" to the police. If they don't follow protocol or step out of the bounds of their duties or become corrupt, then they deserve the ridicule and punishment they deserve. To say that conservatives have a blind, undying loyalty to the police is an absolute falsehood; just hang around some of the conservative forums and check out the discussions to see that this is not true.
On the other hand, I'm not going to go running around yelling "F*ck tha PO-lice!" either. There's a balance.
Just seems cons dislike unions, except police unions (according to this thread). It also seems to me the cons go out of their way to support the troops and support the police etc. Just ironic is all. And of course the cons are always the most patriotic, the most loyal to our countries ideals etc. Again it's mainly Bush the dumber and Palin believers of who I speak.
I personally think the police should have to video record any and all of their actions regarding arrests etc. They really have no one to account to, as in it's your word against theirs, and whose word are they going to believe? There are just to many police abuse videos to not demand more accounting.
It might just be a matter of trust. For the most part, I trust the police to do the right thing. And the vast majority of the time, they do. You seem to trust them less.
Also, for the record, I see problems with government unionization, just as I see problems with corporate unionization. For example, given unions' opposition to privatization, let's say a community wants to give its homeowners the choice of contracting out private firms for trash collection. (My community does this.) Well, look out, because the government waste-management union will be right on top of you, fighting your community every step of the way.
As far as police unions go, though, I think you should be able to see the inherent problem with the idea of privatization of law-enforcement services. One obvious problem is that, with any private enterprise, competition between firms would emerge. How would one private police firm prove that they're the better law-enforcement firm to protect your community vs. another? The number of arrests they make per week? How much they're "tough on" X type of crime vs. another firm? The percentage of criminals they've arrested that have been ultimately convicted and put away? The crime statistic trends for the neighborhood (which, while looking good on paper, could be driven by fear of an overreaching and overzealous law-enforcement firm)?
You can see why law enforcement unions are different animals than corporate unions, and that therefore the assertion that it is "ironic" that people support the police (and by extension, the police unions), while not supporting corporate unions, is intellectually dishonest and a fallacy of logic.
No in ironic I mean that cons love their freedom and overtly purport their support for the police and the military, when in essence both organizations enforce someones will (the law) on someone else (citizens and countries). It's just funny is all.
But why can you cons see that a public police department is good and fine, but public health insurance is not? Our private health insurance sucks big ones, and 40 percent of all costs goes to insurance company administration and profits. And the same companies entire motivation is to make a profit by denying health care?
Are you suggesting that you should have the freedom to rape, murder, rob, shoplift, kidnap, extort, and so on, without interference from the police's "enforcing their will [and by their will I assume you mean society's laws]" on you? Is that what you are seriously suggesting?
Socialized health care may be trying to fix the problems inherent with the current system, but in so doing introduces many more serious problems than it fixes. All you have to do is live under one of those systems for a few years (as I did in both Canada and Sweden for 2 years and 1 year respectively) to become acutely aware of the fallacies of this type of system. Many times it ends up being more "death care" than "health care" -- very unfortunate but true. It is not all it's cracked up to be. Far from it.
It also will not scale well to a country with 300 million people. It is barely manageable in countries with only a small fraction of that population -- countries like Canada, Sweden and the UK. What makes anyone think that it would scale to a country of the USA's size? And what makes any sane person think that the government runs ANYTHING very well? DMV, EDD, IRS, ever had to deal with any of those? Try to tell me with a straight face that these are well-run entities! Hell, the government already bit off more than it could chew with the auto and bank industries (which they now are predictably vacillating and fighting over what to do with these). What makes anyone think that the government can run something as enormously huge, complex and important as health care for a nation of 300 million?
Unlike law enforcement, health care is an industry that absolutely demands to be driven by private competition. This is what makes the services improve.
Again, apples and oranges.
Where do you draw the line on freedom? The cons always know of course. Glad you all aren't drawing the line on freedom as the religious right would have women in long dresses and their hair covered, as law, which the police would be enforcing. Don't you see, freedom is relative? It's a word.
Look at where your version of freedom nearly got us. A bankrupt nation. A total financial collapse may still happen. You cons allowed the freedom to let the money grubbers run wild. Screw the money grubbers on wall street and regulate them into the next century. Fk their freedom to do what they want and "innovate".
What competition is there in insured health care? They try everything possible to get out of paying. Have you seen "Sicko"?
France and Germany have the best medical care in the world. Canada spends 30 cents on the dollar compared to what we spend. Canadians are the apples, we are oranges. My military health care, USAF, was top notch.
You want to see true communism in action spend 10 years in the military.
"Socialized" medicine, another con scare tactic. Let's try something new. Our current medical does not work, it sucks (considering what we spend versus what we get).
Anonymous-
In your opinion, what got us into this financial mess? Did it have anything to do with government pressuring banks into giving out sub prime loans to people who shouldnt be buying home?
Buy it on credit is what got us into this mess. Americans just have to buy everything NOW, rather than waiting and saving up the cash. Once the economy started downhill there wasnt any stopping it. Layoffs started and so did the foreclosures.
Today we are feeling the pinch of people saving more and spending less, this is a good thing! It will make our economy stronger.
But Brandon, shouldn't there be more regulations regarding who gets loans? They're was before the near collapse, and there is now. Comon the reason so many more loans were given was because the money grubbers convinced everyone that house prices would continue to rise indefinitely.
Lets regulate so this does not happen again.
Comon other Anonymous, you have to type faster.
Government doesnt want to regulate banks in a good way, they want banks giving out loans to everyone. In the short term, it is good for the economy. Just like the stimulus.
What kind of regulation would you like to see on loans? What kind of regulation would you like to see on credit cards and payday loans? What kind of regulation would you like to see on auto loans?
America is running on credit and some day all this money is going to come due!
House loans: 20 percent down
Credit cards: max 10 percent interest rate.
Auto loans: you best be able to show you can afford it as there are some dumb people out there.
Brandon, do you like Palin?
You didn't answer my question or address my previous post. You just shifted the subject again. Now it's the cons and the "money grubbers'" fault for bankrupting the country. Uh huh. Meanwhile, Obama's administration spends money that AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE like there is no tomorrow. (And there WILL be a tomorrow, and it will be quite the rude awakening.)
I thought we were talking about unions.
Kind of pointless to debate a person that insists on shifting the subject and throwing out random blame for random perceived ills with every new post. It's a nice day today and I'm going to do a little outdoor photography.
See ya.
Sorry, Anon, unions in and of itself is just a small particle of the cons biggest problems. Religious zealotry, irrationality, hypocrisy, are just a few of the cons problems.
Actually I agree in a large part with what the non religious zealot cons say. But if you vote with Palin and Bush, you're part of what I perceive is the problem.
Nice talking to you. Thought you would be off to shoot your guns not pictures :-) Photography sounds liberalish. And, I have guns that you would not think legal (I would have a lot more cept for those pesky regulations). The world is ironic, eh?
-House loans: 20 percent down
Most banks already require that and only 30% of your income in your monthly payment. People lie on their application so they can get their dream homes
-Credit cards: max 10 percent interest rate.
I dont see why the interest rate is important. If the interest rate was 10% or 100% people still charge way to much on them. Take a look and what a rip off payday loans are, but people still keep using them. Also who uses payday loans, the rich or poor? Another example of the poor investing their money poorly.
-Auto loans: you best be able to show you can afford it as there are some dumb people out there.
Dumb people are what got us into this mess and hopefully they will learn their lesson. With government bailing people out of their stupidity, I doubt it!
Palin - Yes, I do enjoy the fresh approach she brings to politics. Why does the left HATE her so much? She seems like a good person who wants to help people.
Anonymous - perhaps you should create an account or at least put your name on your posts.
Brandon buddy,
Go search 0 down home loans just a few months ago.
If credit card companies were allowed to charge a max of 10 percent, they would have to be much more careful with who they lent money to. They would not be able to recoup losses with up to 30 percent interest rate charges that you see occurring daily in the news. You think it's fair, for credit card companies, to raise rates, especially for never delinquent card holders, for whatever reason they make up?
We have to protect ourselves from greedy bankers. We end up bailing them out, because the big time money grubbers (bankers) sell off their garbage investment packages of dubious loans, then walk off and retire. You think that's good old American capitalism? If you do, thats what the W's and Palin's were successful in convincing you of, and it's God's will according to them.
I should create an account.
I am not the left. I am a progressive. Palin is not a "fresh approach" she's trying to copy Reagen, just like W did, to disastrous results. Reagen was right for the times, but the times have changed.
Definition of progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
Does that definition like Palin or W?
If you dont like what credit card companys are doing then dont borrow money from them! Its really easy not to do, get a debt card instead.
Greedy bankers are making money off stupid people. It isnt illegal to be stupid, so why should you regulate smart people?
What is so different about the times today that doesnt allow Regan tactics to work?
"why should you regulate smart people".
What does the book title "The Smartest Guys in the Room" mean to you? You ever hear of Enron?
Times have changed Brandon. Communism, Russian style, is no longer an issue.
Please don't start spouting about freedom. The freedom you're talking about and communism are totally different matters.
Brandon, don't you want to be a progressive? You want to stick with the ancient practice of blood letting? Can you believe they really used to believe that stuff?
Progressives understand that Carter was wrong on a lot of stuff. Live and learn. Why can't you all do the same?
Wow, nice pigeonholing, stereotyping and labeling you've done there. Seriously, can you get any more narrow-minded? Because narrow-mindedness is the root of stereotyping.
This entire blog, for that matter, is a prime example of stereotyping. The author of this blog really has no idea what a conservative actually is or believes. This is evident in the blog's title, the blog's URL, and especially in his blog posts.
Also, in a prime example of stereotyping and lumping human beings together into one single category, he and you do not understand or recognize that there are different types of conservatives, and that they frequently vehemently disagree with each other.
Fiscal conservatives disagree with social conservatives on many matters. Religious conservatives butt heads with the non-religious, more pragmatic ones such as myself. Paleo-conservatives (yes, that is another category; look it up) are branded as primitive loonies by more moderate conservatives. The "2nd Amendment is the most important Amendment," "from my cold dead hands" militia-man gun crowd are seen as over-the-top buffoons by many other conservatives. And a conservative with libertarian leanings (again, such as myself) are frequently blasted by the religious "God put everyhing in black and white, right and wrong terms" crowd.
So there are plenty of very diverse variations within the "conservative" label -- many of which are mutually exclusive to one another.
So the cons' problems that you list do not apply to everyone conservative, just as any other label would not apply to all human beings, even of a particular political stripe.
And conservatives certainly do not corner the market on hypocrisy, zealotry and irrationality. Plenty of lefties can very well be described in those terms. All humans can have those traits, not just your stereotyped caricatures of conservatives.
I already addressed Palin and Bush indirectly in previous posts. Can't stand religious fundamentalists (Palin) and don't like neocons (Bush).
Again, remember: Never confuse a conservative with a Republican. Never confuse a conservative with a neocon. And never equate all conservatives with religious zealots.
Your last statement irks me, and is a glaring example of the type of stereotyping that I am talking about: "Nice talking to you. Thought you would be off to shoot your guns not pictures :-) Photography sounds liberalish."
OK...first off, I do not own a gun, and never will. Period. Secondly, gun ownership and camera ownership are not mutually exclusive. (Duh.) Thirdly, the photographic hobby is not the exclusive domain of liberals. (Double Duh!)
You know what? I believe that one of these days, in the not-so-distant future, there will be a paradigm shift in human consciousness that will profoundly change our concepts of societal structure, relationship to one another, concepts of right/wrong, and the concept of "government" of ourselves. No, we won't wake up the morning of December 21, 2012 and suddenly think differently. I'm not one of those "In 2012 everything will either end or change" people. But something is definitely happening. All of this polarization between ourselves now, all of this stuff that is all coming to a head -- it's all leading up to an age of awakening, I believe. I think that the years 2012 through 2040 will be extremely interesting, indeed.
Yes, I do have some of what you would call "New Age" beliefs, too. (Although I hate that term.) Wow, that's so liberalish and unconservative. (There go those stereotypes again.)
Bottom line: I am my own person, as every person on this planet is his/her own person. So it would be best not to automatically pigeonhole any one person into any one category. Lesson to be learned.
Anonymous, nice post. You sound like a progressive :-) Live an learn.
Anon, how can you expect to take care of yourself, and not depend on police, if you don't own a gun? Shouldn't everyone take care of themselves and not depend on others?
No, not in all respects. On a fundamental level, dependency on others is an inherent human trait; you can't change the fact that we need each other.
That doesn't mean that self-sufficiency isn't a good thing; it is. But of course I wouldn't expect everyone to have to learn to defend themselves, rather than have police protection. Little old grannies? People with disabilities? Doesn't a make a lot of sense.
But Anon, being the devils advocate, how can we afford everyone having their own personal police officer? After all, the police show up after the crime occurs. It's not their fault, as there's not enough of them to personally protect us all. Take care of yourself Anon, for Gods sake.
Not really sure what you're getting at, as neither conservatives nor liberals, as far as I've seen, believe that society should do away with the police and make people completely dependent upon themselves for protection. Sounds like the domain of anarchists, if anything.
Part of the con mantra is take care of ye self. Take care of ye self in all times, good and bad. Most cons love guns, because it allows them to defend themselves. I agree with them in that regard.
Regarding health care, how can a normal person defend themselves, against an insurance company, that refuses to pay your medical costs?
Hell no I dont want to be a progressive! I can take care of myself without the government holding my hand and telling me what I can and cant do. Some government is ok, but we have long since passed the necessary amount of government.
People need to start taking charge of their own lives and stop relying on the government. You talk about regulating banks and lenders but what about the consumers who are allowing these bad companies to thrive.
shop around and read your policy!
Brandon, ye of such youthful rationalizations. I say, like Bono of U2 said, ulllll seeeeee, ulllll seeee. Maybe that was the Edge. Do you know first hand of what I am talking about regarding U2? Don't bother looking it up if not.
Reread definition of progressive please. Live and learn. Do you know everything? Do you think you will ever change ye mind about anything?
Brandon, do you believe in the big guy watching and guiding your every move?
Depends on what type of conservative you are talking about. Actually, I really don't know any type of conservative whose mantra is "take care of ye self." Maybe some isolated Montana militiamen types, but that's their survivalist mentality rather than their conservatism talking.
Here's the thing: While it is, on its surface, a noble concept to think that all people should have good affordable health care, the reality is that having the federal government dictate what type of health care you receive is too Big Brother-ish and is a loss of freedom.
Plus, having government try to handle "good, affordable health care" in a socialized manner will inevitably end up being none of the above. It won't be good -- at best it will be mediocre, and at worst it will be disastrous. It won't be affordable, because the government cannot afford to pay for it. Obama has yet to explain how his health care plan will be paid for. Never answered that question in his press conference. It won't be "health" for many, as bureaucratic red tape and long waiting lists are the norm in this type of system. And it won't be "care," because the government doesn't care about individuals; all it cares about is sustaining ITSELF.
I don't want more things that the government is involved in; I don't want another huge, complex government-run entity. Page 16 of the proposed health plan alone should be enough to scare any reasonable person. Read the part that directly contradicts Obama's statement that "If you have a current plan, we won't touch that." Oh, yes they will. Try to make any minor coverage change in that current plan? You can't. If you try, you're put on the Obamacare plan instead. Basically they have made it so that everyone will get sucked into this plan eventually. No choice. No freedom. You get what the government dictates that you will get.
I want government OUT of my life choices as much as possible. I don't want the government controlling, regulating, or spoon-feeding me. The smaller and less obtrusive government can be, the better. More freedom, more choice, more opportunity for private enterprise and individual innovation, just better all around. Why anyone would want to live in a big-government nanny state is beyond me.
2. ... employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas...
Its not live and learn, its try try try and try again until you have spent as much money as possible.
Conservatives like America and want to keep her American, not like Europe!
I dont see what your problem is with having individuals take care of themselve. This equals more freedom for all Americans. Go do something productive, legal and get rich.
Please, never group me with Bono again.
Anon, private health insurance sucks. Why are we paying 40 percent of all health care costs to insurance companies? I agree to competition, and so does Obama. Let the government come up with a plan and then let the insurance companies compete against that. That's what Obama is saying, and I agree.
My mother and father are on Medicare, and no complaints from them. They both worked for ATT/Lucent and dropped that retirement coverage for Medicare. Government run.
I agree, the gov sucks in most things, but in this case the insurance companies suck worse.
Lets progress and have free choice. If gov sucks so bad, what are you afraid of?
Ahhhh, dear Brandon, thanks for your acknowledgment that you don't get Bono.
I ask again, do you believe in the big guy? The same big guy as Palin? If so, aren't you depending on HIM taking care of ye?
Yes, the failing system of medicare. A fine example of government at its finest. The problem with government run programs are someone needs to pay for it.
The problems with medical costs are not the insurance companies, its the medical care costs.
Why arent we focused on that subject, rather than continuing with the same problem?
What are you going to do when doctors refuse to accept this government option as payment?
I dont see how you can begin to compare god to government. God helps those who help themselves. Government helps those who dont help themselves.
Give a man a fish...
ect...
Take care of yourself Brandon. Don't depend on God. I don't depend on God.
Just let the government compete against the insurance companies. What are ye afraid of? You hate freedom of choice?
No I hate paying taxes!
Their wont be a choice once government gets involved!
http://www.ahip.org/images/uploaded/About/HealthCareDollar2008.jpg
Take a look at this and tell me how we are going to save money with Obama care!
"Lets progress and have free choice"? Well, then you won't want government-run health care, because this will eliminate choice! Have you read the fine points of the proposed plan?
"If gov sucks so bad, what are you afraid of?" That question answers itself.
Ok Brandon, we all hate paying taxes. I especially hate paying taxes to fund public school. The religious zealots (Palin and W) love having kids in Gods name. Why do I have to pay for those same said kids? Fifty percent of my property taxes goes to educating the zealots kids. Can I quite paying 50 percent of my property taxes? Why won't you nuts give me my freedom of choice? See its all about freedom, as long as its your definition of freedom.
Anon, lets just progress and see how the plan works. I have double health insurance coverage (my wifes and my corporations) and I will switch in a second. Lets give it a shot. Lets learn. Lets progress.
Obama is proposing choice. Why do you all hate freedom to choose?
"Anon, lets just progress and see how the plan works." Without even reading the fine print first? Sir, educate yourself on this plan. Read it, and pay attention to what it is really saying.
"Obama is proposing choice. Why do you all hate freedom to choose?" That's what he might have all of the gullible sheeple believe -- that he is proposing "choice" -- but a government-imposed plan can only eliminate choices, not add them.
I don't want to be under Obamacare. But I won't have the choice to not be under Obamacare.
Read it. What you are erroneously accusing me of -- "hating freedom" -- is exactly the core concept of this plan.
Really, if you've been paying attention to anything I have been saying, I am for as much freedom as possible, with as little government intervention into those freedoms as possible. Freedom of choice is what it's about, man. No matter what smooth-talking Obama will try to sell you, this plan would take that away.
Anon, lets give gov health care a chance.
Progressives learn, by definition, and Obama will probably get it wrong at first.
Obama is a smart guy and a progressive. Give government the chance to compete.
How can the government lose in the competition, when 40 percent of current health care costs goes to paying insurance companies to administer health care? What exactly are those companies doing? How are they lowering costs?
Obama is not talking about government intervention, he's talking about keeping the insurance companies honest. You cons trust, I dont.
"This being my last time to speak to the valley community as your governor, I do want to tell you sincerely that I love you"
SARAH PALIN
Brandon, that's your leader. Can you get any more simpler than her? Is it possible?
You keep throwing around the word "progress" and you like to call yourselves "progressives," as if everything your side thinks of is a step forward. It also carries the condescending implication that anything proposed by anyone else is not "progress," and any argument against whatever "wonderful" idea or plan that your side comes up with is an "impediment" to "progress."
It's also fucking annoying. So let's dispense with that, shall we?
Your idea of "progress" as it pertains to Obama's plan is my idea of a gigantic leap backwards.
Sounds like you want to give it a chance anyway, without even knowing what it entails. Your question, "How can the government lose in the competition?" shows that ignorance of the facts. The answer is, the government won't lose in any competition because there will BE no competition. No freedom of choice. This plan eliminates all of that.
When Obama deceptively states that if you have a current plan, then Obamacare won't touch that, this is not at all the case. You need to read this thing and fully examine it. You most obviously haven't.
Page 16: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day [of the year that the plan becomes law.]"
What this means is that people who currently have private individual coverage (like me), will NOT be able to change or modify it. If I want to drop my current policy and go with another one from the same company or go with another company, I won't be able to. I can stick with my current policy forever, or I will have to go with Obamacare. Likewise, any person who leaves a company and is under a health insurance plan with that company will lose that plan and be forced to go with Obamacare instead. Finally, if I decide to leave the corporate world altogether and go into private business for myself, I will not be able to purchase an individual plan from any private carrier. It's Obamacare or nothing.
Freedom of choice? Absolutely not. Just the opposite. The government plan will eliminate all competition, period.
Oh, and one more little thing? Under Obamacare, your health insurance company and your health care provider are the same entity. Insurance companies don't like to spend unnecessary money. So guess what will happen under Obamacare? That hernia operation? You don't really need it. In fact, you don't have a hernia. Here's some pain medicine; take this for two weeks.
Think I'm exaggerating? Think again. I've lived through this type of system, buddy. It's not pretty.
Government intervention is exactly what this plan is all about. Don't believe me? Read the fine print.
Oh, and about "trust"? There is no greater blind trust than to trust in a President just because he's a "smart guy" and he's "progressive" (oh, shut up with that word), and that therefore we should "give him a chance." You obviously trust without knowing the facts; I don't.
Here it is, all 1017 pages of it:
http://tinyurl.com/mmn2r5
Yep, lots of bureaucrat-ese and lawyer-ese. Monotonous as hell. Most people won't read it. Hell, I doubt that some members of Congress who are pushing for this thing have read it.
It's their loss, though, because the devil is in the details.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), on the Obamacare plan:
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoafM2iz.html
Dear sweet Anon, I have lived through a lot also. Gov mostly sucks.
W and Palin are the anti thesis of smart, we both do agree? Do we agree?
Facts are slippery fellows, as are words.
Money will rule, even under Obama.
If you want a hernia operation, and desperately need a hernia operation, and have money, then you will get your said hernia operation under Obama. What don't you get?
That being said, I generally like you Anon. Plz give up on the interpretation of law. Its all about words which are interpreted according to who's whims?
This is not my "interpretation" of the law. This is exactly what the law very clearly states. Don't believe me? Then I'd have to call you ignorant. It could not be more clear, and far from being my own "interpretation" of it, this is what numerous lawyers have already pointed out about this legislation.
The devil is in the details. And facts are only "slippery" to people who want to ignore them.
Read it. Educate yourself. Do not blindly trust, just because it's something that has been proposed by "your side" (the good side) and is opposed by my side (oooh, the evil/stupid/non-progressive side).
Anon, whatever, I don't have the time to read the bs. It's all bs. All I know is the insurance companies suck big ones. It's simple, the insurance companies are out to do what (make a profit)?
Anon, JC, we pay for the poors health care as it is. Whats different under Obama's plan
Ignorance is bliss.
Yes, and the cons have shown us the way to enlightenment.
Cept W, Palin, and their followers, which I don't include you, unless you vote for them. And if you do vote for the before mentioned zealots, then whether you believe their zealot stuff or not, it doesn't matter. You're still responsible.
Anon, do you read books? Who are your favorite authors? We all know W, Regan, Palin don't read many books, but i sense you are different.
I've already addressed W and Palin; why do you keep bringing them up? They are immaterial to the current discussion of Obama's health plan anyway.
I will repeat: Ignorance is bliss. Read the plan, even if it is boring and "all BS" (which begs the question: If it's all BS, then why are you supporting it?)
The devil is truly in the details.
But Anon, the current crop of cons are defined by Palin and W and Regen. If you are a true con then you are they.
eyes wide shut-
Are you implying that christians just love popping out kids?
You must not have checked out this link yet.
http://www.ahip.org/images/uploaded/About/HealthCareDollar2008.jpg
I dont see where Obama is going to save us any money in health care.
Obama is not creating compition in the insurance buinsess. How can any private company compete with government who isnt interested in creating profits?
"But Anon, the current crop of cons are defined by Palin and W and Regen. If you are a true con then you are they."
This is completely false and it once again shows that neither you nor the author of this blog knows what conservatism really is. W is most accurately defined as a neocon -- definitely NOT the same thing as a conservative.
And I'm not a Palin fan. I've already addressed this; you again show that you either just don't read or you do not comprehend what you are reading; it has to be one of those two explanations.
I don't hate Palin, and I don't think she is stupid (so many of you make the logical fallacy of equating your own disagreements with a person as stupidity on the part of that person). But her belief systems, especially as they pertain to religion, don't mesh with mine -- and I just don't care for her all that much overall, for other reasons.
You also ignore another important point that I made in my previous posts: There are different types of conservatives, and you can't just lump everyone together into one "W and Palin-loving and gun-loving" category. To do that just displays your own ignorance again. As I stated, I am probably best defined as a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, if you need to pigeonhole me into categories.
Read my previous posts on that subject to see what type of conservative I am and where I am coming from.
Honestly, your constant mention of Palin, GWB and "Regan" (I assume you mean Ronald REAGAN) are very tiresome and very clearly display that rather than actually read and consider what I am saying, you are more than content to simply parrot the same "Bush is stupid and bad, Palin is dumb and a bitch, therefore all conservatives are bad and stupid too" bullshit.
Very tiresome and it makes for an ultimately futile attempt at discussion. In fact, I'm going to bed. Good night.
Anon, Sorry, but you sound like the rare semi intelligent con.
Whether you are a fan of Palin and/or W, if you voted for them (I am guessing you did, or didn't vote at all), then you are endorsing their extremism and you have contributed to the sad state of the country.
And Palin is dumber than a box of hair.
This is futile. Why do keep bringing up Palin and W? It's like a broken record. I've already addressed them, several times now. You know my opinion of them. I voted for Bush the first time, not the second. I did not vote for McCain/Palin.
Who cares? They are absolutely immaterial to this discussion of Obama's health care plan. That IS what we are discussing, right?
Again, you seem content to just keep throwing out random accusations, seemingly incapable of intelligently discussing the subject at hand without straying into random liberal talking points. All you do is throw out these shallow, boiler-plate statements, unrelated to the topic at hand, and of course with no references to back them up at all. Yeah, yeah, Bush is evil/stupid/part of the problem, "Regen" (who's that??) was an old codger, Palin is a bitch/dumber than a box of rocks/insert random insult here. We've heard it all before from you guys. None of them are in office anymore, and one is dead. None have anything to do with Obama's health care plan.
So, back on point: Read the health plan. Educate yourself. Pay attention to the details. Scrutinize it in a non-partisan, wholly analytical manner. Then maybe you'll be ready to come back here and intelligently debate this topic rather than flying off on boiler-plate liberal-sound-bite tangents that are not only tiresome but are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You condescendingly call me the "rare SEMI-intelligent con," while you have offered absolutely no evidence that you can discuss anything intelligently yourself.
Ok you don't sound like the normal run of the mill con. But event Bush versus Gore, there was no comparison... never mind.
Ok, so why are you against, I assume you are against, allowing people to choose a government run health care over insurance run?
Her parting words Sunday included a parting shot at the media:
"So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit making up things."
Wow, she equates the media hassling her with the military? The wing nut cons almost put her in office.
Damned liberal intellectual Nobel prize winner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1
Why do cons disdain intellectuals? What is so bad about being smart?
There you go again, throwing out random bashes of random enemies for random perceived ills. Just throwing out bait, chumming the water to see if anything bites, eh? Can't hold on to a debate topic to save your life, apparently.
Health care is the current topic. It wasn't even the original topic, but...well, you get the point.
OK, so to address your one on-topic question: If you had been paid attention to anything I have been saying up to this point, you would realize the ignorance of that inquiry. "Ok, so why are you against, I assume you are against, allowing people to choose a government run health care over insurance run?"
There will be no "choice", no "choosing" in this. Once this is in place, it will eliminate private health care services and effectively eliminate the private insurance industry. There will BE no choice.
Obama says I can hold onto my current private plan -- but fails to mention the part that says that if I choose to make any modifications to that plan, or if I decide to switch to another private health insurance company, or if I decide to go with another insurance plan within even the same company -- I will be denied that choice and instead will HAVE to go to Obamacare.
They will eventually suck everyone into this national health care system. There will BE NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
I am against anything like this that represents government intrusion into freedoms. I am against big government expansion. The smaller government can be, the less it influences my life and my freedoms, the better. And finally, I am against unchecked government spending. I will say this very clearly and absolutely: THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS PLAN. Hell, there was no money to pay for any of the bailouts either, including the first TARP that Bush imposed.
Bad idea, and the antithesis of the "freedom" that you so often claim to espouse.
Typo: "had been paid attention" should be "had been paying attention," of course.
I don't know where you are getting your facts. Krugman states pretty much what I have been saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1
Do you watch Faux news?
"THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS PLAN."
Cut defense and raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Raise taxes back to Clinton levels.
"THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS PLAN."
When does lack of money stop the cons? They just borrow it. Dems raise taxes and get hammered for it. The cons are the big spenders, as any non delusional person has to see.
I guess Anon would rather listen to Faux News spastics, rather than Krugman, a Nobel winning economist and Princeton professor about health care?
Today, thousands of uninsured persons are going to hospital emergency rooms for medical treatment, are unable to pay anything, and are economically breaking our medical system.
That's why so many doctors and hospital administrators support Obama's health plan which would provide medical insurance for everyone, thus insuring that doctors and hospitals would be paid when they provide medical services.
We pay for the uninsured now. What's another 100 billion a year to pay for real preventative health care? That's chicken feed to the con artists who love to spend and borrow. Hell, that such a small amount of money, it will barely get a decent war going.
I like my health insurance the way it is now. But I wouldnt want Obamacare and under Obamacare I wont have a choice. Government option only! No compitition! Just government run health care.
The health care plan will cost $1 Trillion.
Neocons are big spenders, not conservatives. Again: Do not confuse conservatives with neocons, and do not confuse conservatives with Republicans. This is especially true when referring to fiscal conservatives.
A reporter asked Obama a very pointed question at the last press conference: "How do you propose to pay for this plan?" Obama's response, despite being 8+ minutes in length, failed to answer that question.
No matter if the plan COULD be paid for in full without a hit to the economy, it is simply a terrible plan anyway. Read it. It removes freedom of choice. Isn't freedom what you lefties claim to be all about? Instead, you are supporting something that removes freedom (not to mention eliminates an entire job sector).
People from the UK and Poland, who know what socialized medicine is like, as I also do by way of having lived in Sweden and Canada for a number of years, can't believe that the U.S. is going down that route. I've talked to many of them.
Tell you a few incidents from my time under socialized medicine: One of my friends got into an auto accident, and ended up with severe whiplash. He ended up waiting 6 weeks, only to be told that "whiplash" is not a valid medical condition that is covered under the national health care plan. He tried to appeal that decision but failed. He was never the same again -- lives mainly in pain.
Another older lady I knew had emphysema which was steadily worsening. The government panel that reviewed her case apparently decided, as they do, that she was no longer a "productive member of society." So, treatment was cut to the bare minimum. She needed to be on oxygen and medication that would cut down mucus and lung fluid buildup. But she was on neither. At one point, she waited three months to see a "specialist," who told her that the condition had progressed to a point beyond treatment. (Which was false, at least according to the options available in the U.S. for treatment of her condition.) She ended up dying about 8 months later. In essence, she was given the "you no longer matter" kiss-off by the health care system.
Think things will be different here? Think again. The same dynamics will drive this new plan. Again, read it and pay attention to what it is actually saying, rather than just blindly expecting it to be wonderful just because it comes from Obama, and Obama's ostensibly a "smart guy," and you trust him, and "let's at least give this a chance."
Give this a chance?? This is something that you can't just "give a chance" to, and then if it doesn't work, go "oh well" and revert back to the previous system! I won't work that way. This is huge and the changes it will make are sweeping and permanent. Very, very difficult to reverse, once implemented.
Bad idea. Very bad idea.
Health care and health insurance have some problems that probably could/should be tweaked. But that's it. Identify the problems and tweak them, fix them, so that the existing system works better. The existing system DOES work and it is not so fundamentally flawed, as Obama would have you believe, that it needs to be completely replaced with something else. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
My existing private individual policy is fine, but I had planned to go with a better policy with more coverage in the future and as I get older. I would sit down, analyze the wealth of choices I have available to me, and make a decision on the exact policy and insurance company that best fit my needs. I don't want that plethora of choices cut down to only one choice. I don't want a government-run, socialized system. I don't want a panel of suits analyzing and deciding whether I should get "A" treatment or "B" treatment for a particular condition. I want the FREEDOM to choose what treatment to go with. All of that, and more, are what is coming down the road to U.S. if this legislation passes. Again, read it.
And don't even get me started on CSPIA!!
"I guess Anon would rather listen to Faux News spastics, rather than Krugman, a Nobel winning economist and Princeton professor about health care?"
Here is yet another example of either not reading what I've written, not comprehending what I've written, ignoring what I've written, or a combination of the three.
As I've said: I don't watch Fox News. In fact, I very seldom ever watch any network news. Primarily, I read (and no, I'm not reading the Fox News website, or any other network news show website). I read from numerous sources, on both sides of the issue.
OK, there, I said it again -- for at least the third time. Seriously -- throw out another random accusation of me that insinuates that I get all my information from Fox News, and I'll just laugh at you.
Yes Anon, I trust you rather than Krugman. Since you don't quote your sources I will just blindly believe all that you say. I laugh at you right wingers that see danger and conspiracy at every turn, when you are the real danger, as the near financial meltdown and your lack of regulation has proven. So lets all just trust the insurance companies, trust the bankers, trust the right wing to just do the right thing. If you actually trust the insurance companies I have some triple AAA Moody rated investments for you. So hold onto your trust, hold it dear, and hope a catastrophic medical condition does not happen to you. Because if it does, as is shown thousands and thousands of times a year, your insurance company will try everything they can to get out of paying. Good luck, and hope you don't learn the hard way. But rest assured that big fat insurance CEO, that works so hard for his million dollar pay checks, has your best interest in mind. You conservatives or whatever are, are hilarious in your simple minded beliefs.
Anonymous:
You have these Right-Wingers nailed. You know how poisonous they have been to our country. Keep telling them like it is. They'll never see the light. But everyone else now knows them for exactly what they are -- damn fools who almost destroyed this country and are now conducting a rampaging pussy-fit against the current administration which is cleaning up their mess and putting America back together again.
Why Anon and Brandon, has the wonderful insurance companies failed to reel in medical costs? Aren't they supposed to innovate and make everything just work better? You all think we should deregulate them even more? How about we just cut taxes some more so we can pay it all into higher premiums? That'll surely fix the problem. Isn't that your simple minded solution to everything? Cut taxes, deregulate, borrow money?
How about you do cut taxes, then you will have extra cash to pay your premiums. Wow, cutting taxes really does work.
CJP:
Love your generalizations, you still havent pointed out what conservative policies caused this problem.
Lack of regulation for the masters of the bathrooms and their innovative collections of crap investments.
Brandon, why didn't incurious George ever balance the budget, if he and his followers are so fiscally conservative? Why didn't [Raygun] ever even come close to balancing the budget? Why did Clinton create a surplus, since he is such a tax and spend member of the democratic party. Do you right wing nuts live in another parallel reality that no one can see but you all?
"Yes Anon, I trust you rather than Krugman. Since you don't quote your sources I will just blindly believe all that you say."
My source is the actual text of the health care plan, which I've quoted. I think that's about as authoritative a source as there can be regarding this matter, wouldn't you think?
Meanwhile, you blindly believe Obama's smooth talk without actually reading the plan, and you expect me to blindly believe all that you say when you give NO sources at all. I laugh at that.
"I laugh at you right wingers that see danger and conspiracy at every turn"
Who said anything about conspiracy? I see the flaws in this plan. Nothing more, nothing less.
"when you are the real danger, as the near financial meltdown and your lack of regulation has proven."
You do know what caused the meltdown, don't you? You do know the extent of Democratic Party's involvement in the meltdown, don't you? Of course you don't. You're blind to any facts that might weaken your devotion to your party.
"So lets all just trust the insurance companies, trust the bankers, trust the right wing to just do the right thing."
Who is saying that?? I am certainly not. Or haven't you been reading ANYTHING I've been saying?
"and hope a catastrophic medical condition does not happen to you."
It already did happen, about 15 years ago. Had to have several discs removed and vertebrae fused. I shopped around and fortunately found the #1 best neurosurgeon on the West Coast, widely recognized as such by the board of his peers. He was the professor/surgeon who taught most of the other members of the board.
I had a good insurance policy (again, which I had chosen myself), and it took care of most of the cost. I am eternally grateful that I had that freedom of choice in my care, because I don't know what my condition would be today if I hadn't had it.
"Because if it does, as is shown thousands and thousands of times a year, your insurance company will try everything they can to get out of paying."
And you don't think that that is exactly what will also happen under the Obama plan? I have a nice bridge to sell you.
"But rest assured that big fat insurance CEO, that works so hard for his million dollar pay checks, has your best interest in mind."
Ah, yes, the big fat evil blah CEO of Y blah big industry corporate blah blah money-grubbing blah. You guys always have that same line against any successful corporation or financial sector. All corporations are evil and especially their big fat cat money-grubbing etc. etc. etc. CEOs. Again, I laugh at you.
"You conservatives or whatever are, are hilarious in your simple minded beliefs."
Blindly supporting a plan of which you are ignorant of the details, blindly following and trusting a leader just because you think he is "smart," and naively thinking we can just "give this a chance to succeed" without thinking through the fact that this is something that cannot just be "tried" and then abandoned if it doesn't work -- I consider that to be about as simple-minded as a mindset can get.
Try the same back operation today, with recently acquired insurance. They would deny you coverage saying it was a pre-existing condition (very likely). Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy today.
Again, times are still a changin. These aren't the insurance companies of old. The CEO salaries are not the salaries of old.
Please try thinking with progressive thoughts. Learn that things change. [Rayguns] days are gone. Communism is mostly dead.
Why are you bothering to read some huge health bill proposal, when there's thousands of lawyers doing it for you? Why are you bothering reading a proposal that is in constant flux? Your probably taking some little piece of the huge bill out of context.
Every experience I have had with an insurance company I have come out on the short end. Medical, car theft, and more. I always get screwed.
My military health care was always top notch. My mother and father have Medicaid and dropped their Att/Lucent retirement health insurance. They have no complaints with Medicare, and have had major operations, and ended up paying little. It works.
Give up your misstatement of having no choice in health care. You will have a choice as a plan with no choice will not pass. Your delusional if you think what you are reading now is what will finally pass.
Quit wasting your time with old truisms. Live and learn. Adapt. Nothing stays the same. You conservatives all sound like a broken record playing the same track over and over. Again I laugh at your naivete.
Regulations are evil. Bahhhh haaa haaa.
During FY 2008, the U.S. government spent nearly $800 billion on defense and homeland security, approximately 32% of tax collections of $2.5 trillion.
Anon and Brandon or others, do you really think we need this large of defense? Couldn't some of your precious money spent there pay for the 100 billion estimated health care cost? Do you really think we need the F22 and F35, etc?
Anonymous-
When are you liberals going to learn that Clinton never had a surplus. It is a lie you are trying to spread. He simply borrowed more money from SS to compensate for the deficit. Borrowing money from yourself doesnt create income. Nice try.
For the record, I am a progressive. I have gone republican most my life, but the last eight years and now with Palin, I am voting solid democrat. Gd she is dumb.
Brandon, borrowing money from yourself is better than borrowing money from the Chinese and others.
And dopey W and [Raygun] both borrowed from SS and increased the deficit at the same time. Gd you guys are truly delusional.
The main thing you all have on Clinton is a blow job. Cost 100 million for all the investigations you put him through. Now look at all the Republican's getting caught doing a lot more. Baaa Haaaa haaaa, you all are fools for hating reality and hypocrites to the nth degree. Keep dreaming, as history will make a mockery of you all.
My point is that your trying to put clinton up on a pedestal that he doesnt belong on. I dont agree with everything Bush did! Democrat or republican, they all borrow and spend way to much.
I hate the patiot act, but I dont see Obama doing anything about it. It is the one thing I expected him to do right.
I think you will find history will tell a much different story then your imagining. The polls are already showing Obama is slipping.
Would you like a source for that?
What do you have against Bush? I can nit pick against Bush all day long, but you have yet to sight one specific thing he did to "destroy our country", in your words of course.
Why dont you try something besides name calling and generalizations?
Bush spent more time on his ranch in the first days in office than any other president. Right before 9/11.
Bush ignored all warnings his then terror zar Richard Clarke was screaming about before 9/11. Wolfowitz told Clarke you give al-qaeda way too much credit.
Bush lied about the reasons for the Iraq war.
Bush cut taxes to the people who least needed them cut.
Bush ran huge deficits.
Bush cut most regulatory agencies including the FDA. He refused to regulate Wall Street and by refusing to or ignoring the need for that regulation, nearly caused the monetary system to collapse.
Bin Laden said the reason he sponsored 9/11 was to cause the financial collapse of the US, just like they caused the financial collapse of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He is close to his wish.
Bush is a dumb ass. He's an anti intellectual, and he's proud of it.
Lots and lots more.
Bush spent more time on his ranch in the first days
in office than any other president. Right before 9/11.
-completely irrelevant to the question
Bush ignored all warnings his then terror zar Richard Clarke
was screaming about before 9/11. Wolfowitz told Clarke you give
al-qaeda way too much credit.
-You can fight this one all day long about weather it was Clintons fault for being weak on national security or Bush for ignoring the signs. Similar things are going on today in Iran and N. Korea and what are we doing about it?
Bush lied about the reasons for the Iraq war.
-There were good reasons to go into Iraq, weather for Bushs reason or not.
Bush cut taxes to the people who least needed them cut.
-That maybe, but who really deserves tax cuts? Maybe the people who pay almost all the taxes collected in the United States. The wealthiest 3% of Americans pay about 50% of all taxes collected and the Wealthiest 50% of Americans Pay over 90% of all taxes collected. So what are the other 50% of Americans doing?
Bush ran huge deficits.
-Almost every president has ran deficts, including Clinton and Obama.
Bush cut most regulatory agencies including the FDA.
He refused to regulate Wall Street and by refusing to or
ignoring the need for that regulation, nearly caused the
monetary system to collapse.
-Actually it was the democrats who blocked legislation to regulate the lending industry.
Bin Laden said the reason he sponsored 9/11 was to cause the
financial collapse of the US, just like they caused the financial
collapse of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He is close to his wish.
-It is sad if you think our economy almost collasped. Did Obama tell you that?
Bush is a dumb ass. He's an anti intellectual, and he's proud of it.
-Again irrelevant, but mostly true!
Like I said I dont agree with everything Bush did, but no single act from Bush caused the mess we are in today. It was from bad loans and stupid people taking the loans.
Why dont you want to let people learn their lessons? Instead you want to bail everyone out at the tax payers expense?
-It is sad if you think our economy almost collasped. Did Obama tell you that?
Brandon buddy, I want some of those anti reality pills you are taking. No one denies the economy nearly imploded. No one till now. Well maybe Palin.
You know what was so great about Bush? He was a 100 percent reliable way of finding the truth. All you had to do is take what he said and insert the opposite. He was wrong about everything. Iraq, cutting taxes will generate more tax revenue, regulations are bad, set up a democracy in the middle east and it will spread, global warming, God, on and on.
Anonymous, you're really sharp. My hat is off to you. You certainly know your stuff.
You should have a political web-site of your own. I love reading your postings. Keep giving these Wacko Right-Wing Nut-Jobs Hell. I don't have the strength for them. They're too brain-washed and too brain-dead. Nothing penetrates their Neanderthal Right-Wing skulls.
Thanks CJP, I like your totally open forum here.
I know what you mean about thick skulls. They are actually a little scary. If things really do get bad, and we really do have a collapse, probably not bad idea to be ready... They are always looking for someone to blame.
Economic signs seem to be improving. Hopefully Obama will get things stabilized and help foster a way that is more sustainable.
Keep up the good work on the site, I like it.
You keep up you excellent comments, Anonymous. I agree with everything you've said, and I really enjoy the way you say it.
Conservatives have been over-running this site for a long time, and it's a pleasure to read the comments of someone who knows what he's talking about for a change.
P. S. We won't have another collapse, unless the Conservatives manage to wreck everything Obama is trying to do. If Obama gets his programs through Congress, this country will come back bigger and better than ever. As I've said, the Conservatives almost destroyed the USA during the eight Bush years, and now they're using their Right-Wing corporate Hate Media to try to prevent this country from being rescued. Hopefully, most people are awake now and will support Obama's programs and will stop the GOP from completing the destruction of America.
"Try the same back operation today, with recently acquired insurance. They would deny you coverage saying it was a pre-existing condition (very likely)."
Totally false. Not likely at all. My cousin, for example, just had an operation for a spinal condition. No problem at all getting the care and the coverage. This is a statement that you just pulled out of your ass.
"Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy today."
"Why are you bothering to read some huge health bill proposal, when there's thousands of lawyers doing it for you? Why are you bothering reading a proposal that is in constant flux? Your probably taking some little piece of the huge bill out of context."
Why are you not bothering to read it at all, but instead blindly trusting in it? Read it. Educate yourself.
"Every experience I have had with an insurance company I have come out on the short end. Medical, car theft, and more. I always get screwed."
Then you make poor choices for insurance companies.
I am not saying that the system is perfect -- it isn't, and I already acknowledged that parts of it should be analyzed and fixed -- but completely scrapping it and going with a socialized plan that removes choices is NOT the solution.
"Give up your misstatement of having no choice in health care. You will have a choice as a plan with no choice will not pass. Your delusional if you think what you are reading now is what will finally pass."
Hopefully the whole fucking stupid thing won't pass. But I hope you're right, if it does.
"Quit wasting your time with old truisms. Live and learn. Adapt. Nothing stays the same."
Oh, get the fuck off of the whole "I'm PROGRESSIVE, I MOVE AHEAD and YOU DON'T" bullshit.
I'm perfectly fine with change for the better. The industry that I work in, IT, changes constantly, and I love it.
Change for the worse is what I'm not too crazy about.
"You conservatives all sound like a broken record playing the same track over and over. Again I laugh at your naivete."
Right back atcha. That is exactly what I think of most libs. Broken records repeating inane sound bites, and extremely naive.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
CJP, all you do in this blog is throw out random bash-jobs on conservatives, mostly with no sources to back up your accusations. Even the "are the real terrorists" and "conservatives are communists" claims in your title and URL are thrown out without any factual information to back up this accusation. Communists? You're delusional if you equate the two.
Rather than just constantly going, "Conservatives bad," "Conservatives evil," "Conservatives stupid," in every single post you make (and that is all every post essentially boils down to), you need to define, in detail, your vision of what America should be.
Lay it all out. In your view, and covering all major political bases, what do you see as the ideal America? (Don't just say "an America with no conservatives." That's a cop-out.) Define, in detail, what the U.S. should be, from what government should control, from healthcare to education to changes in laws, everything you believe in and stand up for.
If you don't do that, all you are is just another hate site. Bash, bash, bash, conservatives are bad, blah blah blah. OK, so clearly define for us what, in your view, would be "good."
"I'm perfectly fine with change for the better. The industry that I work in, IT, changes constantly, and I love it."
What is "IT". Doesn't sound like you are a true progressive, a software engineer, like me :-).
You from Washington? I live 11 miles from the evil empire, Microsoft.
I like CJP's posts. After 8 years of screaming, I finally see that I am not alone.
Actually, Anonymous, we live in a pretty ideal country, the USA, as it is. I don't have to devise a new country. We already have a fine place to live.
However, it's not a perfect country. As our forefathers said, they were going to form "a more perfect union". They knew they didn't have a perfect country, and they also knew they would never have a perfect country. They were simply creating a new and improved nation. The
past 230 years has been the history of making this country a better place for everyone to live.
Over the past 230 years, we have abolished slavery, given women the right to vote, created equal rights for people of all races, colors and religions, legalized unions, improved working conditions for
employees, created minimum wages and maximum hour laws, created Social Security and Medicare for the elderly, etc., etc.
Today's New Frontiers involve creating universal health care coverage; gay rights including the right of same-sex marriage and the right to serve openly in the military; protecting abortion rights; reasonable gun control laws, etc.
Conservatives call most of these programs "Socialist", which is a lot of malarkey. These are all-American programs and they are part of
what makes capitalism work. They make the system function fairly so that many more people can participate in the abundance that capitalism
produces, not merely the few at the top.
Conservatives have always opposed social progress and they continue to do so. Conservatives are Communists because, like Communists, they want all the material goods and wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few people at the top (in the case of Communism, that was the
party leadership). Conservatives are America's Real Terrorists because their policies of de-regulation and using the tax code to re-distribute wealth to the few people at the top almost destroyed our
economic system, and because they fight tooth and nail against the social and economic programs that would make this a better, fairer, healthier and stronger country.
Obama is very much on the right track with his policies. As the Right-Wing Hate Media attacks Obama with ever-greater venom, it becomes even more important to expose their lies and show people how much damage the Right-Wing is doing to this country.
In short, Anonymous, we have a great country. We also have a duty to stop the Right-Wing from wrecking it.
CJP
"reasonable gun control laws, etc."
Let's make double sure we are very careful with "reasonable" gun control. We need to make sure they are freely available to protect us from the right wing whackos. There are many cons talking about taking the country back with force. I have contacted the FBI about it already, and they explained a few interesting points to be aware of. I'm serious.
It's quite amusing to see how many cons are such experts at constitutional law. Believe it or not, they know even more than the supreme court in the interpretation of the constitution.
Don't put it past them to try and secede Alaska and or Texas from the union. Think Palin and her nutty husband who belonged to the "Alaskan Independence Party". It's quite ironic, knowing the fact cons like their liberty almost as much as their prisons, that they would scream the loudest for prison reform, once they are on the inside for their traitorous actions.
The cons are a whacky and contrary bunch alright.
You're a software engineer and you don't know what IT is?
Errrr, IT==Information Technology?
IT is pretty general, what do you install Word on people's machines?
You mean to tell me that you weren't quite sure if IT meant Information Technology?
And there goes the "conservatives are dumb" mantra again -- therefore according to your mantra, I must have a low-end IT job.
I'm currently a senior technical writer -- but who the hell cares? You guys are so predictable -- and tiresome. All you know how to do is throw out petty insults. "Conservatives bad!" "Conservatives dumb!" Anyone who does not share your belief system or draw the same conclusions as you is automatically stupid, in your narrow mindset. So predictable, and so inanely shallow. Completely unable to carry on an intelligent debate without resorting to petty insults -- which ultimately has the opposite effect of casting doubt on your own intelligence.
"Conservatives bad!" "Conservatives dumb!"
Please look at your great con leaders. W, Palin, [Raygun], Beck, Hannity, on and on. They're all not considered very bright.
Now look at ours. Obama, Hillary, the other Clinton, Gore, on and on. All considered very bright.
So how can you con's be called smart, when your leaders are dumb? Are you saying the dumb follow the smart and the smart follow the dumb? That's plain stupid. Dumb follows dumb and smart follows smart.
LOL.
The liberal media brainwashing has been so inculcated into your head that you can't even see the extreme prejudicial bias in your comments.
The "conservative leaders" you mention (and again, I'd define W and Hannity as neocons, not conservatives) are all considered not very bright -- by liberals.
The liberal leaders you mention are all considered very bright -- by liberals.
Again, you simply equate anyone who doesn't see things your way as "dumb." Which, in itself, is dumb. Very narrow-minded and stupid way to look at the world.
Personally, it wouldn't matter to me if Obama were verified to have an IQ higher than Kim Ung-yong. All that matters is his words and deeds.
"All that matters is his words and deeds."
Amen, brother. Words. And Palins and W's words suck. W's deeds are even worse than his words.
This country should be roaring in prosperity, as Clinton left it, and we are/were on the brink of financial collapse, as W left it.
How can I argue with the insane?
LOL, there goes W and Palin again!
Seriously -- what the hell is your fixation there? I've already given you my opinion of them several times. Yet you keep bringing them up as if you want me to defend them.
So, we can agree then that calling our opponents "dumb" if they don't agree with our views or "smart" if they do agree with them is a ridiculous and shallow way of thinking. All that matters is whether we agree with and support their words and deeds.
You support Obama's words and deeds; I don't. Doesn't make me dumb, just means that I don't agree with what he is doing.
"You support Obama's words and deeds; I don't. Doesn't make me dumb, just means that I don't agree with what he is doing."
Kafka and his work "Metamorphosis". Do you have the foggiest fucking clue what I am I am talking about???
Progressive.
"LOL, there goes W and Palin again!"
Palin is a dangerous maniacal religious lunatic and a danger to mankind. If you con nut jobs have your way, or had your way, she would be a heart beat away from the book of worthless words Armageddon.
Gd, I hope Angry is not going to try and get me. Reminder to self: Double check all lunatic con defensive measures.
LMAO!
And what have I said, I don't know how many times already, about Palin?
Reading comprehension disorder and ADD do not make for a good combination. Makes for a lot of repetition and a lot of random unrelated crap to wade through.
Palin was your nominee. You picked her. You're stuck with her.
Whatever happened to the old GOP talent pool? Did it dry up?
"Whatever happened to the old GOP talent pool? Did it dry up?"
Ever since Bush the wiser had to face reality and raise taxes, the cons only hope has been delusion. Hence Palin, the queen of delusion.
Someone said, if Palin looked like Golda Meir, no one would be talking about her. Ironic eh?
And for Anon; The only reason I talk about her is because she's a lunatic, and has followers who are equally crazy. If she ever gets elected, and after the world implodes, the witch trials of old, would seem quaint.
See Anon (as you probably misinterpret what I am talking about) it's never your cons own fault. It's always someone elses fault.
Speaking of maniacal, where the hell is Brandon? You think he got locked up for spouting his crazy rants in public? Poor Brandon, I don't think the brothers will take kindly to his frequent diatribes.
To address CJP: I didn't pick Palin. What gave you that idea?
And yes, I'd say that the GOP talent pool is pretty dry right now. They need conservatives -- NOT neocons, not "Dem-lites," not RINOs (Republicans In Name Only, as conservatives have coined them).
To address Anonymous: That was probably one of your most rambling, unfocused posts yet. And for you, that's saying a lot.
If you didn't pick Palin, then you're clearly in the minority of your own party. Maybe you're right. It probably is time for you to try to form a new party. You aren't the Captain of the GOP ship. You don't have to go down with it. It's time for you to jump ship, Anonymous.
CJP, near economic collapse is not enough for the cons to learn anything. Now they're scurrying around like rats on a sinking ship, looking for something to bite (for anon, bite is a metaphor for blame, that is blame==bite). So my advice to Obama, watch out for the ankle biters.
"It's time for you to jump ship, Anonymous."
To a large extent, I already have jumped the GOP ship (while still hoping that maybe, just maybe, they'll get back to actually being true conservatives again, under my definition of the term). But I'm not holding my breath on that. First step is to try to vote out all of the neocon incumbents.
http://www.cafb29b24.org/docs/buyativan/#78543 ativan side effects constipation - ativan sublingual overdose
valium drug who takes valium for anxiety - xanax valium high
Post a Comment