jump to last post 1-50 of 65 discussions (417 posts)

YEAH! one for the citizens of the US' right to know...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit...


    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … CC61ZsieV4

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Many banks were obligated by the feds to take bailout money simply because the feds didn't want the needy banks to look bad. So they legislated that all the banks look bad. Sad.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They didnt have to try hard to make banks look bad

        They have been bad for some time lol

        I used to trust banks ,not anymore , I hate them!

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, some banks remained solvent. Don't tar them all with the same brush.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ok well the major trading banks...geeze

            They have become greedy and dont serve the people like they used too.

    2. tony0724 profile image61
      tony0724posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It,s about %$##& time !!!

      1. 0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol lol

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...........and?

    4. SparklingJewel profile image67
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Just in case some forgot the subject of the thread....big_smile

      Why, yes, it is a good thing that the Federal Reserve is finally having to show the US citizens what it is doing with their(our) money....

      I realize it is a big subject, but surely we could get more ideas and perspectives on it than the  many pages so far of everything else but...

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Right Jewel, you need to spank them hard, or they don;t behave smile

        1. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Misha big_smile how's it going ?  Ahhh, I am none violent with the child in others big_smile  I only spanked my own kids big_smile

          I would like some actual conversation and ideas about this issue, really. something productive...it's hard for me to get my mind going on a subject and all the things I have read about it, without others getting involved... I like conversation/debate big_smile

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well some of us are making adult contributions to the conversations here.  It is rather hard when one group of people screams at those who have differing opinions.  Just so you know many of our international hubbers do not participate on these threads anymore for this reason, and that is the truth. I have had a number of great conversations here with people, so it is possible.

          2. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I am fine Jewel, thank you. Enjoying petty bickering big_smile

            How bout yourself? smile

            1. SweetiePie profile image85
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well maybe if someone or other would stop the put downs I would not have to defend myself.  Sorry Misha, but I do not allow people to speak to me like I am a child.  Tk follows people around and lets them know they are not doing things the right way unless it is his way smile.

              1. Misha profile image74
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You definitely improved your discussion skills Sweetie since we first met. Keep up the good job smile

                1. SweetiePie profile image85
                  SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Misha.  It takes two to tango, and I think you have improved too smile.  We just were not on the same page.

  2. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Hell yeah!

  3. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    ...and the ball keeps rolling...over those that need to be "flattened" ! big_smile

    Even if it is one victory at a time...it is happening and will continue to happen !

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Duplicate threads= bad news. mad

  5. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    There are people from all over the world using Hubpages, so I wonder why so many threads start with US citizens, etc.  Often people overseas are more interested in American issues than Americans.

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Some Americans can't stand criticism from 'overseas'. And maybe they are right. There's a lot to critisize.

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldnt say more intersted SP ,but definately in some of America's decisions.
      Finance , dollar up, dollar down effects trading
      Bank Interests, ripple effect.
      Allies, helps to know whose fighting who etc
      Immigration (In an out personal or business

      And cuz we love ya wink

  6. goodfriendiam profile image61
    goodfriendiamposted 7 years ago

    just the other night I was sitting and pondering about my faith and trust in the USA. Is she still the land of the free, is she still the land of the brave, is she still the land of opportunity, Is she still the land I want to follow and so on.....

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is She Still?...   big_smile

      1. 0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I would say so. Many Americans are waking up to the fact that our government just gives lip service to our Constitution. It may be buried under a pile of debris but it's still the law of the land.

        Making the Fed accountable is a good step in the right direction.

        1. goodfriendiam profile image61
          goodfriendiamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm hoping so. smile

  7. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    All I can say is I have much more faith in Barack Obama than Glen Beck, or any of the yahoos protesting at town hall meetings with guns.  The amount of hatred and misinformation towards health care is sad.  Basically what is boils down to is a corporate right wing agenda telling people what they should think, and now they are falling for the lies.

    1. 0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Left-wing agenda.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No I am concerned about Americans that do not have insurance.  If I had a left wing agenda I would be a communist, and I am actually a liberal Democrat.  There are many of us, and surprisingly we are even moderate on some issues.  However, the right to everyone to go to the doctor without going to the poor house is a basic humanitarian thing.  Other countries get this, but Americans act all scared of health care.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Again, it's not about healthcare, but govt interference where it has no business being under the Constitution. To say that those on the right are not "humanitarian" because we don't want the govt to make these decisions for us is to miss the point.

          The guy who showed up with the "obvious display" of his gun was making that point. I guess you missed it.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Obama has done more to expand gun rights by allowing people to take these into national parks.  Government supervised health care would not take away your rights as at the moment the private insurance companies will still be around.  The Constitution says nothing about health care reform, and that is your narrow interpretation.  Actually you want to deny certain people their right to health care, which in a way goes against the Constitution.  The pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that.  Some people want to pursue life and liberty by making health care less corporate, and not always such a money maker.  You really do not seem to care much about people who cannot afford health care.

            1. 0
              Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Again, the point is not gun rights.

              Of course the Constitution says nothing about healthcare. What it does is LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT - in this case it would limit the govt as to how invasive it can be in that area.

              For you to state that "you want to deny certain people their right to health care" is incorrect. I think everyone should have healthcare. I think the current bill on the table should be 1) read - that would be a nice start for congress - don't you think? and 2) scrapped - after you read it, you'll understand why.

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I have read it and support it.  However, it was way too watered down to make bipartisans happy in my opinion.  I was in support of single payer, which is far too socialistic for some Americans.  A system similar to what they have in the UK is what we need here.  Also, your reading of the Constitution is not in line with many of us who support health care.  You know it is a fallacy that Republicans are for small government because over the last hundred years many of their administration are too bureaucratic.

                1. 0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  If you have read it, and understand it, then I can assume you support totalitarian government.

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yikes, I guess you think countries with better health care systems like the UK and Canada are totalitarian.  The last time I checked people in those countries were overall much more satisfied with their health care than the majority of Americans.  Countries with universal health care are not totalitarian, they just manage the system because they can do it better than corporations, which we have seen in evidence here.  They do not control it, just help to keep it what it should be -universal.  They even have a private option for those who do not want to wait, and you can pay extra if you want.  Right now Americans are more interested in keeping the insurance companies wealthy.

              2. BJC profile image67
                BJCposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                People not having health insurance is an issue.  However, you said it all when saying, "I think...."    It isn't a constitutional right - it's a want.

          2. nicomp profile image60
            nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you do much. Well said. Keep repeating the message. It will sink in.

    2. goodfriendiam profile image61
      goodfriendiamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I have to disagree, I think glenn baeck informs the people of just what is going on, ya he is a little fanatical, but I like him for he has got some guts about him, even if he doesn't always know what he is talking about.

      1. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Libs don't think anyone else is smart enough to sift his entertainment from his information.

      2. JonTutor profile image60
        JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.... "he doesn't always know what he is talking about".... for guts.... watch out for Rush Limbaugh.  lol

    3. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No one protested with a gun. They legally carried guns. You are pro legal, yes? The Rule of Law, and all that?

      The fellow who was vilified on MSNBC was strapped with a legally licensed semi-auto. He was photographed several hours before BHO came to town, and not even in the building that hosted the "Town Meeting." He was at a church down the street. I wish be lived next door to me.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If he was not out hunting he did not need to show up like that.  The fact that you think it is normal is really odd.  He could have just carried a sign.  Oh well, no rationalizing with people that realize guns do not need to be put on display in public.

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Typical Liberal tolerance. As long as he agrees with you, he's all good.

          I'd like to buy him a pizza. He makes me proud to be an American.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually I do not care if he agrees with me.  No one needs to show up in public brandishing a gun.  Honestly I think the Democrats in power right now are too easy on some of the extremist who think that is a normal mode of protest.  If he were an Arab Muslim showing up like that you know people would throw a fit.  Would you support the rights of a Muslim to also protest just displaying their gun.  I know people would not like that.  Actually a group of peaceful Muslim scholars who stood up to pray together on a plane were thrown off before take off because people thought they were terrorists.

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            nicomp does someone carrying really make you proud to be an American ? I opologise if im not reading the thread correctly

      2. ledefensetech profile image82
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's why I don't watch the news media, any news media. Often times the real story is what winds up on the cutting room floor, so to speak. People don't see that and they don't see what is not in front of the camera, so they don't really know the whole story. That's what television lends itself so well to propaganda. Thank God for the Internet, I mean it's filled with wackos and nut jobs of every stripe, but it's also a great resource for debunking propaganda. I mean look at those people who bought that Sarah Palin was divorcing her husband. Look what happened to Dan Rather, he hated Bush so bad that he ran a story he didn't check up on and destroyed his career. That tells me all I need to know about the media right there.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Did you know that there is no such thing as "news media"? It is all defined, legally, as "Entertainment". That way, legally, they can say whatever they want, rather than be held to any standard of ethical journalism.

  8. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    I notice major sponsors have begun pulling advertisements though, on that network. Walmart ,CVS

    Beck is like Michael Moore , he's an agitator! and his mouth has gotten him in trouble lol

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's not a bad comparison. Although Beck has nicer clothes and hair.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nah he just afford better hair stylists (if he even pays)..he has become quite the celebrity in the U.S.

        I get more joy from the Daily Show lol just me

    2. 0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Major sponsors have abandoned Beck solely because of pressure form the White House. They have been deluged with emails, phone calls, and letters to insist that they do so. Beck is nothing like that bloated idiot Moore.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh not to look at, ( why is always about looks in the USA) but the effect is the same!

        Patriotic to some Unpatriotic to others smile

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Major sponsors were losing customers because of his racist remarks ,Beck is the bad boy some people wish they could be, and get paid doing it lol

  9. 0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    May I suggest that you read the hub (not mine)-

    http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Health-Care … nt-1416908

    This hubber has outlined the healthcare bill astutely. He shows that the healthcare bill in it's current form is mostly enforced by the IRS.

    What does the IRS have to do with healthcare, you may ask? It doesn't, but it does have some nasty strong-arm tactics. If you don't sign up for govt healthcare, the IRS will seize your bank account.

    Why? Why does everyone have to do that if they are happy the way they are? THAT is my right under the Constitution.

  10. 0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    And if you think ANYONE wants to keep insurance companies wealthy, you've been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have even the slightest notion of the origins of that phrase?

      1. 0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ken Kesey

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Incorrect

          The phrase "drinking the kool aid" has a much more sinister origin.  It is particularly silly to use it from a right-wing point of view, given that the perpetrators and their victims were all religious conservatives.

          1. 0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, please enlighten us all Ron. Where did that phrase come from?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              10 seconds of research on your part will thoroughly answer your inquiry.

              1. 0
                Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Jones is the current, and probably most thought of reference. The original vernacular came from the Tom Wolfe book about Ken Kesey. But that probably takes a little more than 10 seconds.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess "current" is irrelevant in your view.  Thou art melancholy and dour fair lady yikes

                  1. 0
                    Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I edited my post to read that "Jones" is the more current. Besides, we're not taking about suicide, but delusion. That's where Kesey comes in. He made a wicked kool-aid!

  11. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    I have not been drinking the kool-aid, I just happen to be open to what works in other countries.  The Clintons tried to pass universal health care in 19994, and even Roosevelt had talked about it.  This is not a new concept you know.  Yes, you do want to keep the insurance companies rich if you are not open to a public option, and that is a fact.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      An open mind is healthy mind IMO.

      How can one learn anything new ,if theyre mind is not open.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        As we have seen there is a certain segment of the US population that believes health care for all is taking their rights away some how, which is ludicrous.  Also, as much as stereotyping is not fun, this does happen to be a conservative agenda inspired and funded by corporations that continue to profit from not changing the status quo.  Many who are against health care continue to say they are happy with how it is, but the system is broken, and they have no real answers on how to fix it. 

        I would have liked to have seen a more aggressive single payer option, but the bill has been watered down to make those who do not understand how health care works in other countries happy.  Reading some of the comments on here people make about other countries sort of irritates me because some people are under the notion that everywhere else is tyrannical and America is the freest place on earth.  We are still a wonderful country, but the only first world country to have such appalling gaps in health care and standards of living. 

        As of now many international and American hubbers have abstaining form the forums because of the aggressive right wing views, and this is true.

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not if you understand the US constitution, but ...

          but you'll take part anyway smile

          So, we just need to do something, anything.

          because you are a socialist.

          Everyone gets health care. Just not health insurance. Spend some time working in the system and you'll understand.

          Agressive is bad if it runs counter to your viewpoint. On the other hand, Acorn rocks.

    2. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      HilaryCare was structured such that fee-for-service medical care was illegal. Let us not forget that.

    3. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I want the insurance companies rich. I want everybody rich. Let's all be rich.

      I want GM and Chrysler to be rich. I want AIG to be rich. Their success makes my tax burden easier.

      The more money an insurance company makes, the less taxes I have to pay. Less unemployment, more payroll taxes.

      I don't need to tear down one company to build myself up.

      Insurance companies employ thousands of people and provide income for families. They even hire some of the so-called working poor. They employ part-time workers, single-parent families, grandparents, minorities. They have unions - unions are good, right?

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Under a single payer option they could find a way for people that work for insurance companies to now work under the public option.  However, as of now the insurance companies are still going to be functioning, but the bill proposes a separate public option.

        Insurance companies pay their employees very little, and the people at the top make the majority of the profits.  Even with single payer options in Europe the employees are not making millions, but at least you do not have corporations denying and excluding health care to people that cannot afford it.  Insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions, or make their premiums higher.

        Your argument for keeping the insurance companies in tact is rather cloaking.

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And insurance companies cannot compete with a government-run insurance company. Don't even bring up Medicare; it's broke and it runs on the back of a private supplemental system.

          You are the source, right?

          Sorry, the shareholders make the majority of the profits.

          They don't call it 'denying'; it's called rationing.


          No cloaking. I am blatantly obviously truthfully in favor of free enterprise in the insurance industry. I support working families and single-parent families and the working poor and all the shareholders invested in insurance companies.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No you are cloaking and disingenuous.  The top share holders are usually the top people who control the policies of the insurance company.  Denying people health care is the most sinister type of rationing out there, and your explanation is ridiculous.  Yes the average employee working for an insurance company is not a millionaire, and my mom used to work for one.  So that is my source.  People I know that work for insurance companies usually make regular salaries.  They pay their employees average salaries like most businesses, and those who control the companies make the most.  It is like any other business, but the irony is health care should not be a business.  It should be public like schools are, with a private option for people that think that would be better.

            1. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong again. The top shareholders are retirement funds such as the ones in Indiana that got gigged when BHO shoved the bankruptcy of Chrysler through the bankruptcy courts.

              And a regular salary is bad? Why do you hate people who work for a living?

              As well they should. Risk = reward.

              Socialism.

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I happen to work for a living too.  However, I also realize that those who work for a living deserve affordable health care.  Many of us do not get insurance through our employers, and even when we do it does not cover much.  Also, sometimes people who make more are just lucky to get where they are, and risk does not always equal reward.

                Yes I am not wrong about the people at the top making the most.  Nicomp, you are just wanting to be right.  I am not thick.

                1. 0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Pot. Kettle. Black.

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not calling him names.  Anyway, he is so convinced the system is perfect the way it is, and that is what is scary.  He has no empathy for people that cannot afford medical care because he can afford to look the other way.  Many people can afford health care, but some actually want to make it affordable for all Americans.

                2. nicomp profile image60
                  nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  We agree on that issue. People need to work for a living if they are mentally and physically able.

                  No, they deserve Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's about it.

                  I agree. However it's not the federal government's fault. Nor is it the federal government's purview to try to fix it.


                  Yes, luck is involved. However you can't legislate away luck. The most prepared people seem to experience the most luck.


                  I don't think you're thick at all. We just disagree.

                3. nicomp profile image60
                  nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Here are some facts for you:

                  Humana Insurance is publicly traded. In 2008, The CEO made 1.7 million with salary and stock options. That's a lot, compared to a fry cook at Burger King. No argument there.

                  The market cap of the company if 6.3 billion, or 6.3 thousand million. That's the value of all the outstanding stock. The stock sells for about $36.50 per share.

                  In 2008, Humana's profit margin was 2.79%. That means for every dollar they earned, only 2.79 cents was profit.

                  By comparison. Exxon made 9%, IBM made 13%, General Electric 8%.

                  Therefore, the CEO of Humana is responsible for a 6.3 billion dollar company that operates on a tiny profit margin. His salary in relation to the market cap of the company is 1.7 million / 6.3 billion = .026 per cent of the value of the company. I'm sure you agree that's a very small percentage.

                  Here's the key: the largest individual shareholder has 443,844 shares. On the other hand, the largest shareholder overall is Welling Management Company, LLP, which has 12,330,244 shares. That's 27 times more shares. Wellington manages money for pension plans, endowments, and benefit plans for corporations.

                  See? The individual shareholders are minuscule compared to private investment in the company.


                  Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=HUM

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I never mentioned individual share holders, only you did.  Wellington as you said manages the pension plans, and they have a great deal of say regarding insurance policies.  You can break it down anyway you like, but the truth is they are still making money off people when health care should be a universal right.  Philosophically this is were we diverge.  I believe everyone should have affordable health care and preventive care, you think only those who pay the premiums are entitled to this.  It should not be that way, and pre-existing conditions are also very cruel.  If you had to pay a large hospital bill I think you may change your mind about some of these things.  People that mortgage their houses over health care are not always low income citizens either.

  12. 0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    The only options I want to "keep open" are my own. And you are correct - government control through a seemingly benign healthcare bill is not new.

  13. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Well Im not used to all the sterotpying that goes on re opinions meaning you must be this or that , who cares?

    Whatever political system I come from ,being a Western democracy it should be about ALL people ,not just one class.

    It was cheaper for my family to pay for a doctors consult ($30) than to take out private insurance.
    However the bigger companies coming from offshore offered free insurance as part of employment incentives ,so of course we benefited from being able to use it if we had needed it.

    We didnt , but its merits were great for many others all the same no doubt. Benefits being faster service and hospitals a higer standard , not better doctors ( as many of them work in both sectors),just faster access for treatment.

    Of course A&E is free, and waiting times are solely dependant on your condition on admission.
    Healthcare for all children under 6 yrs old is free (irregardless of parents income)
    All dental is free until child is 18 or while still a student.

    Anyone receieving a benefit is entitled to reduced prescription
    charges ( GOVT subsidy) some meds are excempt ,but not too many.

    However cosmetic surgery is way up there in $$$!

    It is not a perfect system ( what is ?) but at least there is no reason for people to remain unwell! The Govt sees it as a plus to have happy ,healthy people so they can work , and produce more taxes an keep that revenue coming in.

    Downside -Doctors want increased wages

  14. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Nicomp , that is so silly saying everyone gets healthcare! well silly they deliver when x percent are never going to be able to pay the bill or face more bad credit ,where is the sense in that?

    Like saying anyone can buy a car ,you just cant all drive til you have a license.

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Everyone doesn't have insurance, but everyone is permitted by law to walk into an ER and get treatment. I could go on, but I've posted this explanation many times already.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh that would work ,everyone go get medical treatment , it don't matter you cant afford the 2,3,$400 they wanna charge (and do!) just you walk yaself in there...omg thats the answer, flood the hospitals ,and dont pay

        Yea youve posted it many times ,and it doesnt make sense the more times you post it!

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's fine. If you're after a system that's free for everyone, then dream on. I am simply explaining to you what the U.S. has now.

          I'm still baffled by the number of people who don't want to pay for something they feel is so important.

        2. ledefensetech profile image82
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's really very simple, the problem is a problem of supply. There is not enough health care to meet the demand. Whenever there is more demand than there is of supply, price goes up. Prices have been going up in healthcare for decades now. So what this means is that we have a shortage of healthcare providers, it's not about price. If you really want to fix the system, you have to provide more health care. If you want to find a way to pay for all of that healthcare, all you're going to do is make the problem worse. Because you're not fixing the supply problem, you're just papering over the cracks.

          @Madame X, no I wasn't aware of the legal definition of news as entertainment.  Although it's not surprising.

  15. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    The ER is for emergency care, and it costs the entire system more money in the long run when people walk in for minor procedures.  That is a big reason why Americans spend more per capita treating people than they do in European countries.  If we had a more efficient health care system everyone could see a primary care physician, which would cost much less in the long run.  Emergency rooms are expensive for those who do not have insurance, and yes you do have to pay for the care you get there.  It costs the system and people more.  Also, say you are a diabetic, you need to see a physician on a regular basis.  You cannot let your diabetes get out of control and just go to the emergency room when it gets bad.  We definitely need good and affordable preventative care in this country.

  16. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Life ( not much of one when youre sick)

    Liberty ( I should be able to afford to take care of myself, independence)

    Happiness ( drugs n alcohol sales up)

    Nicomp you said thats what every American deserves, and I say thats why there is so much conflict , they are simply not all getting what they are entitled too.

  17. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    Finally!!! Now that is something to cheer about. big_smile

  18. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Madame X during Bush's administration many well respected correspondents such as Helen Thomas were cut off from asking the president questions that they always asked before.  Even Blair handled critiques better than Bush did.  In the UK the press still openly challenged Blair's decision to enter the war, but here in the US many critic were silenced, or parodied as being unpatriotic pinheads.  Freedom of speech was curtailed under the Bush administration more than it was in Europe during the same time period.  That is just one example of how we are not as open as you think.

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      My favorite Helen Thomas moment; President Bill Clinton was in the midst of his troubles for lying to a grand jury and debasing the office of the presidency. He attends a press conference in the White House and gives Helen Thomas the first question. Her question (I'm not making this up) was

      "Why is everyone being so mean to you?"


      That's not biased!

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Considering that so many other politicians have committed sex acts in office she totally had a point.  You just could not see it smile.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It wasn't about sex - although he could have been more discreet. It was about perjury.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh that hot potato again.  Look, he never should have been asked about it in the first place, and as far as I am concerned the whole Lewinski affair is a prime example of how bureaucratic and not small government right wing conservatives truly are.  All sentient adults know where a public life ends and personal life begins.  As I said only Hillary has the right to be upset about what Bill did, and since she did not divorce them they must have come to an understanding about the whole thing.  European politicians respect the personal lives of their politicians and do not care about their sex lives.  Americans are way too obsessed about sex because of all the puritanical repression.

            1. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What a hoot. Public life begins in the Oval Office, I'd say. We Americans prefer a touch of dignity in that place, thank you very much.

          2. nicomp profile image60
            nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think I said that. However, to clarify; he was impeached for lying to a grand jury about the sex in the Oval Office. He was stripped of his license to practice law.

            1. SweetiePie profile image85
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Unethically impeached by a group of conservatives that had the audacity to question him about something they ought not to have even cared about.  No sentient person would have voted to impeach Clinton, and all the money wasted on that process could have been put to better use.  As I said Republicans are not as small government as they claim to be or they would not be pursuing it.  Also, yes it is about sex, and denying that is disingenuous.

              1. nicomp profile image60
                nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                For some reason you want it to be about sex. I clearly explained why he was impeached. I am the source.

              2. 0
                Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Lying to a grand jury is grounds for impeachment. That's the rule of law. You can't have one set of laws for Clinton and another for "conservatives".

                1. nicomp profile image60
                  nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  We know that (me and my partners in crime). However, her position is that BC should never have been asked that question. I guess the grand jury was stacked with nasty conservatives.

                  They were clearly out of bounds when they asked about sexual activities while they were investingating a sexual harassment case. How rude.

                  1. 0
                    Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought all presidents ordered bombs dropped on other countries while getting head.

    2. 0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I already stated that it was inclusive of the last three admins. I don't argue with your point. But I look at the legal standing of each. That's where the real story lies.

    3. Flightkeeper profile image76
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What freedom of speech was curtailed that you are referring to? I thought there were a lot of marches against the war etc.

      1. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        She has no idea. Bush did nothing to curtail freedom of speech.

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You are so out of it Nicomp.  Yes there were protests, but the correspondents were hand picked at the conferences to make Bush look good.  Sorry, but we are not falling for it.  At least I do not need a partner in crime to make my point and I can stand on my own two feet smile.

          1. nicomp profile image60
            nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'm totally with it.

            Hand-picking people is the first order of business for every "Town Hall" meeting attended by BHO. You are hoisting yourself on your own pitard.


            By the way, the Supreme Court of Arkansas didn't think it was about sex, either. They took his law license.

            oopsy!

          2. 0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Who is the "we" that is not falling for it?

            1. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Good question. She clearly stated she doesn't need partners in crime.

  19. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Those of us who realize Bush obstructed many freedoms of the American people, beginning with freedom of speech in the press at the beginning of the war.  It was not until later on when the deaths started escalated in 2005 that people started realizing something was not right.  The Dixie Chicks were even lambasted for protesting early on.

    1. 0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What does this have to do with Clinton's impeachment? Or have we dropped that subject?

      1. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        She can't support her points so she moves rapidly between topics.

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am supporting my points so well and that is why you try to tear me down.  You have to have supporters, and I am strong enough to go it alone.  I am a think tank, which is why I can share so many topics.

          1. nicomp profile image60
            nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Your tank is on E today. You missed the point entirely on Freedom of Speech.

            1. SweetiePie profile image85
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I do not watch E because it is boring.  I am a think tank in that I have many ideas in my head because I read widely, and I do not back down when people pressure me to do so.  Being conciliatory is more important to some, speaking the truth is more important to me.

              1. nicomp profile image60
                nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                E means "Empty", as in your tank.

                1. SweetiePie profile image85
                  SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh dear my mind is full and intelligent.  Your put downs are immature.  Get a hobby besides bashing people.

                  1. nicomp profile image60
                    nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree that your mind is full and intelligent. I was making a play on your "think tank" analogy.

    2. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Dixie Chicks were lambasted by paying customers.

      You need a refresher in freedom of speech issues.

      They only extend to government supression of such. No government entity tried to shoosh the Chicks.

    3. Flightkeeper profile image76
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are speaking in generalities and have not given me any examples.  As for freedom of speech in the press being obstructed, again, what are you referring to.  I remember that there were reporters embedded with troops.

      As for the Dixie Chicks, I have to agree.  They made an anti-war statement during their concert.  Bush did not prevent them from making it so how was their freedom of speech curtailed.

  20. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Sometimes murderers like OJ use slick lawyers and the law to get off the hook for crimes they committed.   Other times people with slick law backgrounds, like Republican politicians, obstruct the law and create falsehoods.  The law is not always correctly applied, and the impeachment of Clinton is not taken seriously by those who have respect for the true spirit of the law.

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhh. I see. It's not Rule of Law, rather it's Slickness of Law.

      The spirit (your word) of good behavior would have precluded BC from cheating on his wife in the Oval Office and violating the trust of a family that sent their daughter to intern on his staff. So much for spirit.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The spirit of the law respects that we do not pursue someone's sexual life behind closed doors.  At this point anyone fantasizing about Clinton's sex life must be slightly repressed because most sentient people find the whole thing ridiculous.  Clinton and Lewinsky were both adults and of age, and they did not do anything other people do not do.  Go get enraged about some of your Republican idols that do the same things while in office.

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You can't be serious. In an investigation of sexual harrassment, ya gotta ask about sex. It goes with the territory.

          Aere you implying that women should never charge men with sexual harrassment?

          1. 0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            NOW said not to.

            1. SweetiePie profile image85
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Madame X wrote:



              Clinton and Lewinsky were not a case of sexual harassment.  See, you need to distinguish and get the facts straight.  Lewinsky should never have told Jennifer Tripp, who I would not consider much of a friend.  Lewinsky can barely get work because of this whole thing, which is not really fair you know.

          2. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You imply some really nasty things nicomp.  Monica never implied Clinton harassed her.  They were consenting adults that made a bad choice, and not all that different than other people who get it on in offices.  Personally I do not date people at work, but I once had to advise a friend who ends up sleeping with a lot of her married bosses.  Since then she has changed her ways.

        2. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not enraged about the juvenile activities of BC in the Oval Office. It was a pattern of behavior for him that strethed back to his days as governator of Arkansas. No one was surprised.

          If it makes you feel better, I think Newton Gingrich should slink back to Georgia after the way he treated his first wife. I do hold that against him and I feel that his unconscionable actions should prevent him from being any sort of a leader in the Repoublican Party.

          But I'm not a Republican, so it doesn't matter much.

  21. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Okay I will never call you a Republican again.  You seem offal offended when I critique Bush, so how is one to know?

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm only offended by obfuscation and prevarication. Don't assume a person's political leanings simply because they disagree with you on one issue.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well I have not done that regarding Bush, who happens to have one of the worst human rights records as a US president.  That is the truth, and big part of why the world community grew tired of his ways.  I did not assume your political leanings, but when someone becomes defensive of what Bush did to hurt good people it makes one wonder why.  Helen Thomas happens to be a very respected correspondent, but I guess I have a lot of respect for her.  She is part of the old school journalism that is hard to find these days.

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Let's see...

          No Child Left Behind

          Drastically increased spending in Africa for AIDS education

          Saved thousands of Kurds from being gassed by Hussein

          Free drugs for seniors...

          I'd say that's a pretty good Human Rights record off the top of my head.

  22. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    LOL. If every member of Congress who has engaged in extramarital sex had to slink back to their district, Congress would be practically empty!
    And that goes for both sides of the aisle.
    Remember, power is an aphrodesiac.
    The reason people get upset when Republicans get caught is because Republicans walk around with a "holier than thou" attitude spouting "Family Values" platitudes. Hypocritical if you ask me.

  23. nicomp profile image60
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    Did we break HubPages? All the postings in this forum are shoved over to the right and the background is 1/2 white, 1/2 brown.

  24. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    That is part of the reason I wrote my recent hub because it is a fallacy to believe there was ever a time when politicians or anyone else did not have inappropriate sex.  It was worse in Jefferson's and Washington's day, but not much better in Clinton's day.  I see the Carters and the Obamas as being a few of those rare couples that have a truly respectful love marriage.  Those men are the type that would not cheat on their wives in politics, and that is rare.

  25. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    http://mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_63.gif
    How did this get so off topic?

  26. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Since the Iraq War Christians have left Iraq on enmasse because while Saddam was a dictator, but he was secular and allow all religions to practice freely.  Once he was removed the religious fanatics started fighting over the country and all hell broke lose.  Literally millions of Iraqis have left the country, and the majority of their Christian population is gone.  Just like my Christian ancestors that left Syria, and the Jews and Christians now leaving other Middle Eastern countries, the Middle East is being robbed of its diversity.  Saddam was the worst kind of dictator, but we had no place getting involved in their affairs.  More bad than good has come out of the fall of Saddam.  It would have been much more peaceful to allow him to slowly die in office.  More people have died because of the Iraq War.

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. I guess we should have never declared independence from King George either. All those soldiers died needlessly.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Invading other independent countries to overthrow leaders we do not like is not the answer.  We should have helped as many Kurds and others who wanted to leave Iraq immigrate to the US if we were concerned for their safety.  I am glad to see we are giving permanent visa to so many Iraqis fleeing that debacle actually.

    2. 0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We probably should have let Hitler slowly die in office too, huh.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That was a completely different situation as Hitler was invading other countries and causing havoc.  Hitler needed to be stopped, but in any war you have to assess the outcomes.  Iraq War was badly planned, and most of the outcomes have been disastrous.  This is not a war I support, especially since there was no clear cut evidence Saddam was behind 9/11.  It also caused us to lose face with the international community that did not support this war, unlike World War II that was a united effort.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          40 million Iraqis are now free from death camps, rape camps, torture camps and total political oppression. But hey, I'm just a compassionless conservative who could care less about anybody but myself.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually I think you fail to see how many people have been raped, tortured, and killed because of the Iraq war.  We should not go invading countries just because we do not like the dictators.  The amount of destruction caused by this war is greater than anything that took place before it.  Now they have daily fears of market and roadside explosions.  If I lived in Iraq at any time I would want out, this is not a free and happy place.

            1. 0
              Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And was far less so before we got there.

              1. JonTutor profile image60
                JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                "fools rush in where angels fear to tread".... Bush's "mission accomplished".... demonstrated the lack of intelligence and judgement..... we're paying with American blood.... Bush's gotta one day answer all those families affected..... by his big lie... all for his cronies to make money outta Iraqi oil..... that  is blood money.  smile

              2. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Actually Iraq is more unstable now because the insurgents, those who are provoked by us invading their country.  Our American soldiers should not be put in a situation where different factions are fighting over who is more holy than thou, and being injured and killed in the process.  Iraq will remain unstable for years because it is a dysfunctional religious zone, and ironically only a dictator like Hussein could keep the loney tunes in fear of attacking each other.  We are destroying our soldiers by sending them into the mosh pit of nonsense, and even soldiers I talk to are fed up with this war.  They only enlist for the money, and no one really wants to go to Iraq.

                1. 0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  So, it's ok to torture, rape, and politically oppress the population of Iraq to keep "peace" amongst the insurgents?

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No it is not okay, but as I said per international law we can not just go invading every country willy nilly.  Very few people I know even try to justify the actions of the Iraq War and admit it was a disaster.  Eventually we will pull out, but now it is going to take awhile.  There are worst dictators like Saddam that we have not tried to overthrown, and some of this does have to do with oil interest and political hegemony in the region.

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yeah, Saddam would never do something like that...  roll

      2. JonTutor profile image60
        JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Did the President lie to our country, troops, congress about our motives against Hitler.... Bush's WMD.... A Big lie.... no excuses here.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Destroying a terrorist stronghold, freeing 40 million people from a tortuous dictator, and keeping us safe from further attack - I would not define these actions as trivial. They were very important - even monumental. Our allies also believed that there were WMDs.

          1. JonTutor profile image60
            JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            "Keeping us safe".... Iraq was never a threat.... on the other hand... North Korean missiles can strike USA or our allies Japan.... wonder why nothing is done.... simple.... no money to be made from such invasion. smile

          2. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually there was very little evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, and that has been substantiated again and again.  Blair was voted out of office because people were irritated at his desire to support Bush in that war.  All we did was distract ourselves from Afghanistan, where some of the true terrorist factions have been organizing.  I am not big on the war in Afghanistan either, but at least that conflict had a bit more of a real purpose.

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Blair was not "voted out of office."

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                He was voted out as prime minister.  So yes he was voted out of that office.  You know if you learn how to discuss things and follow dialogue you might become a bit more respectful.  At least Nicomp and XMadame can debate things without being rude.

                1. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No, he wasn't. Really.

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes TK he was.  Gordon Brown is Prime Minister now, for the news update.

    3. Flightkeeper profile image76
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The middle east wasn't being robbed of diversity.  No one stole the Christians and the Jews.  The extremist Muslims attacked them because they didn't want them there and ran them out of the country while regular Muslims allowed it.  Saddam was secular, he killed anybody he wanted regardless of their religious affiliation.  That doesn't mean that Iraq was better off.

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The Iraqi Christians would differ with you.  How would you feel if someone invaded the US under the same pretext?  I am sure people would protest madly against this.  Anyway, we are slowingly withdrawing from Iraq which proves this point.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image76
          Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What point has been proved?  The Iraqis whether they were Muslims, Kurds, Christians, or Jews (probably in hiding)were powerless against Saddam, his army and his goons and had to suffer Saddam's will. War is not pleasant and many Iraqis have suffered and many of our men and our allies have been killed and there have been arguments on boths sides debating the war.  It's over now but your claim that the Christians are leaving because Saddam is no longer there and therefore the whole country is worse off is illogical.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It is not illogical, it is a proven fact.  Several more churches have been bombed during services in the last few months and even more people are leaving.  It is just one example, and many other Iraqis have fled besides the Christians.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image76
              Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It is not a fact. It is a perception.  I understand you are passionate about this and it's fine that we don't see eye to eye.  It was nice conversing with you.

      2. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        People quickly forget that Husseine entered politics as a hitman for the Bath party. Once in power, he invaded a soverign country because he thought it belonged to him. He didn't exactly begin public life as a community organizer.

        Gassing thousands of Kurds wasn't his first atrocity.

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am aware of Saddam's record, but as I said there are dictators just as bad as he was.  A lot of this has to do with oil and power politics.

          1. 0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Hey, if we can get more oil and get rid of a dictator all at once - why let a good crisis go to waste?

            1. nicomp profile image60
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You rock.

          2. nicomp profile image60
            nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No doubt, there were worse dictators and some of them are still in power. North Korea comes to mind. I wonder when BHO will be bowing to that royal family...

            1. SweetiePie profile image85
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That is not going to happen.  Back in the 80's people used to watch Red Dawn and say the Russians were invading.  That never happened either smile.

              1. 0
                Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Many Jews in pre-WWII Germany believed the same thing.

                1. SweetiePie profile image85
                  SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  That argument is so overused smile.  North Korea and Obama are not making a deal.  Like I said in fifty years people will laugh at some of these conspiracy theories.

                  1. 0
                    Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Overused? I'm sure those who lost their families would have no problem with your cavalier statement. The fact is that it is necessary to stop the advances of power-mad politicians before they gain a foothold. Saddam was one of those. His removal from power only aided the US and the entire region - not to mention all those little people who now get to live a life.

  27. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    http://mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_04.gif
    next!

    1. SweetiePie profile image85
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are off topic too smile  Anyway this is a forum and people can participate as they wish smile.

      1. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        We have common ground on that. If they don't like our rants, there's a nice little debate on religion going on in another forum. smile

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          At least we agree on something smile.  I actually like participating on this thread or I would not post here smile.

  28. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    LOL, I'm just observing and trying to learn how to debate. I'm all for peace!!!

  29. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL finding myself in at least partial agreement with SweetiePie and partial disagreement with LDT feels so weird yikes Must be a jet lag lol

  30. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Obama is not a extreme socialist leader looking to redistribute all the wealth.  However, I understand you see things a certain way, so I will leave it at that.

    1. ledefensetech profile image82
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sweeite, he has said that in the past.





      So yes, he does believe in redistributing wealth.  You cannot help the poor by impoverishing the wealthy.

  31. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    He resigned, and you are a rude person.  TK I try to be nice to you, but when you treat people this way they lose all respect.  You do not treat many people on this forum well.  As far as I am concerned I am a very intelligent person and never embarrassed by myself.  You are rude though.

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! Here we go again! roll

      Instead of just admitting you were wrong and leaving it at that (and hoping everyone would quickly forget your embarrassment), you AGAIN fail to resist the urge for unrelated emoting, and close with the ever popular, "I'm smart! I'm smart!"


      ... roll

  32. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 7 years ago

    Should all guns be taken away the only people with guns would be criminals.  It is our constituional right to carry a gun.  No, I don't own one but it's good to know if I wanted to own one I could get one.

    The Obama administration is forcing their agenda on the American people with a much bigger government.  More welfare etc.  When people are dependent on the government they are held captive and the government can do as it pleases.

    The right allows people to make more choices with less government.  For those who think socialism is such a good thing, go and move to Cuba or some other Socialist nation.  If Socialism is such a good thing why do Cubans want to leave?

    Socialists try to pander to the weak and sympathetic individuals by promoting equality for all and what they perceive as injustice in the world.  In theory that may well be successful but not in the real world.

    Yes, there is injustice, but people have the right of free-will to make choices - I, and millions of others, choose to exercise our right of free will.

  33. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Other Americans cannot tell Americans to move.  This health care debate has been around since the days of FDR, but this time around it is taking on new distortions.  Back in 1994 Clinton was not called a socialist and Hitler.  Still a nasty debate, but this time around it is just weirder.

  34. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    At the beginning of the war, but the middle and now the numbers have gone way down.  You can throw all the little tizzy fits you like, but I am correct in sharing that Iraq was the wrong war.  Anyone justifying it just hates to admit maybe sometimes war is a dumb waste of resources and human life.  Stability is yet and will not be achieved in a war zone such as Iraq.

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...and now the qualification begins... roll



      You were wrong AGAIN.

      Wouldn't it be easier for you to check the facts before making declarative statements and embarrassing yourself over and over again?

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You embarrass yourself TK.  I have outlined so many good points in history, and the only embarrassment is your cheering for Bush and his war of choice, which is what they call it now by the way, or at least on the BBC where they report the real news.  They are not in office anymore.  Get over it, we are slowly pulling out of Iraq.

        1. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Pointing out your repeated factual errors does not embarrass me. It doesn't please me, but it is necessary.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            My knowledge of history is very deep.  I did not make errors and I write long pithy posts.  Most of yours are just jibberish to be quite frank.

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              Perhaps on subjects other than those raised here...



              You have openly admitted to one and have (grudgingly) recognized another.



              LOL!!! Long AND pithy, eh? You might want to look up that word.

    2. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How is pointing out your repeated factual errors a "tizzy fit"?

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am getting my facts very straight thank you.  As a student of history I have shown my points well, and you argue that the war in Iraq was justified.  That is like arguing that a food fight in fifth grade was needed to get to sixth.  Get over it the international community has recognized there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the irony is the Iraq War just caused more destruction- and distracted us from focusing on Afghanistan

        1. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You demonstrably have NOT. It's all right here in black and white.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Okay you were a school bully perhaps.  In adult land we know the war in Iraq was not necessary, but you can wish whatever you think.

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              There is no need to descend into ad hominem and utter irrationality. Just admit when you are (frequently) wrong and move on with the discussion.

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No I will not admit that I am frequently wrong as the majority of the time I am right.  You on the other hand attack many, and not many people think you are a very rational person to discuss with.  Even trying to convey this to you is sort of ridiculous as you thrive off these fallacies.

                1. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Then why do you keep making them?

                2. BJC profile image67
                  BJCposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  In the real world, mature people admit mistakes without being condescending and not allowing their opinions to become facts.

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Tk implies anyone who does not preach his viewpoint makes mistakes, and I happen to be proud of my knowledge of history.  I read all the time, and you are the ones not allowing my viewpoint.  Also, a popular theme on this thread is for the conservatives to stick together, which I find amusing.  At least I can stand on my own two feet here.

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          If you are a student of history, why are your facts so often and so completely wrong? That doesn't sound like 'showing your points well.'


          You are welcome to your 'opinions' but realize that is all they are.

          1. BJC profile image67
            BJCposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            SweetiePie, you sound very full of yourself, with some arrogance thrown in.  Confidence is one thing arrogance is another.

          2. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I have shown my points well and shown how Iraq was not a necessary war.  You on the other hand still believe the propaganda that everyone is happy and free there.  That is pretty hilarious.  We did not liberate the people of Iraq, and I am not sure how you believe this fallacy.  Their lives are more unstable now than ever.  Now we have to play patrol and babysit, which is a big waste of resources.  I know I am a good student of history and do show my points well.  By the way you are one of the most emotionally driven attackers on Hubpages, so do not even argue that conservatives are more logical.

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Do you even realize how illogical statements like that are?

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                My statement is not illogical as you are incessantly trying to justify the need for a war that caused more destruction than was needed.  Oh well tk, you only like it when people state things from your conservative opinion.  Most of your comments are questions, put downs, and anything of the like.  I really could care less as you will never change.

                1. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You try to justify a patently illogical statement with further illogic and an apparent misunderstanding of the distinction between opinion and fact. I don't know how you can expect to hold a discussion this way.













                  Yes, yes, I know...you are sooo smart...

              2. nicomp profile image60
                nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, we believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness. You can't legislate happiness even by forcing us to pay for your health insurance..

    3. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And the assault on logic continues...

  35. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 7 years ago

    My reply wasn't posted - much relief to some I'm sure.   Yes, Misha, agree, GASP, we're being brainwashed one and all smile

  36. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 7 years ago

    It takes a person of integrity to admit making a mistake, not embarrassment.

  37. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 7 years ago

    Brainwashing is definitely the word of the day, Misha.  Thanks for bringing humor to a tough topic smile

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      At your service smile

      Without humor the only way out is to commit suicide smile

      1. BJC profile image67
        BJCposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, no, way too drastic.  Drink maybe............:

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Drink brings its own problems. As well as sex. Humor seems to be the best remedy overall smile

          1. BJC profile image67
            BJCposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Very wise!  Humor has been my safety net.

  38. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 7 years ago

    A debate is having people involved with debating.

  39. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    geez...watching TV will be more productive than this...so long big_smile

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The RedSox game is on!

  40. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Nah. It's OK. I'm pretty sure it was my own post, wink.  But still...what, are you going to tell returning veterans who maybe saw some things they didn't like and decided they didn't support the war ( but who served their country anyway)--to leave?

    And its OK, you have over a thousand fans!  Must be doing something right...

    Why do I feel Hubpages has been over run by crazy Glenn Beckians just recently?

  41. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    I have been here for three years, so over time people will add you as a fan too smile.  Yes Hubpages is being run over with crazies, and that is why I stopped posting to this thread earlier today.  I even had another hubber send me an email regarding my real name, and boy was that a treat.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You mean requesting your real name??  Why?

      1. SweetiePie profile image85
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        On earnesthubs hub about Barack Obama I dared to state I actually supported Obama, and I thought the guy who posted might be a bit to paranoid about ACORN.  Anyway, we exchanged a few posts, and it ended with him saying how he uses his real name on this website, and I should use my name too.  I told him well I do on other sites, but I feel perfectly comfortable not sharing my name on HP.  Why did he want to know anyway?  So he looked me up via my profile to find out my name over at the examiner, and then emailed me this morning addressing me by my first name.  When I shared with him why I think it is kind of weird to want to know someone's name that badly he became a bit defensive about it.

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah...you know when they are being invasive, and when it's OK.  I just don't understand the mentality...you don't find most of the liberals here spewing talk show host rhetoric all over like it is the word of God and following conservatives around questioning or demanding debate...or what have you.

          1. SweetiePie profile image85
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What I have learned is my hub score drops points any time I participate in these debates, so I probably should stay away.  I noticed that did not happen to my little questioner, so I do not know what to say about the whole thing.  I am sure he would delight in that anyway lol.

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No, it means you should try to do a better job of it.

              1. SweetiePie profile image85
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I know I am doing a better job than you.  Anyway, you are so rude, but forget it.  You will never learn doggie.

                1. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  How so, when you have been proven wrong on a factual basis several times and you are consistently illogical in your discourse?

                  1. SweetiePie profile image85
                    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I have not been proven wrong on a factual basis at all and you try to construe things to make it so.  Even Lita, whose boyfriend has fought in the Gulf region, has pointed out these conflicts are not always so popular with the people that go over there.  The Iraq War was an unnecessary war that cost the tax payers unneeded money, and by 2006 the majority of Americans had changed their minds about it.  Sorry that you love to try and make people look wrong at every turn, but I catch you in so many fallacies.  The international community does not support this war anymore, so that is not illogical.  I have shared so many good historical points, and maybe one day you will get it.  Your comments are illogical most of the time anyway.

  42. nicomp profile image60
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    You two are really into each other. You've been bickering for almost 24 hours.

  43. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Sweetie, it's OK to be wrong time to time, we all are humans at the end. There is no shame in admitting it. smile

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dunno! Lot of dog pictures. They are evolving. lol

    2. SweetiePie profile image85
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The thing is I was not even wrong about the things TK is trying to prove I was wrong about.  It is sort of silly too.  I actually know a lot about these topics as I read, and discuss these things all the time.  I do not have to apologize for being wrong about topics I have a lot of knowledge about smile.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh surely, I could be wrong then wink

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You are not wrong, just trying to keep the peace smile.  TK just likes to berate, and that is what I take issue with.

      2. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

        1. SweetiePie profile image85
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Now you are typing in caps.  That is considered screaming and bad form on a forum.  I really think you are obsessed with using that emotional swipe.

        2. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          TK's entire existence on the forum is to lance some victim (usually female...though not always) and somehow, through disingenuous questioning, to show his very, very imagined superiority.

          Which is a joke, because it is always extremely clear that his opponents are much better spoken and more informed on every issue.  In fact, he seems to go after those types, especially.

          And Misha, good heavens, TK is nothing but a huge, boring annoyance, period.

          OK, my work here is done.  wink

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Anyone who considers themselves a "victim" because they are disagreed with on a discussion forum has some enormous issues.

            1. 0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Anybody who can't see what he's doing and has problems with as many people as you do online (or anywhere) seriously has psychological issues.  But I'm sure I didn't need to say that, actually.

              1. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oooh, now I'm a 'victim' too! What fun!

                1. 0
                  Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really fun.  They say the antisocial cannot be helped.

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't beat yourself over it.

  44. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    I agree.

  45. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    I guess you've proven my point well enough.

    1. SweetiePie profile image85
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      TK, all that you have proven is that you are just as emotional as any liberal that you accuse of being "hypersensitive".  I still find it amusing that a small number of conservatives think they are the only logical and thought based ones, when the truth is both sides are driven by emotion.  You have this emotional desire to be right and prove me wrong, as evidenced by your last comment.  That is amusing smile.

  46. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    When I point out your failures of logic it is not a matter of emotion. Please feel free to apply the same standard to me.

    1. SweetiePie profile image85
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The thing is I do not have a failure in logic here, and you seem to be projecting.  You feel emotionally drained to realize a lot of people do not support the Iraq War, so rather than admit yes this was an unnecessary conflict, or the war of choice as the BBC has titled it, you have now started calling me illogical.  When you start accepting the information I have given you I think you will be a happier person.  So what if I am elitist or arrogant for knowing I am right about many facts I share about history, but the truth is your stances are based on ideology and not reality.  People who quote others do not necessarily have logical comments.

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are so persistently illogical it's unbelievable.

  47. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Doncha think it's time to get a room guys? wink

  48. SweetiePie profile image85
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Okay I will leave this thread alone smile.

  49. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    lol

    party pooper misha

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sure I am tongue

  50. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Actually I like this new pic of you quite a bit smile

 
working