jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (87 posts)

Stop telling me what I want!

  1. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Americans want this, Americans don't want that.....I'm sick of hearing that coming from Republicans mouths!!
    I want Barack Obama as president. What are you doing about that? Trying to derail him.
    I wanted Van Jones as Green Czar, What did you do about that? Smeared him out of contention.
    I want Health Insurance reform. What are you doing about that?
    Stop telling me what I want and let me have what I voted for!!
    Where were you when your party passed the 1.3 trillion tax cut for the wealthy? Which wasn't paid for, and which happened by reconciliation. Which added to the debt,helped very few people and contributed to this problem we are in now? Where were you?
    The prescription drug bill? Not paid for, passed like a sailboat in  the night.
    Where we you then?
    Did deficits not matter then?  Did grandkids not matter then? You'd let them go into debt for rich people, but not healthcare? What the people wanted didn't matter then!
    So do me a favor, just stick to your own wants--which is more of the same: America for big business, big corporations and big wealth.
    I want regulation of that big money and some sharing of the American Dream...so people can stop being ripped off, stop dying in the streets, stop going hungry and homeless while company profits soar.
    OK? You stop telling me what Americans want...it's clear you don't have a clue.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well said. There are exceptions both ways but the folks who voted for Obama are usually OK about letting the Supreme Cour review the contoversial aspects while conservatives *know* exactly what the founding fathers wanted. Study history and you find out the founding fathers were not borg of a collective mind. Jefferson and Hammilton did NOT agree. There's a lot of room for interpretation of what the SC has called 'implied rights'.

      A loud minority does not constitute a majority.

      1. RKHenry profile image79
        RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Here Here!  I completely agree.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

    3. profile image0
      china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well said - and I am not even American!

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
        EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not American either but it strikes me that imposing compulsory private health insurance (which is what Obama wants AFAICT) isn't going to benefit anyone except insurance companies, who belong to that very class of wealthy people that the OP implies are supported solely by the Republicans. 

        Sorry to sound like a cynic but your Obama doesn't strike me as very different from his predecessor.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Have to agree with that. The irony is that what people in the US call "the Left" or "socialism" is nothing of the sort... the Democrats have propped up fatcats on just as many occasions as the Republicans. So what's so left-wing about that!

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There is a vast difference between American political theory and European political theory.  Although the US has been moving more and more to a European style of politics for over a century, the underlying philosophies are very different. 

            Rather that use the word European, it would be more correct to use the word Continental.  Britain for a long time produced political theories that were more in line with the American system than that of Continental Europe.

            What proof do I have?  Well let's examine the revolutionary documents of two nations that are at the heart of the American and Continental theories of government.  The United States and France.

            The Declaration of Independence holds that by being human we are entitled to certain rights.  The three enumerated are life, liberty and property.  The French Declaration of Human Rights lists life, liberty, equality and fraternity as basic human rights.  Those two declarations are not interchangeable and have certain incompatibilities with one another. 

            Europe developed along the French document while the US developed along the US document.  That is why there are differences between the "Left" and "Right" in the US and Europe.

            The reason that Dems and Reps are guilty of the same sins, at least according to the American people, is a different matter entirely.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              There are plenty of American leftists criticizing the Dems, and Obama specifically.

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Of course they are, but those are American leftists not Continental style leftists.  The main split in the Democratic party right now is the fiscal conservative Dems and the tax and spend Dems.  Historically speaking the US has been very averse to deficit spending.  Massive deficit spending is a relatively new phenomenon.  It's also a very contentious issue as recent events have shown.

    4. Ohma profile image78
      Ohmaposted 7 years ago in reply to this


      The fact of the matter is that this is a democracy. at any given time at least 49% of the people in America are not likely to get what they voted for or what they believe is right. Your right to say what you want and to be as vocal as you choose is protected by first ammendment of the constitution. Disagreeing with some one elses point of does not give you the right to tell them they can not speak. Say what you want as loudly as you want and if I disagree I can walk away.

    5. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Only the right-wing people on this forum think they have the right to talk like this...

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You don't approve of the "right" to free speech? Not very liberal...

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Obviously English is not your first language. I guess I should have added a smilie big_smile

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No, really, it is. Do YOU decide who has the "right" to use it and how?

      2. creepy profile image61
        creepyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        only the right wing

        right roll

    6. profile image0
      Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lovemychris, you can also add the cost of the unpaid Iraq War to your list.

    7. whiteorchids profile image71
      whiteorchidsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You have said it all well done.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    I have thought the same way numerous times when I hear these politicians say what we want.  I've never talked to John Boehner. He doesn't speak for me.

  3. kirstenblog profile image76
    kirstenblogposted 7 years ago

    Ralph Nader can speak for me, the rest can piss off, or be pissed on (either would be acceptable)

    I like Ralph, the cut of his jib is a good one smile

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      obama and the rest of those arrogant SOBs are going one better: The American people have told them what they don't want but those #*!%s are telling us, "Shut up, we'll tell you what you want! We know better and you're gonna sit there and take it. You ignorant fools will understand later that we know what's best for you." It's outrageous, and it is being forced through in the most shocking example of open corruption and disregard I've ever seen in American politics. Come November a good number of these SOBs are going to get the spanking they have coming to them at the ballot box, and obama can take his corrupt gangsterism back to Chicago in 2012.

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

        Here! Here!

        Well ranted!

        Nobody makes the case for Democrats better than angry, raving right-wing trolls.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Gonna second that! lol

      2. Danny R Hand profile image61
        Danny R Handposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If I thought like you, I'd where a mask too.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Tut! Tut! You are overestimating the numbers of the ignorant rabble being cynically manipulated by the forces of evil led by former GOP House majority leader Dick Armey and his Freedom Works lobbying organization.

    2. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Ralph Nader can speak for me"


      That's 1...


      LOL @ Nader!

  4. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Who are these Americans they refer to, either party? Voter who are in the minority, or the non-voters who are the majority, or are they combined in some way telling them what Americans want? I speak to them with my vote because they never seem to listen to me otherwise.

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes not even then!

  5. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 7 years ago

    The thing that separates European politics from American politics is right wing wing hate.

    I recently visited a political forum where the majority, but not all contributers were American. It was discussing the issue of single mothers. A couple of European right wingers had said things like- 'its outrageous that the state should financially support single mothers who have knowingly become pregnant and are abusing the system'. An American response was 'w*ore mothers and their bast*rd offspring will burn in hell and should be allowed to starve on earth'.

    How can you debate anything in that kind of atmosphere? I sympathized with the European right wingers views even though I think life is more complex than the contributers were allowing. The American right wingers attitude made all dialog impossible. And that seemed to be the point.

    I long for some thoughtful conservatives in these forums.

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "The thing that separates European politics from American politics is right wing wing hate."

      NO, Europe invented right and left wing hate. What separates American politics is that the vast majority of Americans outright reject socialism as a form of government we want for our country.


      The vast majority - but evidently not all ~~~

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      " I  long for some thoughtful conservatives in these forums."

      I would settle for some thoughtful conservatives anywhere. Once there was such a person. Example - Wm. F. Buckely Jr.  I didn't often agree with him but he was rational - informed, logical, POLITE.. and as a result he gave enormous credability to the conservative point of view.

      Now it's poisened with Rush and Glenn and the lies and bile they put out with no chance for dialogue or compromise, shich President Obama pointed out recently.

      Thanks for that critical observation.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with this wholeheartedly.

        I am NO fan of William F Buckley, but at least he did not simply spout verbal diarrhea for personal gain (George W Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc, etc). Buckley believed in conservatism based on conscientiously derived principles.

        In other words, you could hate him, but you still ended up respecting him. What passes for discourse these days, in contrast, is itself evidence of the moral degradation of US society.

        The supreme irony is that Fox and the more recent GOP are EXACTLY FANTASTIC examples of the moral decay Brenda talks about. Yes, liberals frequently also display such moral decay, but the idea that the Right possesses none of it is sheer lunacy, and ass backwards.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very true. We are hearing mostly from people who are incapable of or uninterested in rational, civil discussion.

  6. Bigcountry12577 profile image61
    Bigcountry12577posted 7 years ago

    Mrs.
    If your from Canada why are you concerned with right wing or left wing parties south of the border? I rarely here anything about Canada or maybe if I do I guess I don't pay attention. Do a lot of Canadians pay attention to the things going on in America. I guess what I'm saying is being I'm closer to Mexico I pay more attention to that is it the same for you?

    1. profile image0
      JeanMeriamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's very different here I think. Our news is world news. When I went to the states I noticed it was pretty much all American news. Same for history in school, etc.

      I really don't think she would be connected with either party. But yes what happens in one country effects so that is why there's interest.

      You Americans should be more interested in us. Have you never read Focus on the Family magazine or website? We're going to hell in a hand basket and dragging the states down with us.

  7. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    The U.S.A. is not a democracy.

    It is a republic.

    Majority rules will always oppress the minority.

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And sometimes that's a good thing.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It never has been a good thing.  At least as far as history goes.

        1. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Murders are a minority. Those who would like to pass laws reinstituting legally-enforced segregation are a minority. People who think it would be a good idea to euthanize everyone over a certain age are a minority. Those who favor forced abortions as a means of population control are a minority. You can think of lots of other examples.

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
            Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            If the majority supported these things.  Would that be OK?

            1. Sab Oh profile image60
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That's why I said "sometimes." Now do you agree?

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yes you made a good point.

  8. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    It's funny you bring up Europe. A right-wing talk show host here in Boston said, "Obama hates America. He wants us to be Europe."
    Sigh.
    How can he say that? That is so insulting and untrue and such smear-minded propaganda that is passed of as smart speech here in Tighty-Righty Land.
    Obama has said we don't copy anybody! We can look at other systems, but do it in a completely American way...which means corporations rule. Which is what this healthcare bill really does..they still rule, but they have to make some concessions.
    Versus if it doesn't pass, they go hog-wild with profiteering...because they can say "The American People Want Us To!"...and it will be true!
    Saw some guy on Maher's show last night...famous conserv guy. He let out what was really scaring them...Competition for Insurance Companies! NOT worry about Americans health and well-being, but afraid the companies will go our of business...
    Well, sorry-healthcare should not be based on the bottom line!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The indication that this is a moderate health care plan is that there are kooks screaming that it's socialism and kooks screaming it's a corporate giveaway to the insurance companies. Frequently on the same post.

      Neither is true. The system will work as it has through insurance companies - no takeover. The Insurance Lobby spent a LOT more on GOP legislators than Democrats, which gives you some idea how much they like the regulation that comes with the new business. They won't be able to discrimate by gender or exclude based on pre-existing condition. They also won't be able to drop your policy if you get sick. The kicker of all regulation is that they will be required to spend 80 or 85% of premiums on health care.  This is where we are protected.

      Insurance - any kind of insurance - is legalized gambling. It's a tolerated 'vice' because there are enormous benefits to society to spread the risk of a home fire - or auto accident - or illness.  The benefit of health insurance  is no benefit to society  when insurance companies game the system with an anti-trust exemption and near-monopolies in entire states.

      We have to keep pushing back on the noise machine and get the truth out  there.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
        EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If what you say is true, then introducing this healthcare bill would mean one or more of the following things:

        1. Insurance companies will lose money and go out of business.
        2. They will ask for (and get) massive handouts from your government to prevent them from going out of business.
        3. They will find some other way of recouping their losses, e.g. charging even larger excesses than they already do.

        The idea of universal, compulsory private health insurance is completely untenable.  Either have government funded healthcare, or "pay as you go" healthcare such as existed in Britain before the NHS.




        And as such, it's entirely sensible to gamble that something improbable won't happen (your house burning down, for example), because your premiums will be small and there's an excellent chance of a payout if the worst happens.  But all of us get ill at some point in our lives - some of us chronically/seriously so.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's nice to see the voice of reason.  I wouldn't bother though.  Some people wouldn't be able to notice an assumption if it fell out of the sky and hit them upside the head.  Luckily such people are more and more in the minority and exposed for the out of touch radicals they are.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
            EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think that there's a certain type of person who is well-meaning but who unfortunately mistakes the strength of their emotions for the strength of their arguments.

        2. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          My Dear Empress - Do you want to show me in the CBO estimates where the insurance companies are going to lose money or go out of business or need subsidies? Or did you pick that wild suggestion out of an unsanitary place and put it out there in front of everyone?

          The idea of universal, compulsory, private insurance has been done and works. Germany, I think.   Our current system is the most expensive, least efficient medical boondoggle on the planet! We rank # 37 - what we have works for the insurance companies, the wealthy and the healthy.

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You're better off looking at the GAO not the CBO.  The CBO can only use the assumptions that Congress gives them.  There's plenty of evidence that the assumptions are wrong.

            http://www.bnd.com/2010/03/19/1181389_s … mates.html

            Not to mention that most of the "deficit reduction" would come from not healthcare savings, but the government takeover of the student loan program.

            http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3 … n-program/

            The lies and distortions from Washington just don't stop.  The American people aren't stupid, they don't want this bill because of  how corrupt the process is, they don't oppose it because they don't want reform.   But we need reform that makes sense, not that's done by backroom deals and hidden under thousands of pages of leagalese.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ya' know - the 'process' of childbirth is as messy as it gets - blood and afterbirth and all kinds of ugly junk.  You can't help being caught up in that mess during the PROCESS. And HCR hasn't been pretty, either.

              Afterwards - nobody cares about process. They want to see the baby. The suggestion that most of the deficit reduction would come from the student loan program is a lie. Over a TRILLION of the reduction in the second decade comes from the health care overhaul. You can make up what you like about the 'assumptions' but the CBO, not Congress makes the assumptions in a non-partisan way.

              In the early stages, some of the bills that came out of committee were scored that they WOULD increase the deficit. And then the GOP thought the CBO was GOD .  We have a good, not perfect, bill here.

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Have you read the bill?

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No, all he's focused on is free.  There is no thing as a free lunch.  Some people just don't get that.

                  1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
                    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    How can someone support something with out even knowing exactly what will be in the bill?

                    Do you think that the American people will get to see the bill before Barry autographs it?

              2. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                "Do you think that the American people will get to see the bill before Barry autographs it?"


                I don't think ONE congressman will read the whole bill before voting on the "We didn't really vote on it but let's say we did anyway" rule and sending it to Mugabe...I mean obama's desk.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
            EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Did you just make a heavy-handed attempt at humour?  Yep, I think you did.  Don't give up the day job...




            Germany doesn't have universal private healthcare insurance.  It has a mixture of private and public insurance (with government subsidies), which people on high incomes can opt out of if they want:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ … re#Germany

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And you did not answer whether your assumption that the insurance companies would lose money or require subsidies was based on something remotely related to fact.  Nothing wrong with fantasy - if you label it as such.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                :Sigh:

                If you force insurance companies to cover everybody, even those who are already seriously ill, then they are going to lose money.  Unless they get subsidies.  Or unless (and I admit I didn't think of this before), they put their premiums up for everyone else.

                The only other possibility is that insurance companies will somehow magically morph into charitable philanthropists and give people health cover out of the goodness of their hearts.

                Now that really IS fantasy lol lol

          3. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            "The idea of universal, compulsory, private insurance has been done "


            Yeah, it has been done in Massachussetts and now the state is $4 billion in the hole and counting, premiums continue to rise, many doctors are saying 'screw this, I'm going into another line of work,' and the illegals still use the emergency room as their 24 hour health clinic.

  9. MikeNV profile image76
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    "Sorry to sound like a cynic but your Obama doesn't strike me as very different from his predecessor."

    He has appointed the same people that Bush put into play to oversee the Money Supply.

    Bush spent like crazy... and so is Obama.

    Each election we get to choose from whatever we believe is the lesser of two evils based on our own personal agenda.

    Our "wants" are not important to the ruling elite. Our "wants" are the tools they use to pit one against the other while they go merrily about pushing their own agenda.

    So what you "want" and what I "want" are probably not the same thing... because ultimately the only "wants" that are ever satisfied are those of the wealthy elite.

  10. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Well--if Obama is just like Bush, how come he's a Communist and Bush wasn't?
    Why all the Tea-Parties and outrage now?
    If it was going on with Bush--you wouldn't know it.
    Because anyone who spoke out then was labeled an anti-American traitor!
    Remember how the war protesters were hammered?
    I was constantly told, "If you don't like it here, move to Cuba"
    Now all of a sudden, it's patriotic to protest...very odd if Bush and Obama are the same.?

    Plus, Bush never mentioned the poor, the middle class, the destitute, the sick, the disabled, the homeless, the hungry, the needy, the college kids....did he?

    Did he want Healthcare reform?
    Credit card reform?
    Banking reform?
    Consumer Protection of Elizabeth Warren?

    I don't think so. In fact, his famous saying was The Have's and The Have More's!
    Dick Cheney, to the ultra wealthy at their first inaugural ball (shown on C-Span), "You are our base, and we will support you."

    What about our tactic with the rest of the world?
    Bush said "You're with us or against us." "Dead or Alive."...etc.
    Yet he never once confronted Israel. Obama has.

    Obama's approach is diplomatic.

    No, I think it's quite different.
    Oh yes! My favorite thing he did was appoint Shenseki as Veteran's Affairs Director!
    After Rumsfeld treated him like a dirty step-child.

    White House.gov...was that there before?
    It's just a whole different attitude and feel.

    And I realize that much of my zeal for Obama is just the relief that that rogue regime is gone...
    But you Republicans are making it hard to be objective with your crazy demonizing of him. It makes me want to protect and defend him no matter what!

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Obama's sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, so I'd hardly describe him as a pacifist either.




      I suspect that whatever verbal slap on the wrist Israel gets from Obama, it will blithely carry on building settlements where it has no business to.  Business as usual.




      I'm not a Republican.  I'm not even American LOL.  And I'm not "demonising" Obama - I'm just pointing out that AFAICT, the similarities between him and his predecessor are more apparent than the differences.  Most of the stuff you're talking about is just window dressing and fine words.  What matters is actual RESULTS.

      1. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Come on EF, you have to admit those troops did come in handy.  When they pacify Kandahar, most Afghanis will have a real shot at self-governance for the first time since 1979.  Of course Obama did it kicking and screaming, so he shouldn't get the credit, that belongs to the commander on the ground General McChrystal.  What Obama has done is cast us in the same light as Carter did.  Wimpy and as willing to stand on our principles as cheese eating surrender monkeys.

        As for Israel, they've really painted themselves into a corner with the way they set up their nation.  The ulntra-religious can cause all the problems, but it's the sons and daughters of the moderates and conservatives pay the price.  In the end it all comes down to property rights.  Unless those rights are addressed, there will never be peace.

        Be glad you're not here to suffer the "results" of this administration.  It's gong to be horrific even if that abortion of a health care bill doesn't pass.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
          EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Who was it who said "Never fight a land war in Asia"? 

          Personally, I can't understand why we're in Afghanistan.  Nor can I see any overall benefit of us being there, either for us or the Afghans. 




          Too right!  The only way it would ever "work" IMO is if the Israelis and Palestinians integrated and lived side by side.




          I don't think Britain is in all that rosy a position either.  sad

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, but I think that unlike the Brits, sorry, the US commanders on the ground have a better idea of how to deal with tribal societies.  Our experience in Iraq has certainly helped as well as our strategic blunders in Vietnam, oh so long ago.  Personally I think we mishandled the whole thing, we could have bagged bin Laden with Special Forces, but our military had budgets to justify and that's how things work in the Beltway.

            Still, sometimes the right thing can be done for all the wrong reasons and like Iraq, Afghani people really have a good shot at a stable society I think.

            I don't think integration is the right thing.  For one, Palestinian births outnumber the Israeli by quite a bit.  Sooner or later the Israeli people would find themselves outnumbered.  Peace really means both sides giving up the idea of making Jerusalem the capital of any nation and not allowing building across the countries' respective borders.  if that could be achieved there would be no cause to the fighting.  I don't see the religious on either side giving up their power though.  I'm sure God is mightily ashamed of us from time to time.

            Yeah but you guys have your Tea Party too!!!  Who would have thunk it?

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
              EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think Iraq would have a much more stable (and wealthier) society if we hadn't sold arms to Saddam Hussein, and then turned against him when he outlived his usefulness as a customer for said arms. 

              And surely it would have been a lot cheaper to do some sort of special ops thingy to kill Bin Laden, and then get the hell out of Afghanistan?  After all, surely killing Bin Laden and putting Al Quaida out of action was the reason we invaded Afghanistan?  (You might have detected a note of sarcasm in the previous sentence.)

              I'm afraid I don't believe in "nation building".  Never have, and never will. 



              They would too if they had a separate state from the Palestinians.  All the more reason why integration is their only chance (that, or mass migration back to Russia or wherever).  Though I agree that the religious fundamentalists on both sides are going to make it very hard for this integration to be achieved.


              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The whole Cold War thing was unnecessary.  But people as a whole were more naive than they are today, I think.  People are much more likely to challenge the word of the government and call them out.  The Internet has helped too.  Unlike the bad old days of newspaper, radio and TV, governments have a terrible time limiting their citizens to "state-approved" propaganda. 

                I think Afghanistan, much like Vietnam, has become a millstone around the neck of our government.  We started it and now we can't really get out of it.  You think we, the Russians and others would learn, but it would seem every generation has to learn the limits of what warfare can really accomplish.  (The answer:  not much)

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Monica Crowley JUST said, "This bill is so hated by the American people, so rejected by the American people"....
    What am I, chopped liver?
    This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. This kind of Lie, Distortion, Crap that goes on with the Right.

    Those millions of us who WANT this healthcare bill...are we not Americans?
    Oh Uh...maybe we're just not the "REAL" Palin Americans, eh?

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No you're not chopped liver, just in the minority.  Some of us stand on principle and don't expect others to pay for us.  There are smarter ways to solve rising health care costs, this bill isn't it.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So are you paying OUT OF POCKET for your own healthcare?

        The average family medical insuranc policy cost 13K per year - the average family income is 50K. The cost of REAL coverage is 26% for the AVERAGE houshold. More and more companies are not offering medical insurance. You people who 'stand on principle' vever quite get around to addressing real problems.

        The GOP response would have covered and additional 3  million Americans - not 31 million Americans. It would have had virtually NO effect on reducing costs. With HCR, most Americans will see their premiums go down slightly early and go up much slower than they would without HCR. The effect of HCR on the deficit is a REDUCTION of 130 Billion in the first decade and an estimated 1.3 TRILLION reduction in the deficit in the next decade.

        For those opposed to HCR a simple question - Are you insane?????

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I am.  I feel I should tell you that I'm a diabetic also so the entire inflated cost of healthcare falls on me personally.

          Do you even realize that state protectionist policies for "domestic" insurance companies are what's keeping premiums high.  In MA, for example you only have four providers to choose from.  Don't you think that has something to do with the high cost of healthcare?

          Where do you get the insane idea that taxing one group of people so another group of people is "containing" costs.  You're doing no such thing, all you're doing is paying the cost, not keeping it down.

          Perhaps you can explain the LASIK phenomenon to me.  No insurance company or government program would cover LASIK since procedures began in 1991.  Rather than seeing the cost of such treatments go up, the cost for treatments went down, why do you think that is?

          http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/02/reaso … health-car

          Regardless of what you might think, nothing is free, but there is a way to reasonably control costs for medical care.  It doesn't require any new laws or politics or anything like that, all it needs is for our politicians to get out of the way and eliminate the regulations that keep the market from functioning.

          So, no, I'm not insane, although I have to ask you the same question.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There is the story about the preacher who told is congregation that water would flow uphill if you prayed hard enough. One memeber tried it  - set up a hose so water was running down the curb and prayed as hard as he could - and of course it didn't work. So he told the preacher that the sermon was wrong - water won't flow uphill and the preacher said, "You just weren't prayin' hard enough."

            So it is for those who believe in the free market fairy. Medical Insurance companies have had it their way for years - decades. Four companies in MA is good by comparison - in many states one company controls 95% of the market and at least 51% of the state legislature. And opponents of this bill want the states to individually control and regulate BCBS??? 

            Your proposal is like suggesting that if the cops would quit chasing the serial killer - the murders would stop. Why? These companies pulled down 21 billion last year - and have virtual monopolies in a lot of places - and you think if the government pulls OUT - then by magic - prices will drop and everyone will have access.

            I am sorry to hear about your illness - I mean that with all sincerity.  However the debate about HCR turns out, I wish you well.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Wow your ignorance is amazing.  The very fact that you can equate a science like economics and faith just shows how ignorant you really are. 

              Here's a simple answer, ignoramus.  Eliminate the ability of the states to restrict competitions.  Open up competition across state lines.  That increased competition would force insurance companies to lower costs and make them think twice about insurance rate hikes.  No secret deals, no 2000 page legislation.



              Your comparison is just stupid.  Do you know what the legal definition of a monopoly is? 



              So yes, since a monopoly is given exclusive powers by the government to provide a product or service in a geographical area and suppressing competition which allows them to raise the price substantially over what the free market would allow; getting the government out of the way makes sense. 

              http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

              Do you big government idiots research anything or do you just mouth the same stupidities over and over again without regard to logic and reason?  Don't you idiots ever get tired of being just plain wrong when it comes to the real world?

    2. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is a democracy and the majority disapprove:

      "A Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll released Tuesday found 53 percent of the public disapproving of the effort and 36 percent supporting it."
      http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ … gislation/

      "Americans currently tilt against Congress' passing healthcare legislation, with 49% saying they would advise their member to vote against a bill (or they lean that way) and 44% saying they would advocate a vote in favor of the bill (or lean toward advising a yes vote)"

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/124496/ameri … ation.aspx

      "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 53% oppose it. Those findings include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 46% who Strongly Oppose it."

      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … are_reform

  12. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    For those opposed to HCR a simple question - Are you insane?????


    I think it would be almost unanimous that we need HCR.

    It is this unwritten unread mystery bill that is being forced upon us that is opposed.

    Massachusetts has passed health care reform I am sorry if you live in a state that does not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the issue.


    We the People of Massachussetts do not want or need a fascist oppressive central government to force their agenda upon us.


    KYPTY

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Arthur, your secretary of Treasury has been telling people that they can't afford your healthcare plan.  That is your single largest budget item and your state would be broke like California if the Feds didn't give you more Medicare money.  How can you say that your universal healthcare works in your state?  Haven't premiums gone up about 40% since the plan started?

      http://politifi.com/news/Massachusetts- … 04317.html

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say it worked.

        My point is anything like this should be done at the state level.

        If I am not happy with the way Massachusetts is run I have 49 more states to move too.

    2. Catznjammers profile image61
      Catznjammersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am one of those growing numbers of people who are thoroughly disgusted with politicians in general, be they democrat or republican.

      And as far as healthcare, I don't think there would be this controversy if the current healthcare bill mirrored what our beloved congressman receive.

      With that said, maybe if we all got together and demanded such a bill, who knows...

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I like to think of politicians in the same vein as professional wrestlers.

        One side plays the villain in a marionette like facade during the day.

        Then at the end of the day they all sit around together sharing taxpayer paid for caviar and Dom PĂ©rignon.

        It seems like the same agenda has been pushed by both sides for the past one hundred years.

  13. maven101 profile image78
    maven101posted 7 years ago

    Will Aspe has written : How can you debate anything in that kind of atmosphere? I sympathized with the European right wingers views even though I think life is more complex than the contributers were allowing. The American right wingers attitude made all dialog impossible. And that seemed to be the point.

    I long for some thoughtful conservatives in these forums.

    I consider myself conservative, and thoughtful...Right wing, left wing, are just defining attributes of human nature...the one demands cooperation, social rights, and equality...the other demands personal responsibility, fiscal accountability, and the rights of the individual...I am reminded that the smallest minority is me, a minority of one...If that respect for my position is not reciprocated than I would return the same disrespect to the other...This schoolyard bullying that goes on in these forums is not unusual..Actually, its quite common...go to any forum where politics, and religion, are discussed, and you will find the same BS going on...

  14. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    If we were allowed to buy insurance across state lines wouldn't the competition lower cost?

  15. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    There is the story about the president who told the country that the bill would lower costs without cutting care if they paid hard enough. One doctor tried it  - set up a clinic accepting more patients with the same amount of staff - and of course it didn't work. So he told the president that the bill was wrong - you cannot increase patients and maintain the same level of care and the president said, "You just weren't payin' hard enough."

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I hear this argument from time to time. 'Those' people - and we all know who 'they' are -  shouldn't be allowed to see my doctor.

      Here's reality. In a country of 300 million, we are going to give 30 million access who did not have it. The math is so easy - even a wingnut can do it - an increase of 10%. So if you currently have to wait 2 weeks (10 business days) to get an appointment, after HCR passes, you wil have to wait ONE MORE DAY for a non-emergency visit.

      But of course *those* people will be seeing your doctor.

  16. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    *those* people


    What is that supposed to mean...?

  17. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Public health provision is a moral issue and the best reflection of a modern rich country who take care of their poor.

    Most of the developed and even many developing nations have free health care.
    Ours works very well in Australia.
    Eventually some bill will be passed and then it will probably need to be rebuilt. Get started on it now I reckon.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Health care is a commodity not a right.  But you have your system, let us have ours.  What does it matter to you anyway what we do here?

  18. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Yes-pass it.
    Reminded of when Cheney was interviewed, and the interviewer said, "80% of the American people don't agree with you." His response?... "So?"

    You don't like the healthcare bill?
    So? ahahahha--feels GOOD to be like Cheney!

    Yes, and I can call myself a Patriotic American like he does too.
    And I haven't done HALF the damage he has!

 
working