»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"The Anger of the Festering Fringe"
| The Alley |
|
"The Anger of the Festering Fringe" |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I never got back to flesh out my thoughts on the right-wing fringe element and how dangerous I feel they are. This article explores the issue and its causes. “I've had these thoughts for some time, but have been reluctant to express them. Now so many others have voiced them that it's pointless to remain silent. I am frightened by the climate of insane anti-Obama hatred in this country. I'm not referring to traditional conservatives or Republicans. They're part of the process. I'm speaking of the lunatic fringe, the frothers, the extremist rabble who are sweeping up the ignorant and credulous into a bewildering and fearsome tide of reckless rhetoric.” http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/10/the_anger_of_the_festering_fri.html |
||
| © Copyright 2009 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Hi everyone!  As y'all may have noticed, though I have ended my recent hiatus from Passions In Poetry several months ago, I have barely made a presence in here since then, and though at the time I returned I couldn't quite think of why that was, I now believe I know why, and wanted to share what's on my mind as I think it ties in well with the somber political climate we're in. As most of you are well aware, I've been known to voice my opinions very strongly and forcefully here. That was especially true from the time the War in Iraq began on through about 2007, where I was fiercely critical of our government's foreign policy, as well as the increasing theocratic and neoconservative leanings of the GOP establishment and its departure from its core party roots in particular, among other things. While I do believe I was absolutely justified to protest what I still firmly believe were wrong policies on my part, I also, in retrospect, wasn't proud of how heated my addressing of the issues could be and how that at times allowed ego to get in the way and cause disharmony in the community. I ultimately concluded it was unhealthy to allow this kind of commentary to keep spiraling like this, because I felt I was increasingly losing a spiritual component of my life through this, as much as I do enjoy the company of everyone here and of conversation, so I needed to break away from this forum and reclaim that spiritual touch. And that's what I feel is sorely lacking in our cultural dialogue right now. Rather than constructively focusing on and addressing the broader issues that directly impact our lives in a broad community-minded sense, it's aggressive comments made from the likes of Joe Wilson and Adam Grayson that have overshadowed the conversation and have only intensified the anger and cognitive dissidence on both ends of the spectrum. And while there have always been fringes on both ends, I sense now that they have consumed a considerably broader scope of our national discourse than in much recent memory, and I am saddened by that..........and now that I reflect back on the past six years or so, I realize I fed into that manic maelstrom as well, even while I believe my intentions were always good and I had rational grounds on which to dissent. * I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that this year has been a very transformative year for me on multiple levels, and after having a major emotional breakdown late last year during a historic snowstorm after silently suffering from social alienation, self-possession and compulsive pseudo-prudence, I realized I was spiritually bereft, that I finally was able to observe my inner-thoughts in the stillness of my loneliness and accept that I had been in denial, I had been angry with myself, I had gotten so hard on myself, I had harbored so much regret..........and had relied on the past in identifying myself and had used the future as a crutch in the hope better days were ahead while not taking constructive aims to let the present determine the future............and that I HAD to not merely change, but transform my life...........and so started volunteering intensively through the non-profit agency Hands On Greater Portland, which helped me re-connect with many different communities, then from there started regularly volunteering at local rescue missions like the Union Gospel Mission, the Blanchet House and the Julia West House, the Cherry Blossoms Loaves & Fishes and artistic coalitions like the Zimbabwe Artists Project, among other groups. In effect, I discovered even more social outlets which further helped me integrate into the broader community and keep me more grounded in the present, including spiritual/personal development groups like the dance gathering Ecstatic Alchemy, and from there I've gained a more holistic appreciation of life than I've ever felt, and with that I feel only faint remnants of my past discomforts and feel no baggage within! * For those wondering why I share this anecdote in this particular thread, I guess what I am saying is that, now that I reflect back on my own experience, I realize that I, or anyone for that matter, who lives with feelings of scarcity and absence in their hearts, is capable of one day waking up and finding one's self in a "festering fringe" of sorts. If I was in the same place I was two years ago, I would react here in agreement with Ebert in anger. But while I may disagree with the intentions of at least some of Obama's fiercest detractors, I can't be angry with them all the same..............because I now realize then I would only allow the anger to consume me, and simultaneously I realize many who live driven by unchecked anger and are part of this so-called "festering fringe" are NOT monsters. They are NO LESS human than any of the rest of us and I've also come to realize for the same reason that this notion of a "festering fringe" is illusionary. Perhaps some of those vocal voices, for instance, bear scars to this day from the past that might even be as political as they are personal and thus react to certain parts of our cultural psyche with more ardent emotion than others. And while I would disagree with what it is they're doing, or even the grounds on which they base their opposition, that doesn't make them "wrong" or "insane" or "despicable". They're just trying to find stillness in their own lives, many probably no less frightened than I was for a while leading up to early this year. That said, I hope this will be my last post in this forum............not because of anyone in this forum, nor because I don't enjoy talking with anyone in this forum.............but because I just feel, inevitably, discussions will get heated here.........and I guess I've lost heart in this specific forum because I don't want to feel that way anymore, and I don't want to make others angry all the same. Hope y'all understand, and I offer y'all my kindest regards! XOXO, Lisping Hibiscus "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Another article naming those against Obama as racists.....ho hum. I suppose now that the IOC is made up of racist, too...waiting for Carter and Pelosi to confirm that fact. Stand by... Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler? Who believes a man who attends church more regularly than any president since Carter is an atheist? Perhaps, Jennifer, you can recheck that video you wasted your time watching with the hundreds of signs portraying Bush as Hitler, a monster, a man that must die, etc, etc, etc. Where was Ebert then, or Pelosi, or Rhodes scholar Rachel....or you? No one on the left seemed to have a problem with that. Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler? Apparently people on both sides. It's just that when Democrats do it, it's ok. When the right does it, it's harmful to the country. Such a deal.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Anyone comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler is an idiot of the highest order as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you'll agree Mike. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It is a fallacy to categorize political opinions, ideological differences and honest questions as 'hate' and 'racism'. And anger is not a bad thing. It can be a catalyst for a change in direction, personally and nationally. Without a constructive outlet for that anger, such as freedom of expression, anger could easily fester, with destructive consequences. I think the bottom line is that we have to 'own' our own anger and take responsibility for using it wisely and channeling it productively, as I believe those who have been participating in the Tea Parties and the March on DC have done. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It depends on the political opinions. If a person's political opinion is that a particular race should be rounded up and exterminated in concentration camps I'd say you'd be pretty spot on categorizing that person's opinion as "hateful" and "racist". In such a case no fallacy exists. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's not a political opinion, Grinch, that's racism. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The difference that you either can’t see or aren’t willing to admit, Balladeer, is that the anti-Bush fringe element carried banners and signs whereas members of right-wing hate Obama fringe groups are carrying lethal weapons. Not only have they brought guns and automatic rifles near to where the President was speaking, they’ve also brought them to tea parties and local town halls. There is an undercurrent of lethal violence about to erupt that’s nearly palpable, fueled by the hate speech and rhetoric of those like the anti-Obama Fox talk show hosts. Off for a Rocky Mountain High. Have a good week, take care and be well. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What was the incidence of violence at the left-wing protests compared with the incidence of violence at the right-wing protests, Jennifer, guns or no guns? Carrying a weapon when you are legally allowed to do so, to affirm that right, when those in power are trying to deprive you of that right, is not a crime and not a reason to suspect that an undercurrent of lethal violence is about to erupt. That's just paranoia. Please point me to any incidence of Fox News 'hate speech' against Obama. I haven't seen any. All I've seen are some who disagree with his policies. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/200909230460 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Anyone comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler is an idiot of the highest order as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you'll agree Mike. I agree wholeheartedly. grinch. I'll go further to say that anyone who compares life in America these days to a holocaust shares that same distinction.....like Grayson. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I understand, Jennifer. Calling a president Hitler or carrying signs for him to die is fine as long as you don't have a legally registered firearm in your possession. (how many instances were of that happening, again?) No, what you are saying is that republican extremists are dangerous when doing the same things democrat extremists did which you did not find worthy of criticism at all. We've seen a lot of that lately... Yes, have a Rocky Mountain high. You need it.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Wasn't he comparing the alleged deaths of 44,000 Americans a year who are uninsured to a holocaust? If so it's technically a valid use of a word that describes mass deaths but personally I think the Jewish holocaust was such that the word holocaust should be set aside and be reserved to describe that single heinous act in human history. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The Obsolescence of a Slur Criticisms of Obama are increasingly met by cries of “Racist!” . . . How do we determine the accuracy of the “racism” charges? 1) Is the criticism of Barack Obama unusual by recent presidential standards? . . . 2) Is there a systematic racialist attack on other black politicians and leaders? . . . 3) Is President Obama’s agenda, or Obama himself, the problem? . . . 4) Has the Right recently been more racially conscious in its attacks than has the Left? . . . 5) Is racial polarization more pronounced among whites or among blacks? . . . 6) Are there trends in the general society that suggest a new racial polarization? . . . http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDJmODI5MjdhNDQ4ZjdiZDYxMWFkZTdmMzM3OTk1MjU=&w=MA == . Was the Olympic Committee racist when they handed the Obamas and Chicago their hats in the first round? Seems it was a big upset. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If so it's technically a valid use of a word that describes mass deaths Tell me you are joking, please. hol⋅o⋅caust /ˈhɒləˌkɔst, ˈhoʊlə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-] Show IPA Use holocaust in a Sentence See web results for holocaust See images of holocaust –noun 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire. 2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering. 3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the). 4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life. Please point out whi one applies to Grayson's comment. Are the 44,000 deaths great devastation or destruction, that less than one percent of the population? Are traffic deaths to be referred to a holocaust then? I can understand one or two of our illustrious members saying that in an attempt to give Grayson a free pass, but it's hard to imagine you doing it....and yet there it is. Grayson's use of the word was intentional and used for one comparison only, as you well know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Was the Olympic Committee racist when they handed the Obamas and Chicago their hats in the first round? Seems it was a big upset. No. I wouldn't say that too quickly, grinch. Yes, I agree completely the IOC did not act along racial lines....but don't underestimate our mainstream media and vocal black leaders like Sharpeton and Jackson. In my imagination, I can portray them describing the scenario of the IOC's actions being influenced by the problems Obama is having at home, the resistance to his programs, the plummeting of public opinion that believe in his decisions...all of this, of course, spurred on by evil conservative talk shows who have incited the public against him...and all because of their evil racial prejudice against him. So,in a roundabout way, race will turn out to be the scapegoat excuse, after all. Ya don't think it will work out that way? We'll see soon enough........... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If I were joking Mike I would have put a little smiley face at the end of it. The term holocaust has been used since at least the 10th century in England to describe death on a large scale, while the majority of cases involved genocide the usage was not confined to genocide alone. The word holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering" to a god. Since the late 19th century, "holocaust" has primarily been used to refer to disasters or catastrophes. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word was first used to describe Hitler's treatment of the Jews from as early as 1942, though did not become a standard reference until the 1950s. By the late 1970s, however, the conventional meaning of the word became the Nazi genocide. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1996 holocaust whole burnt offering XIII; complete sacrifice XV; complete destruction XVII. ------------------------------------------------------ It may be that we're experiencing another one of those differences in word usage Mike - Two nations separated by a common language and all that - As I said earlier, out of respect I'd prefer to see the word used exclusively for the massacre of the Jews but I don't get a say in the matter. In English any large incidence of death can be said to be a holocaust. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Personally, I think a good reason for losing the Olympic games was the fact that Michelle and Barack forgot they were not speaking to Americans. Their "It's all about me" tactics didn't fly. Brfore Michell's speech, the audience was treated to a presentation of South Side Girl, her mother narrating her daughter's growing up in Chicago. Then Michelle gave her speech, over half of it talking about her childhood, her father coming down with multiple sclerosis and a variety of personal stories. What did this have to do with Chicago being a good site for the Olympics? Not a darn thing and the IOC recognized that. It would have been a good speech in America, with thousands of supporters cheering, crying, celebrating and suffering with her growing up period....but this was supposed to be a pitch for Chicago, for the Olympics. It didn't fly. Here's the speech. Judge for yourself.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/michelle-obamas-democrati_n_121310.html Wow. Imagine me, presenting a Huffington Post link!! It must have been crushing to Oprah to realize she just might not be as influentual in other parts of the world as she is here. Welcome to reality, Ms. Winfrey... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It may be that we're experiencing another one of those differences in word usage Mike I doubt it, grinch. In your lifetime, how many times have you heard the word holocaust mentioned in any context outside of war? When many die over there due to a soccer match gone berzerk, is it considered a holocaust? When severe weather conditions kill thousands, it is referred to as a holocaust? In what other contexts have you heard the words used over there? All of this "Well, it could mean...." chatter is meaningless. You know how he used it and why he used it. Offering him a pass through these semantics tarnishes the "fair play to all" that you have graciously shown lately. One half of one percent can hardly be called a holocaust by any standard. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
While I'd love to argue the entomology of the word holocaust Mike I don't really see much point. I've already said that I would have preferred it if he'd used an alternative word but I see nothing sinister in using the word he used within the context of mass deaths. Have I seen the word used recently used outside the context of war? Yes. Several times while reading and comparing the arguments for and against abortion. http://www.realtruth.org/articles/152-a.html Do I hear it every day? No, but then again mass death isn't generally an everyday occurrence where I live. You've piqued my curiosity though Mike. What did you think the Grayson meant when he used the word holocaust if he didn't mean mass deaths? BTW, I hadn't noticed any "fair play to all" change recently - are you sure it's not that you're seeing my posts in a different light perhaps? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What did you think the Grayson meant when he used the word holocaust if he didn't mean mass deaths? Simple enough. He wanted to shock, outrage, present mental images of people being slaughtered. He wanted to present Hitler's Germany as a valid comparison to the American government in intentionally massacring their people. He wanted a mental image of Auswich projected into people's minds. His words were not only an insult to the government but to every Jew killed in the real holocaust. No, I won't argue the semantics...believe what you like. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And today Mike -- over 100 people died because we perpetuated, intentionally, a system that doesn't provide health coverage for its' citizens. Tomorrow and the next day will be the same, by your intention. If you aren't for covering them -- you're for not covering them. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Perhaps he did mean that Mike, if so it didn't work for me. It could be that when people talk about the abortion holocaust, the aids holocaust and the haemophilia holocaust they're doing the same thing but all I get is the image of people dying on a large scale. I don't think it's likely that he was trying to insult the government, or the Jews who died in the Holocaust, the idea that your government is somehow consciously trying to exterminate the uninsured is ludicrous in the extreme. Besides if Grayson is levelling that charge at the government he has to include his own and every previous government, Republican and Democrat. Insulting the Jews who died in the holocaust is even less likely to my mind - Grayson is Jewish - which would make him even more sensitive to drawing such parallels. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And today Mike -- over 100 people died because we perpetuated, intentionally, a system that doesn't provide health coverage for its' citizens. What part of the Constitution does that violate, LR? Where exactly is that written? Today, over one hundred people died in car accidents. Is that because the government has not come up with a car that can protect people in accidents? Today, dozens of people were murdered. Is that because the government wasn't able to insure their safety? Nobody is born with a guarantee in their crib, LR. That 44,000 figure....how valid is it? Are you going to contend that, with health insurance, they wouldn't have died? Do you then claim that, in countries who provide health coverage to all, no one dies? I find that unlikely. How many of those 44,000 could aford health insurance but just didn't bother getting it? How many of them died due to total abuse of their bodies? How many had terminal illnesses that even the best health care couldn't save? It's a figure meant to inflame criticize and convince people that only the government can save them. No one denies health care reform is needed. No one denies that there is waste that can be eliminated, streamlining of the system that can be achieved, more control of insurance company prices through competitive pricing, an honest effort at tort reform...there are many ways in which health insurance premiums can be reduced to be more affordable to those who cannot afford it at the present time. The question is.....does that require a government takeover of the health care industry? DO we give a government that has never run any private business successfully without going bankrupt control over health care? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't think it's likely that he was trying to insult the government Well, maybe that's how they offer praise in Missouri. SInce I was born and raised in Missouri, I doubt it. the idea that your government is somehow consciously trying to exterminate the uninsured is ludicrous in the extreme. Exactly, which makes the use of the word ludicrous. Besides if Grayson is levelling that charge at the government he has to include his own and every previous government, Republican and Democrat. But isn't that what all Democrats are doing, including Obama? When they talk about America not providing health insurance, they are speaking of all governments in power up to now. But there's a catch... If you were to bring that point up to him, or any Democrat, you would get the response that Republican administrations did nothing to reform health care. Democratic administrations tried their best but were always thwarted by evil Republican congresses, who shot them down. It's not their fault! Same tired rhetoric, excuses and fingerpointing that has become so predicatble. Grayson is Jewish - which would make him even more sensitive to drawing such parallels. Sensitive? You expect sensitivity from a man who just claimed that Republicans want everyone who gets sick to die quickly? There are Republican Jews, too, believe it or not. He had no problem including them in that accusation. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
United Nation listing of deaths per 1000 (2005 - 2010) United Kingdom 9.9% United States 8.2% Cuba 7.6% Canada 7,2% 2009 List by the CIA World Factbook United Kingdom 10.02% United States 8.38% Canada 7.74% Cuba 7.24% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate What are the major causes of deaths, according the the WHO per 100,000? Cardiovascular diseases 29.34% Infectious and parasitic diseases 19.12% Ischemic heart disease 12.64% Malignant neoplasms (cancers) 12.49% Cerebrovascular disease (Stroke) 9.66% Over 83% of deaths are caused by these five areas. These figures could make one wonder why the UK, who provides treatment to all, has a higher mortality rate than the US, who cold-heartedly lets people die by not giving them health care. I have little doubt reasoning will come out to explain that...... |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: Submitted for your perusal, so you might tell me how this man is either a racist, or a member of the "fringe right" who are carrying guns and spouting hate speech against the President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvlmaWi9t_c&feature=related Then, there is the true liberal press who are reporting the incident... Take the time to read the replies at the bottom... the posts about President Obama carrying are rather interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html (Of course, as a "right winger, I have not my own thoughts and opinions, so I followed Mike's lead and posted something from the Huffington Post!! lol) quote: Then, what happened when the Billery were in power? They had a Democratic majority, and yet, nothing happened? WHat about with the former administration? There was a Democratic majority. and yet, nothing was presented in the health care arena. It seems to only be now, when- again- there is a Democratic majority that the Republicans couldn't stop if they wanted to, that the REPUBLICANS are being accused of blocking health care reform. One more reason that it is impossible to believe any numbers that EITHER side uses in their attempt to sway people to their way of thinking: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: By doing the math from all of these different sources, the percentage of Americans who do not have, and cannot afford health care coverage is between 8% and 14%. This is reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit that is often cited by those pursuing a liberal agenda... and that does not include people such as the Christian Scientists and others who do not believe in human medical intervention. So, my friends, while you are on here, or with your friends, or attepmting to convince a non-caring, poor-hating, self-centered, ego-driven conservative (such as me) to see the error of his ways and to become a more compassionate person, and to have love in his heart for his fellow man, remember that the numbers you might be spouting are so wrong, and subject to debate that it almost makes the argument laughable. Yes, I agree that even 8.2 million people is far too many to be without health care; yes, I agree that even one child who gets sick, and is not permitted to get better is a complete tragedy. I just don't feel that I need to feel sorry for as many as 30 million people who have the means to purchase insurance and choose not to, or to feel that people who are in this country by means other than registering with the US Immigration and Naturalization Service deserve so much as an aspirin tablet for their stubbed toe. To end this rant, I ask a simple request: When I was stationed in Memphis (going to school for the Marine Corps), I was permitted the honor of volunteering at St. Jude's a few times, and was part of a troupe of Marines who went in and acted the fool, and went all Patch Adams on the kids. I have seen the devastation that no insurance does to families, and the money that some of those families lost by packing up and moving to SW Tennessee to be near their kids, or the lost wages from not working as often as they might with healthy children. I also have a friend who- through no fault of her own- has no insurance, and takes her child to the Philadelphia Shriner's Hospital once a month for treatment, and I see the pain and anguish in her eyes every time she talks about it. Instead of sitting on here and complaining about semantics, or yelling about the politicized numbers, or laughing about the opposition and feeling so superior about your "knowledge" of the situation and the foolish people who don't believe as you do, go over to your check book, grab one of the pages out of it, and write a number that is going to make a significant change in your life, yet is not going to adversely affect your finances, and then make it to the order of one of the following organizations: St. Jude's CHildren's Research Hospital The Shriners The Ronald McDonald House These and many others are ignoring the politics and helping the families of sick children in whatever way they can. Make their job a little easier by helping them. Oh, yeah, one last thing... My friend is doing a series of local concerts to raise money for the SHriners Hospital. IF you would like to help, get ahold of me, and I will give you the address to send your check. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, quote: Excellent point. You offer a far better argument when you present clear facts and figures and a bit of common sense than when you're posting all those second hand opinions and links. I must admit it wasn't the line of argument I was expecting though. I thought you were going to point out that the report on uninsured deaths was based on a point in time survey - they asked people if they had insurance and then counted the numbers that died in a given period. What they didn't do was try to find out if those people had insurance at the time they died. If 100% of them didn't have insurance when asked but had it when they died the number of people who died because they didn't have insurance is exactly zero. Oh! The difference in mortality rates? It's probably something to do with the weird and wonderful way they calculate the figure for crude mortality rates which doesn't take into account expected death rate figures as opposed to the standardised mortality rate which does. This might explain it.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_rate It means that if the people in Uzbekistan are more likely to die than those in Kurdistan then the crude mortality rate is expected to be higher in Uzbekistan than in Kurdistan. Incidentally you can use the same argument against Grayson's Harvard report - some people are more likely to die than others, whether they have health insurance or not makes no difference whatsoever. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What does the constitution have to do with it Mike? Other than that preamble thing?  Oh, right -- and that part about us getting to decide what is in the government's purview and what isn't. That whole democracy thing. Keep forgetting about that?Yep it's all about choice. You choose that people who are sick, or injured, and don't have medical coverage and can't afford to pay for it -- die. (or spontaneously heal). That's your choice. quote: Probably not very valid at all Mike. It was conducted by scientists (at Harvard) and, well, we know how Republicans feel about those wacky scientists. (and Massachusetts)  And, yes, that was the point of the study -- not to prove that people with health insurance never die -- but that 45,000 deaths occur because of lack of health insurance specifically.http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/dead/631103.html quote: Refer to the previous answer. quote: Hard to say specifically but about a third of those without health insurance choose not to buy it. And isn't that all the more reason to let them die? quote: None. You see, that's what the study was about -- the number of people who died from preventable causes if they had proper medical attention. quote: My favorite argument in this whole debate is the one where people who are in dire straits are just supposed to turn to a charity for help. Ok. Where is the charity that's going to pay for all of these people to get health coverage? If such a charity exists it sure seems to be lazy. But, you see, as the wealthiest nation on earth we're told we just can't afford to save 45,000 people per year. But, somehow, somewhere, there are people who can afford to give to a charity that could solve this problem. :shrug: But, we can afford a trillion dollars to wade into an unjustified war with a country that didn't attack us. Go figure. It's all about priorities don't you know? quote: Then get out of the way and let us reform it. quote: To be achieved how? quote: This is another one of my favorite arguments. Doctors are performing unnecessary tests because they want to avoid lawsuits. If we assume this is true -- then the medical system (which I am constantly reminded is 1/6th of our economy) must employ massive amounts of unnecessary testing technicians and purchase tons of unnecessary testing equipment just in order to perform all these superfluous tests -- and if that's true -- and tort reform will end this -- then there will be millions of equipment makers and medical technicians unemployed by those meddlesome politicians who want to end Tort! Socialism! Communism! Fascism! I wish you Republicans would stay out of the free market with all your regulations! quote: Name two. quote: Nope. And nobody in the Congress, Senate, or Whitehouse are advocating a government takeover of the health care industry. (But you Republicans and your Tort thingie are sure getting pretty close there.) quote: You know Mike, private business doesn't have a real good history of running business without going bankrupt -- can you think of any that have been around as long as the U.S. Government? (I can -- Harvard College (a component of Harvard University), formally the President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation), is the oldest corporation in the western hemisphere. Founded in 1636, the second of Harvard’s two governing boards was incorporated by the Great and General Court of Massachusetts in 1650. Significantly, Massachusetts itself was a corporate colony at that time – owned and operated by the Massachusetts Bay Company (until it lost its charter in 1684) - so Harvard College is a corporation created by a corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
For that matter, Mike, my dad, who used to teach economics and marketing at the Hotel School at Cornell used to tell me that four out of every five businesses went under in the first five years. Most private businessmen don't do so well at running private businesses either. The post-office was privatized, as I recall, because it was losing money. The Republicans in office at the time said that if only it was taken private, it could be made into a thriving business that would make money. That was done. Now you and I are of an age, Mike, perhaps you remember that differently. If so, please correct me on that. I don't see that privatizing the post office has brought in loads of dough. As for the trains, the other big privatizing experiment, that didn't work either. The problem with both was that the government forgot that both of them were utilities that needed subsidy, the way many governments subsidize them in other countries. They provide useful services. The Post office less so these days when a lot of mail is electronic, of course. But trains are vital the the economy of the nation and to the transport of goods. By refusing to put money into the train and rail system in the country and not expecting to make a profit from it, but to use it as a utility, we shifted our economy to a much heavier dependence on foreign oil. Some of these decisions should me made on the basis of policy and national interest and not purely on the basis of the marketplace, Mike. I won't say that there isn't something to what you say, but the suitability of the sort of thinking one learns for private business is not always the sort of thinking that one needs for public business. BK |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What does the constitution have to do with it Mike? Beats me. Ask the ones who are demanding free health care because it is their right. And, yes, that was the point of the study -- not to prove that people with health insurance never die -- but that 45,000 deaths occur because of lack of health insurance specifically. From the same article.....Not everyone agreed with the new findings, however. In a statement released Thursday, the National Center for Policy Analysis, which opposes nationalized health care, called the Harvard research "flawed." "The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," NCPA President John C. Goodman said. "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death." You are apparently willing to take the Harvard study as gospel (after all, it IS a liberal college with liberal professors) but not everyone does. The devil is always in the details or, in thic case, how they conducted the study and came up with their conclusions. Hard to say specifically but about a third of those without health insurance choose not to buy it. And isn't that all the more reason to let them die? Actually, yes. We all bear our own personal responsibilities and we are all personally responsible for the consequences. If a fellow buys a car, doesn't keep oil in it, same with water, and does no type of maintenance on it at all, when it breaks down, is it ok for him to come to you and demand another one? I realize that personal responsibility is becoming a thing of the past in this country but it's still valid. But, you see, as the wealthiest nation on earth we're told we just can't afford to save 45,000 people per year. Pssst...don't look now, LR, but we are not the wealthiest nation on earth. As a matter of fact we are broke, in debt up to our ears for decades to come, thanks to the fellow who wants to spend billions more that we don't have on a government health care takeover. Then get out of the way and let us reform it. You don't want to reform it. You simply want to take it over. To be achieved how? (regarding waste elimination and competitive insurance) Ask Obama. He claims that a large part of paying for it will be from eliminating waste. Apparently he is not interesting in eliminating it unless the government runs the whole show. As far as competitive insurance, let people shop on a national level for insurance. That will bring prices down immediately. Tc lightshat's the system congress uses. Funny how it works for them but it can't work for us. I can solve the health care issue with one statement to Congress... Give us the same insurance you have and we'll accept it. That's about as fast as you'll see a politician run, to get away from answering that one. then there will be millions of equipment makers and medical technicians unemployed by those meddlesome politicians who want to end Tort! Man, that's weak. Are you saying then it's more important for these people to have jobs that the poor have insurance? How heartless of you! Maybe we should have never switched to electric lighting. Think of all the candle-makers it put out of business!!!Name two... I did. Competitive insurance and tort reform. Nope. And nobody in the Congress, Senate, or Whitehouse are advocating a government takeover of the health care industry. Give my regards to Dorothy and Toto. Their plan is to do nothing less than takeover the system, You know Mike, private business doesn't have a real good history of running business without going bankrupt -- can you think of any that have been around as long as the U.S. Government? Nope....but, then again, I can't think of any who can simply raise taxes and squeeze more money out of the populace when they get in trouble. Harvard is your example? They have survived on grants and donations. You call them a business? You want to see the government successes? The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775—you have had 234 years to get it right—and it broke. # Social Security was established in 1935—you have had 74 years to get it right—and it is going broke. # Fannie Mae was established in 1938—you have had 71 years to get it right—and it is broke. # War on Poverty started in 1964—you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"—and they only want more. # Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965—you have had 44 years to get it right—and they are going broke. # Freddie Mac was established in 1970—you have had 39 years to get it right—and it is broke.. # The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, it has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before—you had 32 years to get it right—and it is an abysmal failure.. ....and now you want to run health care....scary. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You want to look at how well this administration handles business? Check out the autopsy of the Cash for Clunkers program and what a fiasco that turned out to be and how the auto industries are experiencing in September the worst month of auto sales for almost two decades. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/IrwinStelzer/Seven-lessons-of-Cash-for-Clunkers_-failure-8162036.html Those are the people you want running health care?????? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Personally, I think a good reason for losing the Olympic games was the fact that Michelle and Barack forgot they were not speaking to Americans.” I have to agree . . . What parts of their speeches the media made available sounded preachy and patronizing and wholly oblivious to the difference in audience they were speaking to. From a European perspective they were at best naïve if not insulting. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Ok... guess you haven't actually read the preamble to the constitution. But, really -- who is demanding 'free' healthcare? I've missed that somewhere. quote:  That's a great scientific body to dispute Harvard isn't it? Just another Heritage Foundation/Conservative (non)think-tank. Hey -- I think I'll start my own think tank -- I just need a few corporate sponsors to funnel some marketing money, um, I mean grant money -- so that I can help them sell their products....  (BTW -- one of the hallmarks of unbiased journalism is they try to give two sides to the story no matter how lopsided the evidence is from the weak side --  to AJC.)quote: No, personal responsibility is not a thing of the past -- but what you still fail to recognize is that it's possible to do everything right -- even buy health insurance -- and wind up on the outside looking in. A person's cancer treatments can be denied because they forgot to put on their insurance application that they had acne when they were a teen, for example. 70% of those who go bankrupt due to medical bills actually had insurance Mike -- but they still can't keep their businesses, their homes, their cars -- or their jobs. quote: I always knew you were funny Mike -- but this is really good material. Let's completely forget about Reaganomics, Bush I, and Jr. edition -- and the balancing act done by your favorite former president from Arkansas. Now really Mike -- who bankrupted our government? It just happened in the last 9 months? Really? Before that we were flush? But I'm dodging the real point, just because you're funny Mike. American isn't bankrupt. The government is. Take a look at where all the money in the world is. (Haliburton) But it's nice of you to point out that our government has to borrow money from Communist China because we're too bashful to ask for it from our rich insurance company executives. quote: Booyah! Would I ever! Unfortunately nobody in Washington is talking about anything close to that though. quote: The southeast would still be lighting candles Mike if FDR hadn't created the TVA and other Federal Electrical cooperative groups to wire it up. Tort reform is only going to get you 1 to 2 percent at the most. Let's remember here -- one of the problems we have in the system is that health insurance companies are denying things like 'superfluous' tests (and treatments) prescribed by doctors. You know -- those insurance company bureaucrats that are standing between us and our doctors. quote: If you're trying to suggest that the Federal Government start regulating the insurance companies and actually applying the Sherman Anti-Trust laws to the insurance companies then I agree with you that would be a start. If you're suggesting that the health insurance industry is going to magically start dropping rates because people can shop across state lines though you're dreaming. Do you really think that BCBS in Illinois is going to underbid BCBS Alabama? quote: No, I'm asking you. I know what the President has to say -- you hint there are alternatives to his prescription. So, Doctor Mike -- do tell! quote: Show me. They can't even get a public option out of the Finance Committee. Show me the takeover. Show me the 'takeover'. Even if there was a single payer system being proposed -- that's not a 'takeover' -- that's just medicare for everybody. quote: Exactly -- they have survived while 'for profit' enterprise continues to crash and burn. That's the example I want you to see Mike. quote: Because it has a mandate Mike -- to service unprofitable routes. FedEx and UPS don't have that mandate. But I haven't seen the USPS trucks being repo'd either. quote: The SSA was flush with surplus until your boy Ronnie raided the lockbox and forgot to pay the money back. Ever since the money has simply been on budget. Oh-well.... so much for Reaganomics. quote: Private company Mike. quote: A war with who as commander in chief? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush. Nuff Said. quote: Stellar examples of government gone right! You see, Medicare and Medicaid only take the patients that private insurance companies don't want (the old and the sick and the poor) and still operate at only 6% overhead -- Doctors everywhere clamor to get Medicare patients too. quote: Private company. quote: You do realize that this is a Department of the Executive Branch. Run by Reagan, Bush, Bush for 20 of the last 32 years... as well as FEMA was run. Remember Ronnie's first act as President? He took down the solar panels Jimmy had installed on the White House. You think these guys WANTED to reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil? You should look to sources besides Beck and Rush. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, no hair on the heads of either Rush, Hannity or Beck were touched in my reply to you. I'll answer you later. I don't want to put you through pain responding because I know your finger must be sore from so much finger-pointing. Hope it feels better soon..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I have had one finger pointing towards outer space a lot -- but I do have a bit of trouble with the stitches on my posterior -- having laughed it off.. Glad to know Rush's follicles in-particular are safe -- he doesn't have the healthiest crop up there, nor a lot of hair either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
While you are recuperating, I'll give you a link or two.. "But, really -- who is demanding 'free' healthcare? I've missed that somewhere." We demand an end to the lack of adequate health care in our community and we demand free health care for the descendants of slaves in this nation. http://www.millionsmoremovement.com/about.htm We demand free health care for all, cradle to grave. http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/oh/state/vote/fitzsimmons_m/questions.html Those links, plus more....plus the hundreds of signs protesters have carried in parades on tv are a few of those things you must have missed somewhere.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I can summarize your last post to one sentence.. "Everything wrong has been done by Republican presidents, from Reagan down." You could have just said that and saved a lot of typing. Fingerpoint Lane needs to be repaved soon. It's been getting a lot of traffic lately |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Those silly people who think they are going to get 'free' healthcare from the government are in for a rude awakening. One of the proposals calls for personal expenditures of $5500 (combination of premiums and co-pays) before being eligible to receive a government subsidy. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You are the person who offered up the examples that LR was able to demolish so easily. You were not very nice about it either. Why is what he is doing finger pointing and what you are doing is ... what? ... innocent speculation that just happens to be accusatory without proper substance? Please! As for your comments about Harvard, they are insulting and wrong. One of the reasons they are wrong is that Harvard doesn't care whether it is left wing or right wing. It really doesn't feel it needs to please almost anybody. It is aware it is the 800 pound gorilla in American higher education. It can give a Ph.D. to somebody who hasn't graduated High School if it wants, and it has, so the man could teach at Harvard. It doesn't care if a man is of the left or of the right. If he has something they think is interesting and particular, they want him at Harvard and they will often get him. And that includes in the JFK School of Government. You may have to deal with a fair number of Liberal students, but you should prepare yourself for a shock, Mike, the more educated people get, by and large the more Liberal they turn out to be. That may be simply the price of having to deal with a fair number of curious and bright people. This doesn't mean that conservatives aren't smart. It means that there are fewer educated conservatives. I'm sure that you'd like to include, say, Henry Kissinger on your list of flaming radicals. Half the high end business community and legal corporate law community has come from there. Where do you think all those donations come from? As for research, it stands or falls on the basis of its methodology. I haven't seen the study, and I won't pretend to weigh in on it one way or the other, but if you're suggesting that the folks at the School of Public Health or the Med school or just about anybody there faking his stats, I'd be prepared to bring some actual information to the table. And if you think that they're about to fake data for political purposes, I think you'd better prove it or withdraw the claim. I took an Ed.M. at the Ed School there, and the statistics were very solid. There were courses well beyond the intro course that I barely got through, and if you were doing doctoral work, you were able to consult with some of the best minds around. They were interested in getting the data right, not in proving some liberal versus conservative contest. Liberals weren't the only folks going through there. And there were faculty shared with the business school as well. They were a clear thinking bunch. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It means that there are fewer educated conservatives. Bob, you are one of a kind... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
the more educated people get, by and large the more Liberal they turn out to be Undoubtedly, you have facts to back that up, being the man that always wants comments like that backed up with something factual. If examples of your "educated liberals" are people like Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid and Frank, I would prefer to wallow in my ignorance, thank you. I really have no idea where you are coming from. I checked back to see what I said about Harvard and it consisted of one sentence.... Harvard is your example? They have survived on grants and donations. THAT is the comment that you choose to call insulting and wrong???? If you would spend less time telling me you like me and more time not being insulting or accusatory, it would be more believable. As it stands, you appear to look for any excuse at all to say something derrogatory. Please point out the insult you choose to chastize me for....or else, take a break. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Now how on earth could I have missed something as obscure as the 'Millions More Movement'? Let's see what they have to say; quote: Now... they aren't saying that health care is a basic human right (although if they were I would agree with them). They're saying they're entitled to health care as quid pro quo. Not unlike, say, a veteran saying he or she has earned health benefits. Of course, on this issue I would not agree. Just to say that health care is a human right though as outlined by the preamble to the Constitution; quote: that doesn't mean that it is 'free' anymore than that the 'common defense' is 'free'. Everyone has to pay for it -- based upon ability. Then of course there are the answers to questions posed by the League of Women voters of Ohio to write-in candidate Michael Joseph Fitzsimmons... yeah... um... :shrug: don't know what to tell you about that Mike but it seems like you had to search deep for that one. It would seem that you're illustrating that America does have a true 'left' and that the Democrats aren't it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Now... they aren't saying that health care is a basic human right (although if they were I would agree with them). Then you would both be wrong. It's a basic human need but not a right. I read the preamble and still did not find health care listed there. Is it hidden somewhere? "From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need". I've seen that phrase before. Right, Ron? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There you go again Mike. Let's try this bit of socialism. We have a tax system -- where people who use roads pay fuel taxes, people who earn income pay taxes (and secretaries pay more than Warren Buffet) but we all get the same Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Now -- if Florida is being attacked do we tell them -- sorry -- you only get as many military personnel as you provide to the government to defend yourselves. Same thing for equipment and roads-- only tax dollars that come from Florida can be used to defend Florida? Or do we say that all of the resources available to the United States Government go to defend where the greatest need is for defense? Same thing with other tax dollars -- and this is the funniest one in the book -- the red states -- you know the ones that are crying about socialism and communism -- they get more Federal dollars back than they put in -- in other words -- there is a giant sucking sound in this country from the blue states to the red states and all we get is complaints about socialism. Totally unbelievable. Now -- how do we ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare? Print posters? What does that mean Mike? Is your health part of your tranquility and welfare? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The text in "bold" is my emphasis. My reaction is to the text I have designated in Bold above. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Is your health part of your tranquility and welfare? Sure it is...so is my car and my big-screen tv. My job is certainly part of both. Will the government provide me with a job, if my unemployment runs out? THAT'S you reference to the preamble? and you call ME stretching..??? As far as the blue state-red state misconception, I assume you are going to provide links to back up those assertions? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you irritation, then, is that I called Harvard a liberal college with liberal professors? Well, according to you, since liberals tend to be much smarter than conservatives, you should take that as a compliment. Let's take a little peek at the last couple of people who have run this sterling college... Lawrence Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty that resulted in part from Summers' conflict with Cornel West as well as a 2005 speech in which he suggested that women's under-representation in the top levels of academia is due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end." Summers has also been criticized by some liberals for the centrist economic policies he advocated as Treasury Secretary and in later writings.[2] Since returning to government in the Obama administration, he has come under fire for his numerous financial ties to Wall Street. Lawrence Henry Summers (born November 30, 1954) is an American economist and the Director of the White House's National Economic Council for President Barack Obama. So then Drew Faust takes over... In the wake of a series of layoffs in June 2009, Faust drew criticism for her refusal to accept a modest paycut in an effort to save jobs. In the months preceding the layoffs, various campus groups called upon Faust and other administrators to reduce their salaries as a means of cutting costs campus-wide.[13] The Boston Globe reports that Faust made $775,043 in the 2007-2008 school year.[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Gilpin_Faust Yep, I would say that's about as liberal as you can get, from Summers getting kicked out and now an Obama right-hand man to Faust, refusing to take a modest cut from her 3/4+ million dollar salary to help save jobs. Seems like my observation was pretty right on to me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What? YOU? Want a link? The man who has conniptions when I post links? Ok... sure: http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:ZmW9zKfxY8QJ:psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF+red+states+get+more+federal+money+than+they+pay+in&hl=e n&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNGh3EBUKLf3WHX6z3yt1IfHPN3nlA Start with that one. Then this one: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/what_came_to_and_left_your_state_in_2005#table4 Nope. Your TV set doesn't have a thing to do with domestic tranquility or the general welfare Mike. The domestic tranquility part -- that was put in there in direct response to the Shay's rebellion. This was a rebellion by veterans of the Revolutionary War that thought they went to war so that they didn't have to pay taxes. (this is what Glenn Beck thinks when he tries to channel Thomas Paine -- who actually invented social security and universal health care). But, when the framers of the Constitution met they wanted to make sure that the Federal Government had the power to put down such rebellions and put the stupid notion to rest that there weren't going to be any taxes -- that we fought a war so that we didn't have to pay taxes to pay for king's castles and foreign wars -- and could instead use the money to provide for our general welfare -- and that is that which edifies our nation -- be it education, commerce, healthcare, or whatever our generation decides is necessary. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Your logic is running even better than usual, Mike. By that reasoning, we have a "Democratic" president, therefore I can safely characterize you as a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party. After all, if the head of the institution is, then everybody must be, just like your thinking with Harvard. I am a Liberal and happy with it. I like my institutions of higher learning to be objective. Harvard has pockets of Liberalism, like the English Department, and pockets of Conservatism, like the B-School, last I heard, and parts that are mixed, like the law school which has people who will take strong positions on one or the other side. The people who do science are proud of being objective and following the data, and they do a very good job of it. Data is data. It may be put to political uses, like the atom bomb, but the science is simply data. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
use the money to provide for our general welfare -- and that is that which edifies our nation -- be it education, commerce, healthcare, or whatever our generation decides is necessary. So that is what you claim makes health care our national right? Because of our general welfare? Nice try....not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What? YOU? Want a link? The man who has conniptions when I post links? LOL...another misconception, cleverly put. My conniptions came when you posted ONLY links with no personal input on your part....but you know that. Thanks for the links. They are very interesting. I'm not positive what point you are proving, however. (which is to be expected, since Bob has pointed out that conservatives tend to be less educated than liberals). What I see is the states with less population and lower tax bases wind up receiving more tax dollars per person from the government. Interestingly, those states with the lower taxes are overwhelmingly Republican. That should be tellingly enough. Those with higher taxes and populations are predominantly Democrats. That gives one the explanation that, when Democrats are in office, taxes go up. On the flip side, those with the higher populations get more electoral votes, which is normally the only way Democrats ever see the Oval Office. If each state got the same number of electoral votes, we would not have seen a Democratic president for decades, if ever. By all means, cut down federal spending to conservative states and then see how much food winds up on your dinner table |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
