This is what change looks like

[onmyknees]

It was shortly after the passing of the Affordable Health Care Act that Obama took to the podium and uttered these now (in) famous words...."This is What Change Looks Like" . Liberal pundits fist pumped about 40 years of political domination. Nancy Pelosi had a smile that lasted for weeks. Joe Biden called it a "Big Fucking Deal". Americans looked back at that changed and didn't like what they saw. Since Obama made that declaration a mere 2 1/2 years ago, here's how Americans have responded to his version of change.

. Lost Ted Kennedy's seat that had been held by liberals since the days of JFK to a guy driving around the bluest State in the country in a pick up truck.

. Turned a 262-178 Veto proof Democratic advantage in the House to a 242-193 majority to Republicans in a mid term election of historic proportions, preventing any additional democratic legislation from being passed.

. Turned a 60 seat veto proof majority in the Senate to tenuous 53-47 majority with Democrats unable to pass any legislation. .

. . Turned a majority of the Democratic Governorships to a resounding 29-20 Republican Majority including key swing States like NJ, Ohio, Florida, PA

. Turned a dozen State Legislatures over to Republican control during the all important congressional redistricting year.

. Lost the Governorship in Wisconsin, petitioned for recall, and lost it again dealing a severe body blow to the key democratic constituency of public sector unions unlike any event since PATCO.

. Defeated Jon Corzine in NJ. A key Obama supporter, fund raiser, and financial advisor.

. Eroded public support for key liberal issues like abortion, Obama Care and same sex marriage.


I dare say the Gipper himself could not have pulled a turn around of this magnitude. We engage in lots of opinions on here...BUT These are facts...not disputable. So when you feel compelled to call me a racist, or a hater, or a loser or any number of pejoratives you've laid on me....I'll know it's because you're keenly aware of these facts now and prefer not to deal with them. And if you weren't aware of these facts, why you'd just be ignorant.

[Stavros]

But what are the stories behind your 'facts'? Are you saying there are no local issues in Wisconsin, New Jersey or any other state that has more to do with an election result than the President's ratings? Are you registering surprise that the people vote one way for a President in one year and then vote another some years later? I seem to recall President Clinton lost the House to some bloke touting a book of recipes for unemployment which he called A Contract With America?

How did that Contract work out for ya? And where's the Dude who presented it?

[trish]

What is not a fact but an ASSUMPTION is that the above are responses to and only responses to the Affordable Health Care Act. You do your party a disservice by implying the electorate responded to nothing else the Dems did...lol.

Ask anyone who has a kid in college how they feel about being allowed to continue to cover that child. Ask anyone witl a pre-existing condition how they like the health care act. Ask the million newly covered people how they like the health care act. Then ask the idiots who don't believe in government sponsored programs why they're carrying signs that say "get your government hands off my Medicare". LOL.

By the way, how do you like the way he took out Osama? Pretty smooth, eh?

[Gouki]

the healthcare in the US could be so much better if a true free market were allowed which would free up all the allopathic, homeopathic, alternative and integrative forms of medicine to be used, but unfortunately the AMA and FDA have clamped down and have suppressed many of these types of healers, it is a tragedy to say the least

[trish]

the healthcare in the US could be so much better if a true free market were allowed which would free up all the allopathic, homeopathic, alternative and integrative forms of medicine to be used,...
You mean all that worthless shit that doesn't work and diverts people from getting real care.

[Gouki]

You mean all that worthless shit that doesn't work and diverts people from getting real care.


no I mean health care that works, for example there are many alternative cancer treatments that work and don't involve chemo but unfortunately these alternative treatments are not allowed to be practiced in the US due to the medical boards putting a leash on the doctors, many of whom have fled to other countries in South America and Asia where they are free to help people heal, this is a sad truth unfortunately

[Silcc69]

What is not a fact but an ASSUMPTION is that the above are responses to and only responses to the Affordable Health Care Act. You do your party a disservice by implying the electorate responded to nothing else the Dems did...lol.

Ask anyone who has a kid in college how they feel about being allowed to continue to cover that child. Ask anyone witl a pre-existing condition how they like the health care act. Ask the million newly covered people how they like the health care act. Then ask the idiots who don't believe in government sponsored programs why they're carrying signs that say "get your government hands off my Medicare". LOL.

By the way, how do you like the way he took out Osama? Pretty smooth, eh?

+1 and 1

[Gouki]

a good documentary that demonstrates this is Monopoly Medicine

[Stavros]

the healthcare in the US could be so much better if a true free market were allowed which would free up all the allopathic, homeopathic, alternative and integrative forms of medicine to be used, but unfortunately the AMA and FDA have clamped down and have suppressed many of these types of healers, it is a tragedy to say the least

What you or I would call 'conventional medicine' IS allopathic -the term means conventional medicine and was coined as a negative description by the homeopathic witch-doctor Samuel Hahnemann in the 19th century. A free market in health care, taken literally, would deplete the population of the USA, that's true, but do you really want to see people dying on the streets of your town? Suppose they refuse to die but just lie there vomiting, defecating, and generally making life unpleasant? On your argument, you could argue that if someone wants to smoke tobacco they should pay for the medical consequences, and so on. Nothing in life is free, except the air and the light of the sun. Hence the invention of taxes. And I thought you thought you lived in a 'Nation'! Presumably the phrase My Fellow Americans has no meaning?

[martin48]

no I mean health care that works, for example there are many alternative cancer treatments that work and don't involve chemo but unfortunately these alternative treatments are not allowed to be practiced in the US due to the medical boards putting a leash on the doctors, many of whom have fled to other countries in South America and Asia where they are free to help people heal, this is a sad truth unfortunately

There are basically only two ways to treat cancer (once present) - chemo and radiotherapy. Chemo is the more expensive and has less positive outcomes for many cancers. Radiation therapy is generally the most effective (measured in survival tates after 5 years). There is NO hard evidence that changing diets, having needles stuck in your feet, rubbing magic crystals on you, etc, etc have any effect. Sorry

[broncofan]

I agree with all of the responses to homeopathic medicine, as well as rebuttals of the view that the free market should be allowed to dictate who gets care and who doesn't.

The PPAPA was politically unpopular but necessary. Besides, the entire point of the insurance industry is to have low risk people subsidize high risk people with profit-seeking companies running the parlor game. As Stavros says, it is unfair already for those who are insured to pay higher premiums because others take on more risk in their lives. Economists would say the answer to this is better information, but for a variety of reasons, premiums are always going to be averages with one subgroup subsidizing another. A system of universal coverage, backed by our tax dollars just makes the system all-inclusive.

Insurance in healthcare is not made more efficient by better information like it is in other industries. If we get better information about what genetic disorders predispose people to serious illnesses, we end up with more people who will not get covered, or who will be uninsurable at any price. This leaves them exposed to the vagaries of their condition and the cost is eventually borne by everyone anyway.

We've gone way beyond being able to pretend that we'll let people die of curable illnesses or be driven into bankruptcy.

The Republicans wanted to bury their heads in the sand and pretend like there wasn't a problem. It takes compassion to choose to deal with such a crisis. It's no wonder the Republicans did everything they could to obstruct the PPAPA and pretend like it was the predecessor to a series of Marxist policies.

[fastingforlife]

Well I was happy to see the crook, Corzine get ousted. He was just as bad as his predecessor James "I am a gay-american" Mcgreevy. Two democrat chumps.

[trish]

The adjective is "democratic" you ignorant chump. :)

[fastingforlife]

The adjective is "democratic" you ignorant chump. :)

Actually, democrat or democratic are acceptable. So, your defense of corzine and mcgreevy is to attack my grammar? Nice.

[BluegrassCat]

Actually, democrat or democratic are acceptable.

"Democrat" is only acceptable as an adjective if you're a Republican partisan hack.

[Stavros]

The NHS in the UK isn't perfect, it has flaws, there are too many managers, admin costs are too high and central government has been interfering in the mechanics of the NHS for too long and too often; and things like hip replacements, cancer treatment vary from one part of the country to another. The mortality rate in some hospitals is freakishly higher than in others; we continue to have private health clinics for queue jumpers.

But I don't mind subsidising people's cancer because they smoked all their lives - they are paying the heaviest cost -and the research into cancer has knock-on effects elsewhere in medicine that I may benefit from without knowing; part of my tax is used in the therapy that convicted murderes, rapists and paeophiles submit to when incarcerated; and my tax pays for the accident and emergency departments on a regular basis to do what they can to save the life and limb of some 18 year old cretin who thinks driving a car at 100 (drunk or sober) at 2am in the middle of a town is safe and obviously a lot fun...now that I have passed 60 I get all my prescription medicine free of charge; the benefits outweigh the costs.

[broncofan]

Actually, democrat or democratic are acceptable. So, your defense of corzine and mcgreevy is to attack my grammar? Nice.
I believe it would be, democrat or democratic IS acceptable. Afterall, you are saying either.... or ..... is acceptable. But back to what you were saying:). Look, if we get into Republicans who have shown more spinelessness than McGreevey did, then we have a long list ahead of us.

BTW, I am just joking in correcting your grammar. Not about the grammatical point, as I think you were wrong, but anyhow you get the picture. It's tough being one of the only Republicans in a tranny forum. It reminds me of those lonely Christmas' being the only Jew on my block. How I pined for a young Christian girl to light my menorah. Uhhhh nevermind.

[broncofan]

The NHS in the UK isn't perfect, it has flaws, there are too many managers, admin costs are too high and central government has been interfering in the mechanics of the NHS for too long and too often; and things like hip replacements, cancer treatment vary from one part of the country to another. The mortality rate in some hospitals is freakishly higher than in others; we continue to have private health clinics for queue jumpers.

But I don't mind subsidising people's cancer because they smoked all their lives - they are paying the heaviest cost -and the research into cancer has knock-on effects elsewhere in medicine that I may benefit from without knowing; part of my tax is used in the therapy that convicted murderes, rapists and paeophiles submit to when incarcerated; and my tax pays for the accident and emergency departments on a regular basis to do what they can to save the life and limb of some 18 year old cretin who thinks driving a car at 100 (drunk or sober) at 2am in the middle of a town is safe and obviously a lot fun...now that I have passed 60 I get all my prescription medicine free of charge; the benefits outweigh the costs.
Interesting. But you know when people sign up for insurance here they are oblivious to all of the internalized and externalized costs. If you're in between insurance and you end up with a severe condition, who will take you on? If you are the victim in a car accident and the other guy has no car insurance, who covers your costs if you don't have health insurance? If I had to guess, the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the costs because when everything gets covered, you have to at least acknowledge all of the factors that go into the cost of health care. It's at least honest, even if to do it you have to acknowledge what a mess it all is to even approach.

A lot of people don't know that the PPAPA also had a lot of other provisions meant to fix the broken healthcare system. I only read about one of them, but it was discovered upon inspection that most of our hospitals had basic equipment that wasn't accessible to most people with disabilities. It's a long piece of legislation and there are a lot of provisions in it to bring our healthcare institutions into compliance with federal mandates.

What people don't know is that healthcare as it is is already rationed. States have to make decisions about who gets life-saving treatments whether it's explicit or not. To do this they take into account such factors as life-expectancy, current age, risk factors. These decisions get made on a daily basis anyhow and there's never going to be a public auction for this sort of thing in a civilized country. But you don't make the decisions anymore pleasant by just pretending that they're not being made.

[fastingforlife]

"Democrat" is only acceptable as an adjective if you're a Republican partisan hack.

I prefer saying democrat over democratic, as I do not want to mask the "rat" sound, which is particularly apt for the breed of liberal scum that this party attracts.

[Prospero]

Would be interested if Fastingforlife would elucidate a little more on what qualities make members of the Democratic Part "liberal scum." Please enlighten us as to exactly what things they do that place them so low in your estimation.

[fastingforlife]

Would be interested if Fastingforlife would elucidate a little more on what qualities make members of the Democratic Part "liberal scum." Please enlighten us as to exactly what things they do that place them so low in your estimation.

Their appointment of liberal judges, to all levels of the judiciary system may have the most far-reaching and damaging affect on society as a whole.

[trish]

Both Clinton and Obama appointed very few judges in comparison to repub presidents since and including Ragean. The system could do with some more liberal judges to counter the far- reaching damage caused by repub judges. Now if you think that sound like bullshit and that I made no real point and backed it with no real reason, then compare this post with yours. Now try again to answer Prosperos question.

[Stavros]

My recollection of American studies is that on more than one occasion conservative Presidents nominating conservative judges then found voting 'the wrong way' as happened with Nixon/Rehnquist, and Reagan/O'Connor, on some if not all issues, and I believe liberals have had the same problem -which suggests that when push comes to shove, the Supreme Court is more likely to make a decision based on the law and the constitution than on the political bias of the judge -or rather, that if indeed this is how the vote is cast, this is bad law-making.

[fastingforlife]

Both Clinton and Obama appointed very few judges in comparison to repub presidents since and including Ragean. The system could do with some more liberal judges to counter the far- reaching damage caused by repub judges. Now if you think that sound like bullshit and that I made no real point and backed it with no real reason, then compare this post with yours. Now try again to answer Prosperos question.

As a primer, review the "mount laurel doctrine" in NJ. This is one of the finest moments in liberal judicial history.

[Stavros]

Interesting. But you know when people sign up for insurance here they are oblivious to all of the internalized and externalized costs. If you're in between insurance and you end up with a severe condition, who will take you on? If you are the victim in a car accident and the other guy has no car insurance, who covers your costs if you don't have health insurance? If I had to guess, the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the costs because when everything gets covered, you have to at least acknowledge all of the factors that go into the cost of health care. It's at least honest, even if to do it you have to acknowledge what a mess it all is to even approach.

A lot of people don't know that the PPAPA also had a lot of other provisions meant to fix the broken healthcare system. I only read about one of them, but it was discovered upon inspection that most of our hospitals had basic equipment that wasn't accessible to most people with disabilities. It's a long piece of legislation and there are a lot of provisions in it to bring our healthcare institutions into compliance with federal mandates.

What people don't know is that healthcare as it is is already rationed. States have to make decisions about who gets life-saving treatments whether it's explicit or not. To do this they take into account such factors as life-expectancy, current age, risk factors. These decisions get made on a daily basis anyhow and there's never going to be a public auction for this sort of thing in a civilized country. But you don't make the decisions anymore pleasant by just pretending that they're not being made.

The founding slogan of the NHS was From Cradle to Grave, a comprehensive range of health care free at the time of use. The first charges that were levied were prescription charges, and they were introduced because the UK government needed to find money to fund its contribrution to the Korean War in 1950. Over many years dental treatment has become the most controversial area, theoretically free at one time, patients are now expected to meet the costs of basic treatment which dentists say is lower than the costs of materials. Nevertheless, isolated examples aside, we have a relatively comprehensive system so you are covered even if the idiot who crashed into your car has no insurance. I understand why health care has been such a difficult issue in the USA, but I can't understand why you have over many years made such a bureaucratic labyrinth of the systems you do have. Maybe being 50 states in a union is the problem; but I sense a lack of collective moral responsibility.

[fastingforlife]

My recollection of American studies is that on more than one occasion conservative Presidents nominating conservative judges then found voting 'the wrong way' as happened with Nixon/Rehnquist, and Reagan/O'Connor, on some if not all issues, and I believe liberals have had the same problem -which suggests that when push comes to shove, the Supreme Court is more likely to make a decision based on the law and the constitution than on the political bias of the judge -or rather, that if indeed this is how the vote is cast, this is bad law-making.

Only a very few cases ever reach the supremes. You need to look at the lower courts, that is where the majority of the damage occurs.

[fastingforlife]

I prefer saying democrat over democratic, as I do not want to mask the "rat" sound, which is particularly apt for the breed of liberal scum that this party attracts.

man, i didn't get even as much as a chuckle out of the peanut gallery......very tough crowd.

[fastingforlife]

Would be interested if Fastingforlife would elucidate a little more on what qualities make members of the Democratic Part "liberal scum." Please enlighten us as to exactly what things they do that place them so low in your estimation.

lincoln chafee, gov. of rhode island, embodies all the qualities of political correctness that i despise. last xmas, he referred to the state's christmas tree as a holiday tree, because he wanted to show a spirit of inclusiveness. bastardizing traditions, as opposed to educating diverse groups on diverse traditions, was his way of encouraging acceptance. acceptance by whom?

after seeing, literally thousands of small and large acts of liberalism over my lifetime, all i can say is....enough already.

[Prospero]

Enough already indeed. Yep - sounds like an excellent reason for topping yourself fastingforlife... how totally awful and disgusting - a governor who decides to be inclusive over Christmas trees.

On the subject of courts there is - of course - that decision by the Supreme Court which stole the election from the Democratic Party three election ago.

Those damn liberals with their fight for civil rights is another thing you probably loath. Oh and opposition to the Vietnam war... and Bush's invasion of Iraq. Should have sent more young Americans to die senslessly in the jungles and the deserts. Now that's Conservatism at its finest.

[BluegrassCat]

My recollection of American studies is that on more than one occasion conservative Presidents nominating conservative judges then found voting 'the wrong way' as happened with Nixon/Rehnquist, and Reagan/O'Connor, on some if not all issues, and I believe liberals have had the same problem -which suggests that when push comes to shove, the Supreme Court is more likely to make a decision based on the law and the constitution than on the political bias of the judge -or rather, that if indeed this is how the vote is cast, this is bad law-making.

Although there are examples of SCOTUS justices voting against the ideology of their nominating president, these are exceptions to the rule. Party is the single best predictor of vote outcome.

[trish]

i despise. last xmas, he referred to the state's christmas tree as a holiday treeReally you despise that?? You despise St. Nick's Day, Hannukkah, New Years Day and all the other yuletide holidays that orbit the winter solstice?? You want the yule all to yourself?? Awe, I'm sorry you're that nothing special, that you feel included rather than exclusive. Get used to it.

[martin48]

You tell 'em, Trish, Christmas Trees for all.

Find it hard to get so fucked up over such things. Just tell 'em to stick the tree right the fairy's arse. Sorry, can't use the word "fairy" - might offend some minority group :)

[fastingforlife]

Enough already indeed. Yep - sounds like an excellent reason for topping yourself fastingforlife... how totally awful and disgusting - a governor who decides to be inclusive over Christmas trees.

On the subject of courts there is - of course - that decision by the Supreme Court which stole the election from the Democratic Party three election ago.

Those damn liberals with their fight for civil rights is another thing you probably loath. Oh and opposition to the Vietnam war... and Bush's invasion of Iraq. Should have sent more young Americans to die senslessly in the jungles and the deserts. Now that's Conservatism at its finest.

Making up a name for a holiday or changing the name of symbols so people will not be offended is not a logical approach.

Al Gore made the decision to only do recounts in democrat counties, instead of doing an entire state recount. The election was lost as soon as he gave in to his base instincts, rather than pursue something that was fair.

As for acts of war, since i am not a veteran, and i have never served servd my country, i have forfeited the right to comment, and lend voice to any opinion from either side.

[fastingforlife]

Really you despise that?? You despise St. Nick's Day, Hannukkah, New Years Day and all the other yuletide holidays that orbit the winter solstice?? You want the yule all to yourself?? Awe, I'm sorry you're that nothing special, that you feel included rather than exclusive. Get used to it.

You have chosen to miss my point, in its entirety.

[fastingforlife]

You tell 'em, Trish, Christmas Trees for all.

Find it hard to get so fucked up over such things. Just tell 'em to stick the tree right the fairy's arse. Sorry, can't use the word "fairy" - might offend some minority group :)

There are large, and small liberal sins committed daily. Refusing to refer to a christmas tree, as a christmas tree...per Lincoln Chafee, is offered as a way to understand the perverse thinking resident in the liberal mind. I guess Trish supports such nonsense.

[trish]

No, you've chosen to deny the true meaning of Christmas. :(
Now look up Yule and see who is actually being co-opted.

[fastingforlife]

Enough already indeed. Yep - sounds like an excellent reason for topping yourself fastingforlife... how totally awful and disgusting - a governor who decides to be inclusive over Christmas trees.

On the subject of courts there is - of course - that decision by the Supreme Court which stole the election from the Democratic Party three election ago.

Those damn liberals with their fight for civil rights is another thing you probably loath. Oh and opposition to the Vietnam war... and Bush's invasion of Iraq. Should have sent more young Americans to die senslessly in the jungles and the deserts. Now that's Conservatism at its finest.

Don't assume that because i am not fond of liberals i automatically like repubs. I view Bush as a liberal when it came to manging our fiscal health. I was against "no child left behind"and the medicare drug program. I was against all of his "recommended" social security reforms.

I will not comment about war, but i believe all of our 700+ military bases should be closed, including Guantanamo. In fact, i would ask cuba to oversee the terrorists as part of the exit strategy.

[Gouki]

What you or I would call 'conventional medicine' IS allopathic -the term means conventional medicine and was coined as a negative description by the homeopathic witch-doctor Samuel Hahnemann in the 19th century. A free market in health care, taken literally, would deplete the population of the USA, that's true, but do you really want to see people dying on the streets of your town? Suppose they refuse to die but just lie there vomiting, defecating, and generally making life unpleasant? On your argument, you could argue that if someone wants to smoke tobacco they should pay for the medical consequences, and so on. Nothing in life is free, except the air and the light of the sun. Hence the invention of taxes. And I thought you thought you lived in a 'Nation'! Presumably the phrase My Fellow Americans has no meaning?

on the contrary, socialized medicine will eventually deplete the population of any country because the standard of care quality goes down when you have medical boards who will decide if a person is "worthy" of having a certain operation or treatment aka death panels, a true free market medical system gives people many more options to seek healing but unfortunately The AMA and FDA in a conspiring revolving lobby door with Big Pharma would never allow this


There are basically only two ways to treat cancer (once present) - chemo and radiotherapy. Chemo is the more expensive and has less positive outcomes for many cancers. Radiation therapy is generally the most effective (measured in survival tates after 5 years). There is NO hard evidence that changing diets, having needles stuck in your feet, rubbing magic crystals on you, etc, etc have any effect. Sorry

there are many alternative forms of cancer treatment that are not allowed to be utilized in the US, I suggest you research The Gerson Therapy, Dr. Nick Gonzales, Dr Rashid Buttar and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynksi to name a few who are having tremendous success

[broncofan]

Gouki,
whether the government pays for healthcare or the private individual, it still needs to be paid for. You are substituting the opinion of medical experts on who should get care for a system where money determines quality of care. Even if you think that's an appropriate ethic, you still have to take some responsibility for what happens when healthcare is entirely private.

Who do you think pays for people who have terminal illnesses that have no means of paying for it themselves? If we do not let them die, then the system has to absorb this cost. This means that they get care, they go bankrupt, the hospital doesn't get paid, the hospital raises the cost of services, the insurance companies pay more, they raise premiums, employers pay more for worker's insurance, the government offers tax credits for health insurance, there's less revenue and other taxes go up to make up the shortfall. Why not design a healthcare program that takes into account all these costs and is consistent with the standard of care we want to provide people in this country?

You are lying to yourself and frankly anyone gullible enough to listen to you. When people are on transplant lists for kidneys, should there be a way to game the system? Should the kidney go to the person who can pay the most? Of course not. Should an 80 year old man with cirrhosis be given a liver before someone who at 20 years old contracted hepatitis while they were in a hospital? If the 80 year old man inherited 10 million dollars 60 years prior?

The reason Republicans use phrases such as "death panel" is because they want to hide the fact that they think it's perfectly acceptable for those who can't afford healthcare to get substandard care, die in the street, or go bankrupt.

[broncofan]

Martin, can you re-format your picture so that people can converse like they were before you posted it? Please:)

[robertlouis]

on the contrary, socialized medicine will eventually deplete the population of any country because the standard of care quality goes down when you have medical boards who will decide if a person is "worthy" of having a certain operation or treatment aka death panels, a true free market medical system gives people many more options to seek healing but unfortunately The AMA and FDA in a conspiring revolving lobby door with Big Pharma would never allow this



Utter shite. I live in a country where what you decry as "socialised" medicine has been the primary provider of universal healthcare for over 60 years and all paid out of taxes and I'm pretty healthy without having had to dip into my savings or go into debt when I need any surgery.

That's preferable to any system which puts your ability to pay before your basic human need for treatment. Or are you another gullible fool who's bought the poison peddled by the Repubtards and their paymasters in medical insurance?

Our NHS is far from perfect, but I'd rather have it than your cutthroat mess any time.

[BallBuster]

September 2008, the US Banking System collapsed. The Country is Bankrupted. The answer by our then, Very Conservative, Capitalist President Bush-Cheney, give them Taxpayers money. If they really believed in the free enterprise that they profess. They should have allowed the banks to fail, and stockholders loose all their investments.
Instead they used Communism (Public Money) to save Capitalism (Private investments).
And they expected Obama to clean up this mess in 4 years?.

[martin48]

No, you've chosen to deny the true meaning of Christmas. :(
Now look up Yule and see who is actually being co-opted.


The true meaning of Christmas - commercial pressure to buy unwanted presents for people we don't really like, eat and drink too much and have lasting arguments with relatives.

[Stavros]

on the contrary, socialized medicine will eventually deplete the population of any country because the standard of care quality goes down when you have medical boards who will decide if a person is "worthy" of having a certain operation or treatment aka death panels, a true free market medical system gives people many more options to seek healing but unfortunately The AMA and FDA in a conspiring revolving lobby door with Big Pharma would never allow this


Sarah Palin's use of the term Death Panel was a provocative attack on legislation she knew nothing about, even when she had to back up her claim with reference to a section of the proposed bill she got it wrong, the provision she was attacking did not exist.

In the UK we have a national health service, nobody calls it 'socialized medicine' whatever that is; and clinical decisions are made by clinicians not by administrators. I don't know what your problem with it is, I don't know if you think Margaret Thatcher was a communist, but she defended the NHS as has every Prime Minister since the 1940s. My guess is that there are legitimate concerns about the administration costs, but the principle of free access to health care at the time of need seems to me to be a human right.

[Prospero]

Bush was a liberal was he Fastingforlife. Do you have a burning cross on your front lawn? I see you chose not to respond to my remark about civil rights.

You also go for the normal mealy mouthed position of "you can't comment if you weren't there' on the issues of Vietnam or Iraq. On that basis none of us should comment on the rights or wrongs of the slave trade. or the Final Solution. Or Apartheid. Or the Opium Wars. Or a million other things we've not experienced.

[Prospero]

And are the idiotic views of Gouki on how the british NHS works based upon something he perhaps saw on Fox News or right wing radio station. Such ignorance is troubling.

[robertlouis]

And are the idiotic views of Gouki on how the british NHS works based upon something he perhaps saw on Fox News or right wing radio station. Such ignorance is troubling.

The most troubling aspect is that there are millions like him in the US who appear to be convinced that a system of universal healthcare available to all on the basis of need and not ability to pay is somehow evil.

You have to congratulate the propagandists in the GOP and their friends in the insurance industry - it's the greatest mass con trick since, well, ever.

[fastingforlife]

Bush was a liberal was he Fastingforlife. Do you have a burning cross on your front lawn? I see you chose not to respond to my remark about civil rights.

You also go for the normal mealy mouthed position of "you can't comment if you weren't there' on the issues of Vietnam or Iraq. On that basis none of us should comment on the rights or wrongs of the slave trade. or the Final Solution. Or Apartheid. Or the Opium Wars. Or a million other things we've not experienced.

Yes, Bush was a liberal, not by his words, but by his actions. And the liberal policies that he initiated i have to pay for, while he enjoys all the comforts of retirement on the government dole. The fact that Obama may be more liberal, in no way undercuts the damage Bush did by bowing to the left.

There is no requirement for every human being to comment on every issue. When it comes to war, i prefer to keep my opinions to myself. Those who served, or buried loved ones, i will defer to. There is nothing mealy mouthed about that.

[trish]

Actually it's not only mealy mouthed but an cowardly abdication of civic responsibility.

[fastingforlife]

Actually it's not only mealy mouthed but an cowardly abdication of civic responsibility.

Bullshit! Not serving your country....now thats cowardly.

[Prospero]

YOu said you were NOT a veteran fastingforlife - so by your logic that makes YOU a coward. Twat.

[buttslinger]

Yes, Bush was a liberal, not by his words, but by his actions.

Bush was not a President who happened to be a businessman, he was a businessman who happened to be President. He threw a marvelous party for his friends for eight years and stuck the taxpayers with the tab. That's business. That's Bain. That's Romney.

[fastingforlife]

YOu said you were NOT a veteran fastingforlife - so by your logic that makes YOU a coward. Twat.

Correct..... i do not deny that. I was scared to death to be drafted for the Vietnam war, and so very happy when i got a high number. therefore, i lack the necessary standing to share my opinion.

[trish]

A narrow mealy mouthed response indicating a stunted sense of civic and social responsibility. It doesn't end at military service.

[Prospero]

Fuckwit! Every citizen of a democracy has a duty to have a opinion on whether or not his or her nation goes to war. Whether he or she is for or against such a conflict. So the only people entitled to have a view on foreign policy and military action is the military or those who have been members of the military? You should live somewhere where they have a military dictatorship by that logic. And judging by the rest of your line of arguments you'd probably like to. What a moronic stance you have taken.

[fastingforlife]

Bush was not a President who happened to be a businessman, he was a businessman who happened to be President. He threw a marvelous party for his friends for eight years and stuck the taxpayers with the tab. That's business. That's Bain. That's Romney.

Actually Bush was an inept businessman, who never had a real job in his life, before entering politics, very much like Obama, who's first real job was being a U.S. Senator. Bush's first real job was being a gov.

[fastingforlife]

Fuckwit! Every citizen of a democracy has a duty to have a opinion on whether or not his or her nation goes to war. Whether he or she is for or against such a conflict. So the only people entitled to have a view on foreign policy and military action is the military or those who have been members of the military? You should live somewhere where they have a military dictatorship by that logic. And judging by the rest of your line of arguments you'd probably like to. What a moronic stance you have taken.

listen asshole, i didn't say i didn't have an opinion. i said that i will not share it. end of story.

[fastingforlife]

A narrow mealy mouthed response indicating a stunted sense of civic and social responsibility. It doesn't end at military service.

so explain in detail how you served, your country, other than having an opinion on every topic known to mankind.

[fastingforlife]

of course there are degrees of cowardice. I would not have run to Canada like a pansie ass piece of scum, or resorted to the lies and deceit that bill clinton stooped to.

also i am not as noble as obama, who said that while he completed his application for Occidental College, he briefly mulled over military service. trust me....i never mulled over military service.....not even for a brief instant.

[buttslinger]

so explain in detail how you served, your country, other than having an opinion on every topic known to mankind.

Throw in a naked photo too Trish, for God and Country, he he.

[trish]

so explain in detail how you served, your country, other than having an opinion on every topic known to mankind.

No, no no, Mr. Anonymous. You,re the one who brought this up and you're the one with a narrow, stunted vision of civic duty. The question is not do I measure up to your standards but whether you measure up to your standards. So prove, give details so we know you aren't lying, you served your country to the extent that you are no longer required to give a shit about your fellow citizens. Don't forget, we require detailed proof.

[broncofan]

of course there are degrees of cowardice. I would not have run to Canada like a pansie ass piece of scum, or resorted to the lies and deceit that bill clinton stooped to.

also i am not as noble as obama, who said that while he completed his application for Occidental College, he briefly mulled over military service. trust me....i never mulled over military service.....not even for a brief instant.
How do you know you would not have run to Canada? You did get the high draft number you wanted and were admittedly afraid of the war.

[fastingforlife]

How do you know you would not have run to Canada? You did get the high draft number you wanted and were admittedly afraid of the war.

I don't like the cold.

[fastingforlife]

No, no no, Mr. Anonymous. You,re the one who brought this up and you're the one with a narrow, stunted vision of civic duty. The question is not do I measure up to your standards but whether you measure up to your standards. So prove, give details so we know you aren't lying, you served your country to the extent that you are no longer required to give a shit about your fellow citizens. Don't forget, we require detailed proof.

You are the one that said there are other ways to serve your country beyond military service...i am all ears.

[trish]

Have you not read Montaigne, Emerson, Thoreau etc.? Have you no imagination? Go adopt a fucking stretch of Federal highway. Take a public service job working for the Justice Department for less money than you'd make in the private sector. Or any other department of government, Federal, State or local. Work for a shelter to feed the poor. Volunteer to clean help up an oil spill. Give back to your community and you will be serving your country. Pay your damn taxes without complaining. Sheesh, use your brain.

[broncofan]

I don't like the cold.
And you wouldn't go to Mexico because you don't like guacamole.

But they do have pollo, senor pollo;). I'm just teasing you, admittedly over something very serious. But the point is you couldn't know. Just like I have no idea since I wasn't alive. Maybe I would have fought, maybe I wouldn't have, but I don't like the idea of dying in a conflict I'm ideologically opposed to. Again, I don't know if that dislike would be determinative. I'm not sure if the measure of patriotism is being willing to kill or die in the service of ideals that you don't hold and don't think your country stands for.

I don't see it as a quintessentially American ideal to slavishly submit to a military machine fighting proxy wars in farflung places at the expense of the local population. I'd gladly have enlisted for WWII, WWI, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (on the side of the Union), but I'm not exactly sure what our resposnibility is to fight wars whose premises are so shaky. I have no problem dying for something I believe in though. BTW I'm saying this to stimulate conversation, not because I'm sure it's the right approach. But let me put it this way. We're told that we can't criticize the war if we don't serve; but my question is that if you believe a war is unjust, what use does serving serve?

[fastingforlife]

And you wouldn't go to Mexico because you don't like guacamole.

But they do have pollo, senor pollo;). I'm just teasing you, admittedly over something very serious. But the point is you couldn't know. Just like I have no idea since I wasn't alive. Maybe I would have fought, maybe I wouldn't have, but I don't like the idea of dying in a conflict I'm ideologically opposed to. Again, I don't know if that dislike would be determinative. I'm not sure if the measure of patriotism is being willing to kill or die in the service of ideals that you don't hold and don't think your country stands for.

I don't see it as a quintessentially American ideal to slavishly submit to a military machine fighting proxy wars in farflung places at the expense of the local population. I'd gladly have enlisted for WWII, WWI, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (on the side of the Union), but I'm not exactly sure what our resposnibility is to fight wars whose premises are so shaky. I have no problem dying for something I believe in though. BTW I'm saying this to stimulate conversation, not because I'm sure it's the right approach. But let me put it this way. We're told that we can't criticize the war if we don't serve; but my question is that if you believe a war is unjust, what use does serving serve?

It does not bother me to hear opinions about wars, past and present, from those who did not serve.

For a family who lost a loved one, or a Vet still suffering from the wounds of war, both physical and mental, to subject them to my bullshit opinions seems wrong. Even when they are not around to hear it.

I didn't avoid service in Vietnam, I just wasn't called. My older brother, had a high number as well. Interestingly, during high school, my classmates and I barely discussed the war, in fact, I can only remember one classroom conversation during those 4 years.

[hippifried]

My numger (2nd drawing) was 225. Phew! I helped protest the war, so I figure I served.

[Prospero]

An absurd position repeated over and over. That you do not care to debate foreign wars in deference to those who fought and died. Surely the fact that young Americans fought, were wounded and died (along with vast numbers of innocent collateral damage folk on the way) is the very essence of the reason why a nation goes to war, whether it should and how that was is engineered (fake claims about WMD) is something that every adult should engage in in the most wholehearted way. if you abdicate that then you abdicate your duty as a citizen..

[Stavros]

One of the more pertinent questions might be -is every (male) citizen of fighting age worth drafting into the military anyway? Leaving side those who are physically disabled -eg blind- or mentally unfit -eg is on loan to the psychiatric ward of the general hospital- how many have the right attitude for the military to make it work? I managed to avoid both national service and wars, but would be a useless soldier -I am short, have been moderately but never super fit, I would never get through basic training. Ok so they might give me a desk job but the qualified judgement people make about those who have fought for their country seems to have a built-in assumption that they are heroic, brave, fearless etc. Being a soldier is a job, not a vocation -WWII might have been for some, but then World War I started out for a lot of young men as the chance for adventure. War is Hell, its not a movie. And not everyone in it looks like John Wayne. And please do leave some space for those with the courage to say No, who return the argument to its core: Why? Wars, after all, is politics failing at the desk, going to battlefield, and then returning to the negotiating desk with or without an advantage. Why not skip the war and just keep on negotiating until there is a result?

[fastingforlife]

At the height of the Iraq war, I was at a Bruce Springsteen concert. Along with the music, Bruce subjected us to his opinion of President Bush, and the war effort.

During the evening, he sang some of his new, slow acoustical stuff, that had received mixed reviews. At the same time, the sound in the section I sat in went out for a good fifteen minutes, so people were making some noise to alert the technicians to the problem, which was eventually remedied.

After the concert, I read an interview that he gave in the Bergen Record, where he complained about the rude people interrupting his accoustical set, simply because they were not in approval of a different style of singing.

So here he is, a control freak, in charge of every aspect of his event, with a team of over 35 people reporting to him, individually, and he still got the story wrong.......so how can I trust him to know what is really happening in Iraq? To those of us who sat in that section, he came off as a true jackass. And, I also thought about veterans that were in the audience. Do they want to hear his unschooled opinion?

So the question is, what do veterans, who happen to be members of this board think ? Do any of you really want to hear from those of us who didn't serve? Do our opinions carry any weight in your book? Or are we just a bunch of Brucies, talking out of our Arses?

[buttslinger]

A better question might be how do Veterens feel about the millions of AMERICAN children going to bed hungry while Republicans argue about 0% Inheritance tax.
In the 1950s, a large percentage of Ivy League Students did a stint in the Military, now it's like 2%. People in the Military now are in it for economic reasons.
When I was 18 I asked a guy in the Army about joining up for patriotic reasons. He said "Don't be a fool, man. The Army is just a bunch of idiots taking orders from some dimwitted inbred sergeant"
I said "Yeah, that's kinda what I figured it was"

[fastingforlife]

A better question might be how do Veterens feel about the millions of AMERICAN children going to bed hungry while Republicans argue about 0% Inheritance tax.
In the 1950s, a large percentage of Ivy League Students did a stint in the Military, now it's like 2%. People in the Military now are in it for economic reasons.
When I was 18 I asked a guy in the Army about joining up for patriotic reasons. He said "Don't be a fool, man. The Army is just a bunch of idiots taking orders from some dimwitted inbred sergeant"
I said "Yeah, that's kinda what I figured it was"

Or, how do the veterans, in search of a job, feel about Obama's failure to lead on tax reform (dismissed simpson/bowles with less than a 2 minute explanation) leaving small business owners (the engine for job growth ovwer the past 20 years) with an uncertain future, resulting in outsourcing, overtime and other means, as opposed to adding new employees.

So President Obama, bears no responibility for current economic woes.....as of May 17th, 2012 he was still blaming Bush for the mess we are in.

[Stavros]

Or, how do the veterans, in search of a job, feel about Obama's failure to lead on tax reform (dismissed simpson/bowles with less than a 2 minute explanation) leaving small business owners (the engine for job growth ovwer the past 20 years) with an uncertain future, resulting in outsourcing, overtime and other means, as opposed to adding new employees.

So President Obama, bears no responibility for current economic woes.....as of May 17th, 2012 he was still blaming Bush for the mess we are in.

The real question is why you or anyone else expected significant changes to take place to the US economy in less than four years given the conditions that President Obama inherited from President Bush. It doesn't look much better in the UK where the administration changed in the opposite direction form the USA and where 'austerity measures' have been preferred to intervention, with nothing to show for it. The slogans in elections are just that, slogans, you could go back many years and dig them all up and few if anything bear any actual connection to what happened next. Obama has steadied the ship, as it were, and as it was heading for the rocks and about to sink with all hands on board, you should probably just grit your teeth and say thanks. It has nothing at all to do with 'veterans' -if they signed up to the military because they wanted a career in uniform, why leave? If the issue is the lack of care for those injured or mentally/emotionally distressed, by all means campaign for better treatment. Plenty of qualified people want jobs, there is no reason why ex-service personnel should have an edge on others.

[buttslinger]

Obama has tried several times to implement tax reform and the head of the Republican Party, Grover Norquist, blocks any progress at all.
Anyone but a fucking moron knows that Romney can't turn around Bush's fiasco any better than Obama. That's why you have a lightweight like Romney running, because any Republican of Substance knows Bush fucked up things for YEARS. Nobody wanted Romney except for Big Republican Money, and they bought the nomination. They have to spend money so the republican governors and congressmen have a chance come November. Romney is a Company Man 100%

[Prospero]

All hail the holy veterans - the only people allowed to discuss war. Look - these guys and women fought for the US. That's to their credit. All respect to them. But the tens of millions of Americans who didn't have every right to speak their mind on wars - the conduct of war, the rationale behind going to war and foreign policy issues in general. Fastingforlife - that is the freedom of speech guaranteed in your written constitution and in our unwritten one here in the UK where plenty of Britons have died because Blair backed Bush's criminal invasion of iraq.

[trish]

Here are two related questions, not about military service but attitudes towards those who served. The obligatory (politically correct) attitude is deep appreciation; i.e. thankfulness... as is evidence by the commonality of the phrase, “Thank you for your service.” 1) Is the appreciation the appropriate response? 2) Is appreciation descriptive of the actual attitude Americans have toward their veterans?

I’ll focus on and refine the first question just a bit. A veteran’s service consists of what that soldier did while serving. If he landed on the beaches of Normandy, then that is part of his service. If she launched patriot missiles at military targets in Bagdad, then that’s part of her service. If you appreciate a veteran’s service, then you appreciate what they did; i.e. you appreciate that they helped implement certain politico-military policies, strategies and tactics. The problem is I appreciate the liberation of Europe in WWII but I don’t appreciate the invasion of Iraq under Bush. Therefore I appreciate the service of most WWII vets but I don’t so much appreciate the service of a soldiers who took Bagdad (I know! How horrible! It’s politically incorrect in the extreme to say it. Good thing I’m not running for office). But I believe any reasonable person can see the dilemma here. I appreciate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties (face it, soldiers don’t have all the freedoms that civilians enjoy) and join the armed services so that we might have a standing army, alert and at the ready. I appreciate their sacrifice and readiness. Sometimes I appreciate their service. Sometimes I just don’t. In either case, I will always support and respect them. (Can we say to a veteran of the Iraq invasion, “I really really respect the fact that you served, but please don’t do that again.”)

[buttslinger]

That's the catch. Catch 22.

[Prospero]

I don't think it is feasible to expect a serviceman NOT to serve ie to disobey orders - because they feel that the theatre of conflict they're ordered into is wrong (so I think that i disagree with you for once Trish) providing they are observing the rules of war. (At Abu Ghraib and quite a few other places they clearly weren't - and the individuals in such situations together with their commanding officers should be held accountable) That's part of the deal when you sign-up. So the individuals I respect - but i have NO respect whatsoever for the war in which the veteran of iraq fought. I except Afghanistan. A much more complex issue where I believe the US and allies were right to go after Al Queda and the Taliban in the wake of 9/11. But Iraq was and will certainly be seen by history to have been an immoral war. We as citizens of the aggressors in this war have a duty to debate it.

[trish]

No, no,I don't expect soldiers ( at east under ordinary circumstances) to disobey orders either. I respect the soldiers who obeyed the wrong headed order to liberate Bagdad, but I'm not thankful that they did it.

[trish]

Had I been in the armed services at the time and been assigned to the liberation of Baghdad I would've gone and obeyed my orders. I would've be pretty bummed out about it too. Sometimes commiseration may be more appropriate than appreciation. Perhaps sometimes it's more appropriate to say, "I respect your service but I'm sorry you wound up serving in that particular way... bummer dude," rather than "Thank you for your service."

[Prospero]

No, no,I don't expect soldiers ( at east under ordinary circumstances) to disobey orders either. I respect the soldiers who obeyed the wrong headed order to liberate Bagdad, but I'm not thankful that they did it.


Agreed.

[fastingforlife]

Here are two related questions, not about military service but attitudes towards those who served. The obligatory (politically correct) attitude is deep appreciation; i.e. thankfulness... as is evidence by the commonality of the phrase, “Thank you for your service.” 1) Is the appreciation the appropriate response? 2) Is appreciation descriptive of the actual attitude Americans have toward their veterans?

I’ll focus on and refine the first question just a bit. A veteran’s service consists of what that soldier did while serving. If he landed on the beaches of Normandy, then that is part of his service. If she launched patriot missiles at military targets in Bagdad, then that’s part of her service. If you appreciate a veteran’s service, then you appreciate what they did; i.e. you appreciate that they helped implement certain politico-military policies, strategies and tactics. The problem is I appreciate the liberation of Europe in WWII but I don’t appreciate the invasion of Iraq under Bush. Therefore I appreciate the service of most WWII vets but I don’t so much appreciate the service of a soldiers who took Bagdad (I know! How horrible! It’s politically incorrect in the extreme to say it. Good thing I’m not running for office). But I believe any reasonable person can see the dilemma here. I appreciate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties (face it, soldiers don’t have all the freedoms that civilians enjoy) and join the armed services so that we might have a standing army, alert and at the ready. I appreciate their sacrifice and readiness. Sometimes I appreciate their service. Sometimes I just don’t. In either case, I will always support and respect them. (Can we say to a veteran of the Iraq invasion, “I really really respect the fact that you served, but please don’t do that again.”)

You have explained the reason so many people spit on our returning Vietnam vets back in the 60's and 70's. that's another reason i was happy not to be drafted.

[robertlouis]

You have explained the reason so many people spit on our returning Vietnam vets back in the 60's and 70's. that's another reason i was happy not to be drafted.

Just for once I agree with you. The treatment of Vietnam vets was a disgrace to America. Shunned by both sides - the anti-draft people because they went in the first place, and the establishment because their departure from Vietnam was the last act in a shambles after the first measurable defeat in a long and mostly (up till then) honourable military history. It shames all the good things that the US represents. The treatment they received broke thousands of men who deserved a lot better from their homeland

[fastingforlife]

Obama has tried several times to implement tax reform and the head of the Republican Party, Grover Norquist, blocks any progress at all.
Anyone but a fucking moron knows that Romney can't turn around Bush's fiasco any better than Obama. That's why you have a lightweight like Romney running, because any Republican of Substance knows Bush fucked up things for YEARS. Nobody wanted Romney except for Big Republican Money, and they bought the nomination. They have to spend money so the republican governors and congressmen have a chance come November. Romney is a Company Man 100%

It is way to biased to blame everything on Bush. I was underwhelmed by his service, however there were many people from both sides who have blood on their hands. Just follow the money trail.

[fastingforlife]

Obama has tried several times to implement tax reform and the head of the Republican Party, Grover Norquist, blocks any progress at all.
Anyone but a fucking moron knows that Romney can't turn around Bush's fiasco any better than Obama. That's why you have a lightweight like Romney running, because any Republican of Substance knows Bush fucked up things for YEARS. Nobody wanted Romney except for Big Republican Money, and they bought the nomination. They have to spend money so the republican governors and congressmen have a chance come November. Romney is a Company Man 100%

Obama has never come forward with serious any tax plans of substance. He squandered a golden opportunity with Simpson/bowles. He should go back a few decades and examine how the socialist party turned things around in Canada. Using the theme of "only Nixon can go to China" they reformed many things including entitlements that served to benefit Mulrooney and others, and has positioned Canada as probably one of the most fiscally responsible economies along with Chile in the Americas. I am not a socialist, but if you do a good job I am not going to take partisan shots at you.

[trish]

You have explained the reason so many people spit on our returning Vietnam vets back in the 60's and 70's. that's another reason i was happy not to be drafted.

Well I happy if you find it explanatory, but I do not. I never spit at people whom I respect, even if they done have something for which I'm not thankful.

[buttslinger]

Obama has never come forward with serious any tax plans of substance.

The gang of 6 is now the gang of 8 and they're still working, trying to stay low key. Obama had plenty of talks with Boehner and you can bet they were both pulling their hair out because of the scorched earth policies of the hard-core Republicans. You call the Ryan plan serious?
Oh, follow the money trail? It leads over to Iraq where skids of cold cash "disappeared"

Let's get down to cases, what is Romney going to do that Bush didn't? He doesn't even have money to spend. Spark the Economy? Bush tried that in 2003. He thought that would pay for his War. Go shopping.

I would be delighted with Simpson-Bowles. Delighted. Republicans would not raise taxes even if Obama cut spending ten times the amount!!! Pick a side. That's all you can do.

[robertlouis]

Obama has never come forward with serious any tax plans of substance. He squandered a golden opportunity with Simpson/bowles. He should go back a few decades and examine how the socialist party turned things around in Canada. Using the theme of "only Nixon can go to China" they reformed many things including entitlements that served to benefit Mulrooney and others, and has positioned Canada as probably one of the most fiscally responsible economies along with Chile in the Americas. I am not a socialist, but if you do a good job I am not going to take partisan shots at you.

I'm genuinely curious about your views on socialism. Would I be right in thinking that you see a clear distinction between socialism and liberalism?

[broncofan]

fastingforlife,
I really haven't followed Obama's proposals for tax reform, but it is sort of a partisan issue. Repubs want to keep the top bracket in the low 30's, they want to eliminate the estate tax (which already doesn't kick in until $5 million per spouse), eliminate capital gains tax (which are already taxed at a preferential rate), and eliminate dividend taxes (which sort of defeats the purpose of offering the corporate form since it's a tradeoff of limited liability for double taxation).

Democrats oppose that crazy horseshit. If we are going to raise more revenue, do so by taxing at a higher rate those with a lower marginal propensity to consume. If we are going to stimulate spending, give tax credits to those who have a higher marginal propensity to consume because they need virtually all of their income to meet their subsistence needs. Republicans call such a graduated tax system socialism, class warfare, and claim that it somehow damages the economy. They believe it's good for the economy for large amounts of money to pass from one generation to the next untaxed, uninvested, and then be used to support easy living for the profligate heirs of deceased industrialists.

[fastingforlife]

I'm genuinely curious about your views on socialism. Would I be right in thinking that you see a clear distinction between socialism and liberalism?

I haven't given it much thought. I guess I have more respect for a socialist, as they have a core belief system, which shapes their manner of governance. Relying on significant government leadership ensuring that the neediest amongst them are never neglected. A liberal behaves more like a gadfly trying to use religion, race and ethnicity to divide the electorate, bending the uninformed to their will. They are the ones, like Lincoln Chafee, governor of Rhode Island who worships the god of political correctness, and I detest, even the thought of political correctness. A true socialist operates from a 1,000 mile view not mucking around with social norms and customs. This is my uneducated impression of what sets liberals and socialists apart.

[hippifried]

You have explained the reason so many people spit on our returning Vietnam vets back in the 60's and 70's. that's another reason i was happy not to be drafted.
Mostly myth. There were a few incidents pulled off by one small group from the lunatic fringe on the left (mostly members of the radical socialist parties), who were stupid enough to think it was a good idea. It was short lived, especially when the real anti-war movement came down on them hard. Understandable, since the most active & one of the largest segments of the anti-war movement were vets. This whole spit thing has been blown out of all proportion since that one line at the end of the first Rambo movie. Then the pundits from the lunatic fringe on the other side picked up on it & have been repeating it over & over & over & over... Until the meme would have you believe it was a common occurance for the duration of the war, & that's just bullshit.

[fastingforlife]

You got me thinking. A number of years ago, a good friend of mine and I tackled the problem of Social Security, and came up with a solution that would provide universal coverage and cost 92% less (over time) then the current system. Everyone would have an account funded at birth. We would delink it from earned income. We presented it to the cato institute and the brookings institute. They confirmed that our numbers were correct, and our projected cost savings, give or take a few percentage points, was reasonable. However, neither organization cared to further our cause, as we were not aligned idealogically with either of them. We presented it to Gov Corzine, but he fell asleep, but his aide took good notes, leading corzine to steal an aspect of our plan and along with Schumer, DeMint, Santorum propose "KIDS accounts" an illconceived strategy to provide college funds to the masses. It went nowhere.

In disgust, I retired from my brief stint as a "think tank" volunteer...now I keep most of my ideas under wraps.

[fastingforlife]

Mostly myth. There were a few incidents pulled off by one small group from the lunatic fringe on the left (mostly members of the radical socialist parties), who were stupid enough to think it was a good idea. It was short lived, especially when the real anti-war movement came down on them hard. Understandable, since the most active & one of the largest segments of the anti-war movement were vets. This whole spit thing has been blown out of all proportion since that one line at the end of the first Rambo movie. Then the pundits from the lunatic fringe on the other side picked up on it & have been repeating it over & over & over & over... Until the meme would have you believe it was a common occurance for the duration of the war, & that's just bullshit.

The treatment of Vietnam Vets, even to this day is despicable. As for the spitting thing, Vets received small and large indignations where ever they went....for years and years. I have personal knowledge of a number of one on one incidents. One involved the lovely Jane Fonda, who should have, at the least, been imprisioned for acts of treason. I couldn't believe it when my parents went to see here return to the screen in "Klute".

[hippifried]

Well that's all very interesting. Especially considering that Klute came out before her trip to Hanoi. You want to beat up on Jane Fonda? Go ahead. Nobody cares. She's irrelevant to the conversation. I'm thinking more & more that you don't really have any personal experience of that time.

[fastingforlife]

Well that's all very interesting. Especially considering that Klute came out before her trip to Hanoi. You want to beat up on Jane Fonda? Go ahead. Nobody cares. She's irrelevant to the conversation. I'm thinking more & more that you don't really have any personal experience of that time.

You can think whatever you like...i don't care. She went to Hanoi in July 1972. I was on vacation with my parents that August, and it was playing at a theater nearby. As I am sure you are aware, Academy award winning movies (Fonda won best actress 1971) are typically re-released. Would you like me to try and recall the exact theater, or dig up my parents corpses, to see if the ticket stubs were buried with them?

[hippifried]

Oh, so you were still in high school. The draft ended in '73.

[fastingforlife]

Oh, so you were still in high school. The draft ended in '73.

Yes, I know, I graduated June 1972, and turned 18 October.

[fastingforlife]

You got me thinking. A number of years ago, a good friend of mine and I tackled the problem of Social Security, and came up with a solution that would provide universal coverage and cost 92% less (over time) then the current system. Everyone would have an account funded at birth. We would delink it from earned income. We presented it to the cato institute and the brookings institute. They confirmed that our numbers were correct, and our projected cost savings, give or take a few percentage points, was reasonable. However, neither organization cared to further our cause, as we were not aligned idealogically with either of them. We presented it to Gov Corzine, but he fell asleep, but his aide took good notes, leading corzine to steal an aspect of our plan and along with Schumer, DeMint, Santorum propose "KIDS accounts" an illconceived strategy to provide college funds to the masses. It went nowhere.

In disgust, I retired from my brief stint as a "think tank" volunteer...now I keep most of my ideas under wraps.

My reason for mentioning this, is that my recommendation was purely socialist, as eventually all tax revenues would be set aside for new borns, not current workers. However, all other ideas, private accounts, reducing benefits or keeping the current system are doomed for failure. In our current system, there is no thought of forward planning, so whether you are democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, you see solutions as self limiting, failing to ever make real progress in moving our society forward.

[Stavros]

Trish writes:
I’ll focus on and refine the first question just a bit. A veteran’s service consists of what that soldier did while serving. If he landed on the beaches of Normandy, then that is part of his service. If she launched patriot missiles at military targets in Bagdad, then that’s part of her service. If you appreciate a veteran’s service, then you appreciate what they did; i.e. you appreciate that they helped implement certain politico-military policies, strategies and tactics. The problem is I appreciate the liberation of Europe in WWII but I don’t appreciate the invasion of Iraq under Bush. Therefore I appreciate the service of most WWII vets but I don’t so much appreciate the service of a soldiers who took Bagdad (I know! How horrible! It’s politically incorrect in the extreme to say it. Good thing I’m not running for office). But I believe any reasonable person can see the dilemma here. I appreciate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties (face it, soldiers don’t have all the freedoms that civilians enjoy) and join the armed services so that we might have a standing army, alert and at the ready. I appreciate their sacrifice and readiness. Sometimes I appreciate their service. Sometimes I just don’t. In either case, I will always support and respect them. (Can we say to a veteran of the Iraq invasion, “I really really respect the fact that you served, but please don’t do that again.”)

And Prospero has said
I don't think it is feasible to expect a serviceman NOT to serve ie to disobey orders - because they feel that the theatre of conflict they're ordered into is wrong (so I think that i disagree with you for once Trish) providing they are observing the rules of war. (At Abu Ghraib and quite a few other places they clearly weren't - and the individuals in such situations together with their commanding officers should be held accountable) That's part of the deal when you sign-up. So the individuals I respect - but i have NO respect whatsoever for the war in which the veteran of iraq fought. I except Afghanistan. A much more complex issue where I believe the US and allies were right to go after Al Queda and the Taliban in the wake of 9/11. But Iraq was and will certainly be seen by history to have been an immoral war. We as citizens of the aggressors in this war have a duty to debate it.

In the first comment Trish errs too far on the side of the individual soldier, including those who stormed the beaches of Normandy (nd survived), without allowing for the same individuals performing acts in war which under the laws of war were illegal, just as US service personnel in the Pacific War cut off the ears of Japanese soldiers and sent them back to Mom in the mail. Here, the obvious problem is that some individuals did such things, and some did heroic things too, like rescuing their buddies from certain death -one set of behaviour is repeatedly played out on film, the other, as far as I know almost never, although Terrence Malic in The Thin Red Line does show a small pile of Japanese ears at one point in the movie. As I have already noted, British soldiers were not only responsible for beating Baha Mousa to death for no reason other than that he was an Arab they had 'liberated' from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, they are also too soaked in cowardice to come forward and identify themselves. Again, I don't doubt there are fine soldiers in the British armed forces, but there are also some who would probably be in prison if they weren't in the army. I have had close encounters with officers and ratings, and maybe the lower orders get away with what they do because of sloppy management by officers. Its not about political correctness, but about realising that if you let young men loose with guns and an incredible belief they can do what they like, My Lai, Abu Ghraib and Basra are the result.

As for Afghanistan, there was no need to bomb the place in 2001 and 2002; the Taliban were not universally popular in the country, while al-Qaeda and its multinational force were as hated by the local population as were the Palestinian and international fighters who joined them in Jordan after 1967 before White September in 1970 returned the country to something resembling normality. Al-Qaeda as a group split immediately after 9/11 as those who were appalled by it abandoned bin Laden; Mullah Omar might well have been pressured -by Pakistan, by elements in Afghanistan- to get rid of bin Laden in exchange for holding on to power, so although we cannot now know what would have happened without the US/British intervention, I think al-Qaeda was doomed. Moreover, the elimination of the Taliben did not solve the problem, if anything, it got worse, which is why NATO is still there, achieving nothing.

The belief that there are military solutions to political problems is a myth, the belief that the military is even capable of producing the solution is almost a myth, it certainly rarely seems to work these days, Vietnam marking the start of a long series of failures. Indeed, sending in the troops, the bombers and the drones is a testament to failure, while the reliance on the military class to achieve what the politicians could not would be laughable if it were not so destructive -consider Nixon's study On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.

Amazon.com: On the Psychology of Military Incompetence (9780708814826): Norman F. Dixon: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31on8Jfjd%2BL.@@AMEPARAM@@31on8Jfjd%2BL (http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Military-Incompetence-Norman-Dixon/dp/0708814824)

[Stavros]

Obama has never come forward with serious any tax plans of substance. He squandered a golden opportunity with Simpson/bowles. He should go back a few decades and examine how the socialist party turned things around in Canada. Using the theme of "only Nixon can go to China" they reformed many things including entitlements that served to benefit Mulrooney and others, and has positioned Canada as probably one of the most fiscally responsible economies along with Chile in the Americas. I am not a socialist, but if you do a good job I am not going to take partisan shots at you.

Wait, Mulroney a socialist? Much as we are entitled to our own opinions, there are also facts that can be verified, such as the affiliation of Mr Mulroney -a 'Progressive Conservative' -ok that sounds like an oxymoron, but socialist? I don't believe there has ever been, or will ever be socialism in Canada.

[fastingforlife]

Wait, Mulroney a socialist? Much as we are entitled to our own opinions, there are also facts that can be verified, such as the affiliation of Mr Mulroney -a 'Progressive Conservative' -ok that sounds like an oxymoron, but socialist? I don't believe there has ever been, or will ever be socialism in Canada.

I was referring to Jean Chretein's stint as Prime Minister. I meant to give Mulroney some credit for pointing Canada in the right direction, but he failed to implement true discipline, even though you would expect that a conservative could do this. Chretein, the liberal prime minister (from my perspective more of a socialist, than a liberal) was able to enact real reform with the aide of Martin his Finance minister. I believe Obama can learn alot from what Chretein did.

[yosi]

when cancer strikes , the cancer doesn't realy care if it's a Rebublican or a Democrat.

those who were thinking it will never happen to them but it did , are happy with Health Care Act.

it can happen to anyone...........

juat my 2 cents

[hippifried]

Yes, I know, I graduated June 1972, and turned 18 October.
Then you were never exposed to the draft. The lottery only affected 19 year olds. That's why I was in the 2nd drawing instead of the first. I didn't realize it right away, & ended up sweating twice. The first lottery was mid-year. I missed it by not much. It would have been better because my number would have been over 300. The 2nd was about a half year later, & they were annual after that.