Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Really? The GOVERNED voted for gay-marriage in California? Not that I'm for or against that but let's not kid ourselves into believing that the majority of Californians voted for gay marriage.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Really? The GOVERNED voted for gay-marriage in California? Not that I'm for or against that but let's not kid ourselves into believing that the majority of Californians voted for gay marriage.
Yeah... Well the 14th Amendment was ratified 142 years ago by at least 3/4 of the States. I'm pretty sure that takes precedent over a who can we hate this week referendum in California.Quote:
Originally Posted by PomonaCA
This is a constitutional republic. If anyone wants to live in a theocracy, they can move to Iran. If they would prefer there be no government at all, Somalia could use some more people to make up for the ones that are being murdered. Last I heard, anybody's free to leave the country (except those locked up for being too stupid to live with other people).
The 14th amendment can never and will never stop hate. And all the "civil equality" with all the teeth you can legislate into it, will never stop hate because laws can never change a mans heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Short of changing hearts, you will never have meaningful civil equality. Only civil equality, technically.
Like you can't force hookers to see black clients, you can't force people to treat you like an equal. No matter what penalties you impose or what power you give to the politicians.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't give a shit who you hate & neither does anyone else. Being an asshole's a personal problem, but not illegal. This isn't Europe. This is America, where even the klan/nazis get their rights respected. The laws (& the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) merely say that there can't be discrimination in hiring or business open to the public, & that government/s can't make discriminatory laws. "technically" is all the government can ever do. Nobody can fix stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by PomonaCA
And in the case of so called "civil equality", technically is all you'll get. And that pisses a lot of people off to the point of angry rebuttals lolQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Well that's a personal problem too.Quote:
Originally Posted by PomonaCA
___hippiefriedQuote:
What the hell are you talking about? I don't give a shit who you hate & neither does anyone else. Being an asshole's a personal problem, but not illegal. This isn't Europe. This is America, where even the klan/nazis get their rights respected. The laws (& the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) merely say that there can't be discrimination in hiring or business open to the public, & that government/s can't make discriminatory laws. "technically" is all the government can ever do. Nobody can fix stupid.
Worth reposting. ;)
The governed consented to live according to the principle of equal treatment before the law. Presuming you're a U.S. citizen living in Pomona (shocking), you continue to affirm your assent to this principle by retaining your citizenship and participating as a member of the U.S. polity.Quote:
Originally Posted by PomonaCA
Now, I know this is a complicated distinction, so pay close attention:
You are absolutely free to be a bigoted little closet case.
You are not free to use the mechanisms of the state to oppress other people.
Even if you get a bunch of your bigoted little buddies together and all run down to the polling place and vote en mass to disenfranchise faggots/brown people/women, the law is the final word.
Again, this stuff is really not that complicated, and it's all been written down. You just have to find the time to educate yourself. Good luck!
The guy is doing his job better than the former, so I'm cool with it.
No criticism whatsoever? No criticism of: state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram???Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu
So, nothing.
So, we shouldn't critique state actors and state power. As Glenn Greewald has stated: WE'VE BEEN INCULCATED TO THINK THAT POLITICIANS ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
It is sooo true. We think and feel that politicians can do anything they feel like. It's amazing to me.
Glenn Greenwald: What Obama Could Do Now
By: Jane Hamsher Friday October 15, 2010 7:05 am
I’ve been asking people what Obama could do now, without needing the approval of Congress, to address many of the serious problems facing the country.
Glenn Greenwald:
- Announce that all War on Terror detainees in Guantanamo will be entitled to a speedy trial or be released, and all detainees seized outside of active war zones shall be entitled to prompt habeas corpus review.
- Direct the DOJ that the “state secrets privilege” will no longer be used to shield executive conduct from allegations of lawbreaking and judicial review, but instead will be used only for its traditional purpose: to prevent specific secrets documents from being used in litigation.
- Cease targeting American citizens for assassination who have had no due process and are not on an actual battlefield.
- Instruct the Attorney General that the White House does not wish for any Bush-era War on Terror crimes to be immunized from the rule of law, including prosecution if warranted.
- Refrain from prosecuting whistle-blowers and journalists who have exposed government corruption and lawbreaking except in cases where serious national security harm has resulted.
- Announce a definitive timetable for full withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and scrap plans for a large State Department private army to be assembled to be stationed in Iraq for the indefinite future.
- Order the State Department and Defense Department to cease awarding contracts to Blackwater/Xe based on past abuses and the dangers that relationship creates in the Muslim world.
Glenn Greenwald was a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and is currently a contributing writer at Salon. He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times. He is the author of two New York Times bestselling books: How Would a Patriot Act (a critique of Bush executive power theories) and A Tragic Legacy (examining the Bush legacy)
More of Glenn Greenwald:
YouTube - Glenn Greenwald on Obama, the War On Drugs, gay rights, third parties, and adopting dogs
More rants from "the professional left". Not a bad label. A little too polite from my view.
If the President caved in to the YouTube & blogosphere pundits, I'd be calling for his ouster.
James Galbraith: What Obama Could Do Now
By: Jane Hamsher Friday October 15, 2010 7:36 am
Jamie Galbraith responds to the question: What can Obama do now, without the need of 60 votes in the Senate, to address our current problems?
- The President should announce that cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits are off the table for the lame-duck session, and thereafter. He should point out that the mandate of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which is published on their web-site, did not authorize it to opine on the finances of the Social Security or Medicare systems. For this reason alone, should the Commission include recommendations to cut Social Security benefits (such as by increasing the nominal retirement age) for the alleged purpose of maintaining balance in Social Security finances, the President should urge Congress to refuse to take up such a recommendation.
- The President should name a commission of independent experts to recommend within three months concrete steps to reduce unemployment significantly by 2012 — that is to say, practically immediately — including jobs/investment programs and steps to reduce the size of the labor force, including through work-sharing, increased vacation time, more attractive early retirement under Social Security and access to Medicare at a younger age.
- The President should direct Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to suspend the use of the present baseline macroeconomic forecasts and to impanel a commission of inquiry into the models and methods underlying medium-range forecasts, to best determine how those models and methods should be modified (a) to take account of the experience of the financial crisis, and (b) to correct major inconsistencies and mutually improbable assumptions in the long-term forecasts.
- The President should name Damon Silvers to the position shortly to be vacated by Larry Summers.
James K. Galbraith holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations and is a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. He was executive director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee in the early 1980s. He is the author of six books and several hundred scholarly and policy articles, as well as a stinging critique of President Obama’s deficit commission: Why the Fiscal Commission Does Not Serve the American People.
Well, Obama should simply pay attention and serve the people. In a democracy... in a meaningful democracy the people and government are identical. Simple. So, Obama simply, again, serves the people. (OK. So-called conservatives believe the ignorant masses are too stupid to govern themselves. And the people shouldn't -- and can't -- govern their own affairs. So, we've gotta leave it up to the smart ones like Obama, like Lieberman, like Harry Reid. I mean, why should pig farmers have a say in public policy? Why? Again, the ignorant masses should have no say in how the affairs of THEIR country are run. They, the majority, do not own the country. It's the people that OWN the country should run it. Like Blankfein and company.)Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
That's always a problem with wings, from any angle.Quote:
OK. So-called conservatives believe the ignorant masses are too stupid to govern themselves. And the people shouldn't -- and can't -- govern their own affairs. So, we've gotta leave it up to the smart ones like...
The "professional left" isn't "the people" any more than the teabaggers are. President Obama is not an ideologue, & never promised to turn into some raving "progressive" upon election. These You Tubers aren't "the people". The fringes are the only ones who ever expected the nation to turn around overnight, whether for good or ill to their point of view. Barack Obama has been more effective at pushing his agenda through Congress than any of his predecessors since LBJ, & he's been there less than 2 years. Exactly what is it that you whiners want?
You don't know what you're talking about.
I'm merely talking about the essence of government and centralized authority.... Well, the entire framework of a system, as it were.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
People do not govern their own affairs. People do not participate in the decision-making process. Yes! We have elections. But we do not have meaningful democracy. Never have. (Ya gotta go back to Spain in the 1930s when libertarian socialism was sorta making a breakthrough.)
Most Americans want single-payer health care. Why don't we have it? Because it's not what corporate power wants.
America is a business-run society. There is no meaningful democracy. I mean, if politicians actually served the people (hence: democracy) they would enact policies that people want. Take military expenditures. That, right there, is a daily attack on democracy. Not having single-payer. Another attack on democracy. Handing trillions to the banks. Another attack on democracy. Should we continue? It depends whether or not you want to live in a democratic society? Some people don't. I mean, ya think Oprah or Bill Gates wants a democracy? Most Americans want increased taxes on corporations.... But the nexus of corporate and government power work to undercut democracy. (Again, it isn't very relevant what the so-called professional wants. It's what the people want. And by and large the majority of Americans are social democratic. So: we should have a government that reflects those interests.)
Obama is a moderate nationalist with a firm commitment to the corporate state. How do ya think he got so far in Illinois politics? By being a social democrat... like the majority of Americans -- ha!ha!ha!
(I really like this quote system better than the old one, where you could end up with the entire thread in a single post. Neatness counts.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Sorry Ben, but you're just another commie, & America isn't going to toss out the capitalist system any time soon. Marx was a crackpot. The cold war was bullshit. The Soviets just collapsed under their own weight. President Obama isn't a commie, never claimed to be one, & never promised to move the country in that direction. The American dream isn't about buying a house. It's about having the opportunity to strike it rich. What 'tax the corporations'? Corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that's added into the pricing structure. All corporate taxes are paid by consumers. On top of that, 100,000,000 Americans (that's 1/3 of the population) own stocks. Corporations aren't the enemy. They're the equalizer. Capitalism is just privatized socialism. It's how we go about pooling our resources to get what we want. Not everybody wants the same things.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the government has no role. I think you're right about the single payer health system. People want it because they know it'll save them boatloads of cash. There's no reason not to roll healthcare into the general infrastructure. I'm pretty sure that's what the President would prefer too, but he doesn't make law. The president proposes, but the Congress disposes. Ya gotta understand how the system works. The Congress is a committee of 535 who all get their say, & government power in the US lies with the Congress. Unrealistic expectations always lead to disappointment. Naivity breeds radicalism. The fringe around the political sphere does not represent the sphere as a whole. Right now I can't tell the difference between the whiny left & the teabaggers.
Oh by the way: What "libertarian socialism" in 1930s Spain? The Popular Front held power for all of 2 months before they found themselves embroiled in a 3 year bloody civil war that they lost, making Franco into history's only successful fascist. Seems like a pretty major OOPS to me.
Go Franco a truly good guy
Oh yeah, right. He turned Spain into such a shining example of how the modern world should work. Let's all follow his lead & take a giant step backward. Maybe in another century or so, we could invent the electric light.
Me... a commie -- ha!ha!
Yes! Libertarian socialism did thrive for 2 months in Spain. Isn't that a long time in capitalist circles -- ha!ha!
I'd call myself a conservative. Meaning I believe in morality and traditional values and don't believe in centralized control. And, well, I like Ron Paul. Albeit some of his ideas are wacky -- ha!ha! (I think you'd agree that capitalism isn't bailing out the ZOMBIE banks and using taxpayer or tax-sucker money to build sports stadiums. Investors, that is private, should assume the COST and the RISK. Not the taxpayers.)
Obama was never in favor of the public option. The public option would've injected competition into the so-called capitalist system. Again, give people the option. (But the last thing ya want when running a company is competition. Ya wanna crush/demolish the competition.
Monopolies are great from a rational mindset, to accrue profit. And corporations HAVE TO increase their profits. No choice. CEOs are obligated -- by law. I feel empathy for a CEO. Because HE or SHE or the T-GIRL CAN'T act from a moral or ethical standpoint. Sad really. But that isn't the corporate goal. It's understandable. Because it's rational.)
Obama isn't left-leaning. Never has been. (His mom was a neoliberal. Not sure about his economist dad. But that's beside the point.) Obama doesn't care about issues and has no core beliefs. That's my viewpoint. One should disagree with that... cause I'm a commie -- ha!ha! (Commie is the new fag. It's pointless, I think, to put people into a box. T-Girls reject labelling. As do most guys on this site.
Communism was and is the opposite of democracy. I'm talking about democracy.
Lenin created a labor army. It was totally top-down control, state control. I find that disgusting. Again, state communism isn't democracy. Capitalism isn't democracy. Now, one can either favor democracy or not. Your choice. If you're against it, well, that's fine.) BUT I prefer Obama to Bush. (And Bush was NOT a conservative from a spending standpoint.) But he's more hawkish than Bush. And, too, his robot war is coming along nicely -- ha!ha!
I believe in, well, deep democracy. I'm against centralized control, whether it be state or corporate. (I thought capitalism was about competition. Isn't it?) And bailing out the banks, again, is not capitalism. And corporatism is not capitalism. Read Ron Paul. (Oil companies having absolute control is not capitalism. It's a monopoly. MONOPOLY capitalism is not capitalism.)
Capitalism doesn't address the issue of externalities. An externality is the cost to others. Milton Friedman described it as the effect of a transaction between two individuals. Whereby a third party hasn't consented to or played any role in. It's a big problem. Take, say, a car. I and the person selling me a car are looking to get the best deal possible. What doesn't factor into the transaction is you. You have to deal with the ramifications of that transaction: pollution, a rise in gas prices etc.
Capitalism is about the state NOT intervening... except in enforcing contracts. (Or are there varying degrees of so-called capitalism. If so, well, there's no succinct definition of capitalism.) Meaning practically everything should be private. We've state capitalism. Meaning the state plays a pretty big part. Meaning the state/corporate nexus control what gets planned, produced and invested. (Again, what does corporate power have to do with democracy? And some people say: in a market economy ya vote with your dollars. But that isn't democracy. Democracy is one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.)
Capitalism is about investing money to make money by those who have money. It's antithetical to democracy.
Democracy can be a frightening thing. I mean, the majority of people on the planet are women. That means women would rule. Pretty frightening. (Milton Friedman pointed out the downside of democracy. What if 51 percent agreed that the other 49 percent should be killed -- ha!ha!ha! I think people, by and large, are decent and moral. Caring. And this would reshape our institutions..)
And Reagan changed the notion of the American Dream. The American Dream was to be middle class. Reagan said, Yes! You, too, can be rich. What's the justification for, say, Britney Spears making gobs of cash? Well, rationality. (Yes! One's sole pursuit, and it's very rational, is wealth maximization. That should be your sole goal. I mean, why should I care about anybody else? That certainly isn't rational. It isn't. But gaining wealth is. It's very rational. Love, sex is extremely irrational. But gaining wealth is rational. As a rational being you should maximize your own wealth.)
I do not believe that everyone should be paid the same salary. (Sorry, ain't a commie.) But, then, again, what should a soldier be paid? Hmmm... quite a lot if ya ask me.
I think it's important for you to recognize that this perspective arises from your specific cultural context: You simply happen to have been socialized in a political, economic, and cultural milieu that places a high value on the accumulation of wealth. There are and have been many successful human societies that do not value the accumulation of wealth. From the perspective of, say, an indigenous Amazonian, wealth/surplus has no value, so wealth maximization would be irrational. From a biological perspective, love is an adaptive trait that maximizes procreative sex, thus propagating the species: a highly rational behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
And the dichotomy between communism and democracy is not as stark as you state. Marxist theory predicts that the consolidation that occurs under state socialism will eradicate class divisions, then the state will "wither away" because it's redundant, and direct rule by the people, or communism, will result. Therefore, according to theory, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms, and Lenin/Stalin/etc. did not preside over the implementation of communism, but rather of state socialism.
The accuracy, success, and ultimate desirability of Marx's theory is certainly problematic, but it's not accurate to say that communism is the opposite of democracy. Marx would argue that communism is pure democracy.
thoughts on Obama?
YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
...
Too bad they didn't wait for some actual data before making that "documentary."
TARP More Profitable Than Treasury Bonds
Ben,
Capitalism is about financing. It's not a design & it's not a social system. It evolved to replace the feudal system of having everything controlled by hereditary power. The reality of evolution is that it never stops & produces more failure than success. This holds true with any kind of system, whether it's social, economic, biological, or whatever. There's only 2 kinds of things that ever get done. The kind that you can do all by yourself & the kind that you need help with. The bigger the project, the more help you need. Unless somebody can come up with a way to get labor & materials for free (& we've pretty much rejected the use of slavery & having all the gold sitting in the king's vault), you need a way to put the financing together.
Capitalism isn't about competition. It's just about gathering money, without regard to who's doing what or why, or how many people are trying to do the same thing. The free market system is really a separate conversation, but it fits well with with the private finance system. None of it's about social systems, although everything's interconnected. It's all democracy because people can vote with their purse. People get too hung up on trying to equate varying isms. There's no reason why you can't mix & match any way you like. In the grand socio-economic evolutionary scheme of things, that's exactly what happens.
In a perfect world, the government would never have to interfere with financing. Nice pipe dream, but far from reality. The purpose of our government is stated in the preamble to the Constitution. The rest is details. Capitalism is the pooling of financial resources, so by default, it's all other people's money. The very idea that you can turn that many people loose with all that cash & trust them all to be honest is just crazy, or naive at best. Yet that's what we've been doing, & the purist ideologues still argue that we should continue in that vein, Meanwhile, we have the purist ideologues from another part of the political-economic sphere arguing that we should scrap the private system in favor of who knows what. & here I sit, glassy eyed, while all the purists insipidly decry the centralization of power. I just want the government to enforce the rules to protect most of the population that has some kind of skin in this game, even if it's just a Christmas club account at the local credit union. Hell, damn near everybody with a job relies on the system for their paycheck when you think about it. I don't want to be forced to trust people I don't know & have no way of controlling. The government is all I have.
If you want to see an interesting take on the 2008 bank panic & resulting collapse, check out this interview with Maria Bartiromo:
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11843/Af...apitalism.aspx
There's some real interesting information on TARP starting at about the 21 or 22 minute mark.
I really think the "left" (& I include you) has President Obama pegged wrong. In fact, I can't really tell the difference between the "left" & the "right" when I listen to the vitriol aimed his way. This gives me hope. The way I figure it; If the whole loud shrieking fringe of the political sphere is pissed off at the same focal point, then that must be the center & doing fine.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-help-run-tarp
Tarp and fannie and Freddy
...
I wish I had time to watch this, but I don't. But from the little I saw, I think the "new world order" fears, are entirely unfounded. I don't see failing suburbs megering with other entities, let alone a nation, giving up any of its power to another entity. And even if there was theorectically some government official who wanted this, would people really just go along and accept it? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by south ov da border
south ov da border Do you have time to say something on what this movie is about? Looks to me like it is a fear-mongering fest. Then fear does seem to be the major tatic of conservatives. Someone here posted a pic of Obama with darkened skin, in Arab garb. Straight BS. Nothing to do with any real issues. Comparing Obama to Hitler, like I saw on vids about Limbaugh and Beck, straight BS. Obama met separately with Republicans, to try to get their input on the healthcare bill. Obama is basically a mdoerate, for God's sake.
I did get a chance to watch a segement related to credit default swaps. I do think they are disasterous. However, I saw they are only talking about Democrats, when the the bill that made them legal was written, by Republican Phil Gramm. It passed in 1999 Unaminously in the Republican controlled Senate. According to Wikipedia, he lead a fight in 2001, to keep derivatives unregulated. And it is an official Republican stance to seek less regulation, and smaller government.
Also according the source in Hippifried's video, the reason why they did not reveal who needed bailout, to prevent a run on those needing it the most.
Republican...Democrat all the same, 2 sides of the same coin. I feel the next prez willbe even worse...
It's just more rambling bullshit from Alex Jones.
I personally feel the Democrats are the lesser of two evils. But this is why, I question why the parts I saw, only mentioned or displayed Democrats. They mentioned about someone in Obama's administration being from a big Wall Street firm, but it happens all the time, from the private sector of big corporations to goverment, and back and forth. Look at Dick Cheney. In the video, I saw them mention person from Clinton and Obama's adminstration, but not the fact that the credit default swaps were made legal in a bill sponsored by Republican Phill Graham. One article I read said he was the brainchild behind the bill which was also co-sposored by others. In the past 30 years there have been 20 years of Republican presidents and 24 years of Republican controled Congress. Phil Gramm was John McCain's top financial advisor in his campaign, until he resigned after making a controversial remark about 'whiners'.Quote:
Originally Posted by south ov da border
But it sounds like you would agree that a major problem with government is structural and not nescessarily a particular party. But speaking of Phil Gramm, his wife Wendy, was the chairman of The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, under both Reagan and Bush Sr. An article I read, accused her of helping to push through some legislation, and then going to work for a private firm which benefited from it, three months later. My understanding is that this is not illegal. High government offices are most often, just stepping stones to higher paying Corporate jobs.
Republican's have the reputation of being pro-business. From what I saw fo the movie, I question its credibility, although it does make some good points, about the dangers of credit default swaps.
As long as the right wing religious fanatics still outnumber any reasonable politicians in the US, you're going to have to live with a narrow-minded society where no Democrats can ever achieve anything. Also, politics are only useful if you can make long-term plans but the voters are so dumb (everywhere in the world, actually) that they tend to punish their government by voting for someone else, thus not giving the current government any time to implement a decent long-term strategy. The result is more damage, because all changes get undone... costs lots of money and nothing much is achieved.
Two wings of the same bird, my friends...
The American Eagle
Exactamundo
I don't agree with either party, I don't agree with the healthcare bill and that idea of cap and trade is a horrible idea in my opinion. The structure is the problem, way to big of a government to do much good. Problem is I don't see how things can change with the structure we have right now.
We don't produce goods anymore only consume, so how do we get out of the financial mess if we have nothing going out to bring funds back in???
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Camp...53179.html?x=0
intertesting link...
Because we outsource production, in spite of the fact that American workers more productive than ever. Of course we could destroy all the unions, get rid of the minimum wage and take the next turn in the road toward becoming a third world country. Once the American laborer is reduced to working for a pittance perhaps corporations will see fit to produce their goods here again.Quote:
We don't produce goods anymore only consume, ...
I agree that "cap and trade" is far from ideal. It's the only conservation compromise corporations were willing to make and that's because it provides ample opportunity to cheat. We need real emissions regulation.
There's a lot that wrong with the health-care bill, again because it's a compromise bill. It should be single payer. It's not. On the other hand, it prevents insurance companies from dropping your coverage because of pre-existing conditions. You can now cover your child up until he or she is 26, which is a good deal in these days when what jobs they can get are likely to be without benefits.
A lot of democrats are unhappy because Obama wasn't tough enough and didn't push a progressive agenda. A lot of republicans are saying they won't vote for anyone who'll compromise. The trouble with compromise is nobody ever gets exactly what they want. But without compromise, nobody gets anything.
Don't pass legislation that gives incentives to corporations that outsource jobs. Spend more on infrastructure which will create jobs in various areas of construction. Let the tax breaks run out for those making over a quarter of million dollars annually. Even even we do the latter they will not pay taxes on their first quarter of a million dollars. Even without this 95% of Americans got a tax break just last year.Quote:
Problem is I don't see how things can change with the structure we have right now.
I ran across this article myself. One scary thing is that when confronted by facts, many people are attacking the sources. Its like they cant take in any information that might challenge their beliefs. The article did state that the healthcare bill has provisions to make money as well as spend, and the money made is supposed pay for the cost. Whereas Republicans only mention the cost. I myself, forgot that the 1.2 trillion cost is spread out over 10 years. That makes a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by south ov da border
My family has recently run into major issues because of not having healthcare. It's a nightmare when someone who has life threatening illnesses cannot get medications. One more thing, I am a religious person, but I have not heard one Christian leader, talk about the compassion of helping those who have healthcare needs. With all the hatred and disrespect out in this election season, I have not heard anyone reminding us that Christ said to "love thy neighbor, as thyself." In the Bible greed is a sin, but many are not thinking about some of the financial skullduggery in a spiritual context.
More later.
I agree. Repubs fear monger the dollars spent, but just throw out the sum and not how it's calculated, I still am not sure about the healthcare bill because of the many things in the bill not mentioned, Seen and read about them but it's scary what is supposedly in it...Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz