|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 3, 2010 1:40:45 GMT
"If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in." What you call 'confiscation' is what Oliver W. Holmes (a Republican) called the price of civilization. And the fairest method, that is the most efficient, is to tax the wealthy at a higher rate. This concept comes from Adam Smith, a free-market kind of guy. I don't care where it comes from or who you're quoting. CONFISCATION is the correct terminology (look it up in the dictionary) because that's exactly what it is. In fact, a better terminology is UNFAIR CONFISCATION. It's not just the confiscation that irks me, it's the political motivations behind it. Our Democrats have figured out how to gain power and hold power. Their plan works beautifully. It's the only idea they've ever had that actually works. They're bankrupt for ideas otherwise. Their plan is to confiscate funds from their political opponents (those citizens who vote Republican) and to use those stolen funds to purchase votes from voters who will sell their votes for money. Those blocs include most Democrats - especially labor unions, trial lawyers, minorities, and other special interest groups who are beholding to the Democrats. It's about votes and power. Confiscation from your political opponents and using the money to buy votes. It's not about health care or any of the other supposed benefits that they offer their deluded constituents. It's about power for them.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 3, 2010 13:28:40 GMT
"I don't care where it comes from or who you're quoting. CONFISCATION is the correct terminology (look it up in the dictionary) because that's exactly what it is. In fact, a better terminology is UNFAIR CONFISCATION.
It's not just the confiscation that irks me, it's the political motivations behind it."
it's called government by the consent of the governed. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes they don't. I know, having witnessed two terms of GWB, neither of which I approved.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 3, 2010 14:22:52 GMT
"If you can figure out how to pay for it without confiscation and redistribution then count me in." What you call 'confiscation' is what Oliver W. Holmes (a Republican) called the price of civilization. And the fairest method, that is the most efficient, is to tax the wealthy at a higher rate. This concept comes from Adam Smith, a free-market kind of guy. I don't care where it comes from or who you're quoting. CONFISCATION is the correct terminology (look it up in the dictionary) because that's exactly what it is. In fact, a better terminology is UNFAIR CONFISCATION. It's not just the confiscation that irks me, it's the political motivations behind it. Our Democrats have figured out how to gain power and hold power. Their plan works beautifully. It's the only idea they've ever had that actually works. They're bankrupt for ideas otherwise. Their plan is to confiscate funds from their political opponents (those citizens who vote Republican) and to use those stolen funds to purchase votes from voters who will sell their votes for money. Those blocs include most Democrats - especially labor unions, trial lawyers, minorities, and other special interest groups who are beholding to the Democrats. It's about votes and power. Confiscation from your political opponents and using the money to buy votes. It's not about health care or any of the other supposed benefits that they offer their deluded constituents. It's about power for them. just like dumbya and dickey boy getting all the millions from haliburton and that ilk, and republican senators getting millions from cigna etc. yep. you finally got something right, except for the fact that it is the republicans that you are talking about. you obviously just mistyped
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 3, 2010 14:26:10 GMT
Those stats look as trustworthy as a Tiger Woods declaration of monogamy. that's because das relishes pulling fictitious numbers from nutjob sites Nutjob sites are best avoided when seeking information.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 3, 2010 20:45:00 GMT
that's because das relishes pulling fictitious numbers from nutjob sites Nutjob sites are best avoided when seeking information. they're great sites for fiction, and you know how das adores fiction
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 12, 2010 13:50:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2010 14:18:08 GMT
Which shows that the mid-term slump for support for Obama is about, or not quite as bad as, the mid-term slumps suffered by Reagan and Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 18:17:53 GMT
since rasmussen is NOT respected by anyone but the lunatic fringe, it max nix
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 18:22:40 GMT
Which shows that the mid-term slump for support for Obama is about, or not quite as bad as, the mid-term slumps suffered by Reagan and Clinton. not even that much. to start with, rasmussen does not survey normal people. it is strictly a right wing fringe outfit. the slump can be directly attributed to the constant commercials on tv spewing nothing but lies about health care reform, which are paid for by the right wing fringe groups and the insurance industry. you have to remember that too many folks here are ignorant enough to pay atention to such stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2010 19:20:08 GMT
Which shows that the mid-term slump for support for Obama is about, or not quite as bad as, the mid-term slumps suffered by Reagan and Clinton. not even that much. to start with, rasmussen does not survey normal people. it is strictly a right wing fringe outfit. the slump can be directly attributed to the constant commercials on tv spewing nothing but lies about health care reform, which are paid for by the right wing fringe groups and the insurance industry. you have to remember that too many folks here are ignorant enough to pay atention to such stupidity. Maybe they've been infantilised by the laws of parental vicarious liability?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 19:43:35 GMT
not even that much. to start with, rasmussen does not survey normal people. it is strictly a right wing fringe outfit. the slump can be directly attributed to the constant commercials on tv spewing nothing but lies about health care reform, which are paid for by the right wing fringe groups and the insurance industry. you have to remember that too many folks here are ignorant enough to pay atention to such stupidity. Maybe they've been infantilised by the laws of parental vicarious liability? no. the nutjobs and insurance industry is spending a million dollars a day to broadcast the lies, and a lot of people are too stupid to look at the facts, and believe the propaganda put out by the right wing lunatic fringe
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 12, 2010 21:19:00 GMT
Jumbo I have to wonder where you come up with some of the outlandish opinions that you post. Someone who disagrees with your point of view is a 'nutjob.' A polling company that you disagree with is "a right wing fringe outfit." What are your sources for opinions like that? Do you just pull them out of the air (or out of your, ahem, somewhere else)? Here is an independent ranking of polling accuracy for the 2008 Presidential election. electoralmap.net/pollsters/index.phpThe table below is an assessment of pollster performance in the 2008 Presidential election. The pollsters were graded on both the accuracy of their final poll (popular vote) and the consistency of their polling during the month of October. The overall score is a weighted average of their Accuracy and Consistency numbers. The weighting is 75% accuracy and 25% consistency. Formula details are at the bottom of this page. Overall Poll Score Grade Accuracy Consistency Rasmussen Reports 91% A- 92% 86% Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+ 92% 79% CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+ 92% 77% Fox News 84% B 92% 61% Pew 83% B- 92% 56% GWU/Battleground 79% C+ 92% 41% Diageo/Hotline 77% C+ 77% 79% NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C 77% 75% Gallup Traditional 73% C- 77% 63% Marist 67% D+ 62% 82% ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+ 62% 82% IBD/TIPP 66% D 77% 34% Gallup Expanded 66% D 62% 78% CBS News / NYT 60% D- 62% 56% Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F 31% 48% Data The data for this chart come from the Real Clear Politics summary on 12 November 2008. Here is a local mirror of that data, with the final polls summarized at the top. Here is a quick summary of the final spread predicted by the pollsters, ranked from most accurate to least: Poll Obama McCain Spread Off by Rasmussen Reports 52 46 6 0.5 Pew 52 46 6 0.5 GWU/Battleground 50 44 6 0.5 Ipsos/McClatchy 53 46 7 0.5 CNN/Opinion Research 53 46 7 0.5 Fox News 50 43 7 0.5 Diageo/Hotline 50 45 5 1.5 NBC News / Wall St. Journal 51 43 8 1.5 Gallup Traditional 51 43 8 1.5 IBD/TIPP 52 44 8 1.5 Marist 52 43 9 2.5 ABC News / Wash Post 53 44 9 2.5 Gallup Expanded 52 43 9 2.5 CBS News / NYT 51 42 9 2.5 Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 54 43 11 4.5 Formulas Every final poll showed Obama with a lead, so assessing their accuracy is just a matter of comparing their forecasted spread with the actual spread of the election which were Obama +6.5. Final poll accuracy score = 100 - ( |(POLL SPREAD - 6.5)| / 6.5 ) All the pollsters graded had more than one poll during the month of October. If a poll reported a wide spread and then suddenly narrowed down right before the election, this formula produces a lower score. Likewise a pollster gets a lower score if they predicted a very tight race until the end and then widened up. October Consistency = 100 - ( POLL STDEV / POLL AVERAGE )
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 21:40:11 GMT
and? you know that poll results are determined by the way a question is asked, not by the question. a straitforward election poll which simply asks, "who do you intend to vote for" isn't remotely close to a poll on, say healthcare reform. that is because outfits such as rasmussen, instead of asking people if they support everyone's right to medical care, as abjectly stupid questions such as "is it good to double the national deficit to provide medical care for poor people" no similarity
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 13, 2010 16:08:40 GMT
Every Canadian or British person I know likes their NHS or health system. As mentioned on this thread, the NHS is imperfect, as is everything, but overall it works for the benefit of the majority.
As for the medical treatment and condition of those ~40 million Americans without insurance is hard to quantify. It’s as if they’re brushed aside, so far under the radar that they don’t enter into the equation.
What is certain is that the rest do pay for the emergency care of the uninsured, that many have aliments left untreated, and that many have had their finances, hell their very existence, ruined by an unexpected medical problem.
The daughter of a friend of mine was visiting her in-laws in the UK, and she suffered a miscarriage during her visit. It was an awful event, but fortunately she received proper care and suffered no financial burden. No rich conservative tried to ruin her life.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 20:49:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 20:50:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 21:39:58 GMT
i'll look, but, if it in any way whatsoever benefits cigna, or any other insurance company of course, then it obviously has NO merit whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 21:47:29 GMT
as i said, it's abjectly stupid on its face. just another right wing ploy to enrich the insurance companies. sorry about your luck
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 15, 2010 2:14:19 GMT
Jumbo - What on earth would make you think that Republicans in general are motivated to enrich insurance companies. I'm certainly not. Don't know any other Republicans who are. So was that another one of those ideas that you pulled from out of your, ahem?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 15, 2010 2:55:23 GMT
That was a kind of little rope-a-dope, right there, wasn't it? Not "in general", das, because Republicans do claim a big base of far right social conservatives, and many of those folks are of modest means. But, remember a few posts back you were claiming all the upper income people were (of course) Republicans? Those are the ones who may care a lot about whether insurance companies continue to grow and prosper - and squeeze all they can from the rest of us. Also, insurance companies have incredibly focused and committed lobbyists who have a variety of ways to convince our lawmakers they are on the side of the angels. Don't play dumb, das, please. You don't sound very sincere - you just sound like you're . . . well . . . playing dumb.
|
|