|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 27, 2010 15:47:57 GMT
Mouse said, "if your against medical for all...then you are hurting the poor...and benefitting the rich who invest in pharmasuticals/medical/private hospitals you cant have it both ways." Mouse - I'm not against medical for the poor. I would be please if we could eliminate poverty, feed everyone including everyone in Ethiopia, cure all diseases including cancer and aids, provide air conditioned and heated pleasant dwellings for everyone, medicate everyone who is ill, and provide other essentials to those who can't afford them (such as clothing). I'm 100 percent in favor of all that so long as it isn't being paid for out of the national treasury and there is no income redistribution by government. It's a matter of priorities. I think putting a stop to income redistribution by government comes ahead of all those other important priorities. Huh? What does that statement mean? Please phrase it in very simple words so someone like me can understand. Gabriel it's self explanatory my man. das is still talking out of both sides of his mouth. he's trying to claim that he cares about people, as long as it doesn't cost him a penny. obviously, he thinks a penny in his pocket is more important than the lives of thousands of people. of course, ALL republicans believe that
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 27, 2010 20:27:42 GMT
I'm not relucatant to pay my fair share Jumbo. But I'm strongly opposed to politically targeted confiscation from opponents and then using those funds to buy votes. Let's face it, almost all upper income folks in America are Republicans. There are more voters in the lower end of the economic spectrum. The Democrats have figured out that they can get the larger number of votes by creating class warfare. Their method is uneven confiscation targeting those who vote for the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 27, 2010 21:40:54 GMT
I'm not relucatant to pay my fair share Jumbo. But I'm strongly opposed to politically targeted confiscation from opponents and then using those funds to buy votes. Let's face it, almost all upper income folks in America are Republicans. There are more voters in the lower end of the economic spectrum. The Democrats have figured out that they can get the larger number of votes by creating class warfare. Their method is uneven confiscation targeting those who vote for the opposition. of course most of the rich are republicans. since most of them didn't earn it, they do everything possible to keep anyone from benefiting but themselves, which is the republican platform. of course, there are a couple of decent rich folks, warren buffet being one of the few, since he has the class to acknowledge that the rich should be paying their fair share. it has ALWAYS been, without exception, the republcians waging class warfare. that is their primary agenda, which is why the normal people who actually work for a living soundly reject them
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 28, 2010 2:05:55 GMT
There are also quite a few Republicans in the lower income groups who sooo want to identify with the upper income posers they all but worship at their feet. What dunder-heads! They don't realize they are being used and abused, but it's hard to feel sorry for those who are willfully ignorant. Oh - and there are plenty of upper middle class Dems. I know it's hard for some (hi das ) to admit the opposition has a firm foothold among the country club set, but they certainly do. The differences are values and a little compassion lacking in most die hard Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 28, 2010 10:34:24 GMT
There are also quite a few Republicans in the lower income groups who sooo want to identify with the upper income posers they all but worship at their feet. What dunder-heads! They don't realize they are being used and abused, but it's hard to feel sorry for those who are willfully ignorant. Oh - and there are plenty of upper middle class Dems. I know it's hard for some (hi das ) to admit the opposition has a firm foothold among the country club set, but they certainly do. The differences are values and a little compassion lacking in most die hard Republicans. They don't realize they are being used and abused, but it's hard to feel sorry for those who are willfully ignorant. the thing is, most republicans aren't ignorant. they're stupid. ignorance is a voluntary condition, and can be cured. when it's not, it becomes stupidity, which is terminal. we trust that they rest in peace
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 28, 2010 13:52:55 GMT
Gullibility is the average Democrat's middle name. Promise them 'free stuff' and they'll give you their vote. Clinton was the master of that.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 28, 2010 22:56:37 GMT
Retribution is less than 1 year away! Remember elections in November 2010.
1. The Democrat dominated U.S. House & Senate voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises. 2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011 3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years 4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr. 5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife 6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000 7. Do you feel ABUSED? 8. Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease? 9. NO WAY. Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I. Why should they care about you?
You never did anything about it in the past. You obviously are too stupid or don't care. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?
In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House! Make sure you're still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.
Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution.. 28th Amendment will be as follows: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
Let's take back America ..
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 6, 2010 13:20:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 14:18:04 GMT
i havent read the link but can only speak from personal experience....the NHS is a wonderful organisation it may not be prefect...but its damned good two instances both happned to day friend 1 trapped her hand in a gate...went to a renowned private hospital...not broken they said today she went to our local nhs hospital..two broken fingers and on going osteo arthritis[which the privat hospital had not picked up on,,seen within 30 mins of giving her details ..bandaged and out of the hospital 1 hour 20 mins from start to finnish..apointment for follow up treatment friend 2..tongue cancer,, first treated last yr...made an apearence on the other side of tongue another lazer treatment ..followed by biopsy to acertain if all was well...no waiting times in any of the in house treatment..every thing done by the book...all is well for now monthly checkups aranged
cant be bad bush..cant be bad,
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 6, 2010 14:32:53 GMT
Please read the link Mouse. Looks like service is deteriorating badly as they cut the budget. That's always the concern with government run services.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 6, 2010 16:16:38 GMT
There are also a lot of rich Democrats who support the party because they use the power of government to get corrupt contracts (yes, I know Republicans do the same too; I'd be a swing voter if I was an American citizen).
There are also a lot of poor Republicans who support the party because they believe that it is closer to their core values than the ideas of the Democrats.
There have always been good and bad political leaders of both parties; there have always been good and bad ideas coming from both sides.
Ultimately, the Republican Party began as a party standing for greater central government, a more powerful executive and enlarged public spending. It was the Republicans from 1890 onwards who began introducing laws to restrict business operation and laid the foundations of the welfare system; it was the Democrats who (until FDR) opposed such measures.
Following Roosevelt, both parties turned their ideologies on its head. Suddenly the centralising Republicans became the party of states rights and the states rights advocating Democrats became fierce federalists.
Eisenhower was probably the last Republican leader to still follow the tradition of centralising and pro-welfare views that began with Lincoln and died with him. From 1960 onwards NO Republican nominee has suggested that the state SHOULD have a role to play whereas NO Democratic nominee has suggested rolling BACK its role.
Ironic, isn't it? The Democrats now show the traditional Republican philosophy while the Republicans now take the traditional Democratic point of view!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 16:37:22 GMT
Please read the link Mouse. Looks like service is deteriorating badly as they cut the budget. That's always the concern with government run services. honestly it really isnt that bad...i say that as a usser of the NHS in PREFERENCE to private health care the budget cuts were initiated by the last gov..ever incompetant i can only speak as i am served...and my firends,,family are served very VERY well.....i would be up in amrs were it not so the NHS is way above its original remit...and yes there are issues one of the big issues is being over streched...and yes there is incompetance...but the NHS compares well with the private sector
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 6, 2010 17:47:45 GMT
Yeah, that is because the system is being slashed. Duh? ?? It is not the system that is wrong, it is cutting the system.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 6, 2010 17:49:39 GMT
BA - did you mind the income distribution from poor to rich that happened under Reagan and Bush? "Politically targeted confiscation from opponents" which was then used compensate rich republican party donors? Was that bad?
And how the hell do you think that all that feeding the starving etc is going to happen without massive income distribution?
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, standing there with a bag of corn and a big shovel? Feeling really good about themselves while claiming all charitible donations as tax deductable? Come off it.
I'd be dead without the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 10, 2010 21:36:26 GMT
Yeah, that is because the system is being slashed. Duh? ?? It is not the system that is wrong, it is cutting the system. Thank you RV. You've helped to make my point. With private health care you get to decide whether to spend your savings on that critical medical procedure that you need. It may be expensive but at least you are the one making the decision. On the other hand, you can put that decision in the government's hands. Then it's up to them to make the decision. What's more important? RV's surgery or the government's budget. The referenced article makes it clear how they're going to make that decision.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 10, 2010 21:40:53 GMT
Aubrey - We do not need massive income redistribution. Government should have no role in determining individual incomes. Those who earn wages should be able to keep them. The government should not confiscate and redistribute in order to buy votes from the disadvantaged segments of society. What you earn should be yours to keep and spend. What Lin earns should be hers to keep and spend. What Lin earns should not be hers and yours by government edict.
By the way, Reagan and Bush were three of our greatest Presidents. All of the really bad ones (Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) were Democrats. Obama is the latest addition to the list of failed Presidents.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 11, 2010 7:26:26 GMT
Aubrey - We do not need massive income redistribution. Government should have no role in determining individual incomes. Those who earn wages should be able to keep them. The government should not confiscate and redistribute in order to buy votes from the disadvantaged segments of society. What you earn should be yours to keep and spend. What Lin earns should be hers to keep and spend. What Lin earns should not be hers and yours by government edict. By the way, Reagan and Bush were three of our greatest Presidents. All of the really bad ones (Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) were Democrats. Obama is the latest addition to the list of failed Presidents. Your apparent commmitment to freedom of the individual in this post is totally contradicted by your posts elswhere where you demand an end to religious freedom. You pose as a freedom-lover, but you're a fake. You only want freedom when it suits you.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 12, 2010 1:47:53 GMT
Stop it with the nonsense Riotgrrl.
I'm all for individual freedom. But Islam is not about the individual. It is a regimen of conformity to a sick ideology.
You defend Islam but you'd be the firs victim were they to take over. Can't imagine you accepting Sharia law or being one of four wives with no rights. Remember the photo I posted a week ago showing the eleven year old girl betrothed to the forty one year old Muslim with beard and turban.
The 11 year old would only be one wife. He can have three more. Would you like to be one of them?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 12, 2010 6:44:45 GMT
Stop it with the nonsense Riotgrrl. I'm all for individual freedom. But Islam is not about the individual. It is a regimen of conformity to a sick ideology. You defend Islam but you'd be the firs victim were they to take over. Can't imagine you accepting Sharia law or being one of four wives with no rights. Remember the photo I posted a week ago showing the eleven year old girl betrothed to the forty one year old Muslim with beard and turban. The 11 year old would only be one wife. He can have three more. Would you like to be one of them? No, don't be silly. But then, I wouldn't live in Aghanistan. And nor would most Americans I suspect. Because they choose to live in a state where they can be free. I don't care for the tenets of any religion, but I believe that people have a right to worship who they like, how they like, within the law. You don't. The difference between us is that I believe in freedom, and you don't.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 12, 2010 7:50:03 GMT
there are times when freedoms have to be suspended in order to protect freedoms.. some times we have to look at the long term and take apropriate action to prevent a sickness turning into an epidemic what is the point of protecting those who would destroy freedom what is the point of nurturing a virus and allowing it to spread..
|
|