quote So lets bring this back to Fox News for a minute. I am pretty sure this should fit in with the point of this thread quite well. Faux News indeed.

To get back on topic of the thread, anyone want to tackle this one? I have a post to build, so this should hold you over until I have it.

EDIT: Haha I accidentally deleted this whole post instead of editing a quote. My fault.

[This message has been edited by MDFierolvr (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Are you kidding? Neptune has a complete set of Dan Rather Fake Memo trading cards. Have you ever seen Neptune post in a political thread where he did anything other than sling mud at anything he sees as conservative? You don't have to ask him again. His post history tells the story for you.

I know, but I'm somewhat fascinated by the extent to which he has been consumed by blind partisanship.

quote Originally posted by GT86: At the time, most of the world's intelligence agencies believed there were still WMD's in Iraq. There's no question that at one point there were, as Saddam used them on the Kurds. Are you ready to accuse all of those people of lying? Remember, a large number of Senators and Representatives (Dems and Repubs both) believed as well, or at least they voted as if they did. Oh, and perhaps you should read about what is going on with healthcare in Europe, both in regards to the increasing use of private healthcare, and the skyrocketing costs of the "free" care.

That is because most of those agencies were using the same sources.

Oh, and that is probably because Europe is attempting to privatize healthcare and make it a free market. See most Europeans and those across the world know that you can't have a supply and demand market involving healthcare. It isn't like when you are mid heart attack you can choose a different hospital. That isn't free market dynamics. The hospital at that moment can charge whatever they want and you will pay, because if you don't you die.

EDIT: added the link for content

[This message has been edited by MDFierolvr (edited 11-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: That is because most of those agencies were using the same 7 or 8 sources. Oh, and that is probably because Europe is attempting to privatize healthcare and make it a free market. See most Europeans and those across the world know that you can't have a supply and demand market involving healthcare. It isn't like when you are mid heart attack you can choose a different hospital. That isn't free market dynamics. The hospital at that moment can charge whatever they want and you will pay, because if you don't you die.

Does that mean that everyone who relied on that information was lying, or are the only liars the ones you don't agree with politically?

Europe is attempting to introduce more privatization because socializing the process is threatening to bankrupt them, and the current system can't provide the amount of service needed. And they found out that the theory of supply and demand does hold water in may cases: make the supply plentiful ("free"), and demand quickly overwhelms everything.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: Does that mean that everyone who relied on that information was lying, or are the only liars the ones you don't agree with politically? Europe is attempting to introduce more privatization because socializing the process is threatening to bankrupt them, and the current system can't provide the amount of service needed. And they found out that the theory of supply and demand does hold water in may cases: make the supply plentiful ("free"), and demand quickly overwhelms everything.

So the system should adjust to reduce supply? That doesn't make any sense. They are being bankrupt even though there healthcare systems cost less per capita, they cover more people, but they should reduce supply therefore causing demand for living.

That entire thought just made me sick to my stomach. Really, restricting coverage to force demand?

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: So the system should adjust to reduce supply? That doesn't make any sense. They are being bankrupt even though there healthcare systems cost less per capita, they cover more people, but they should reduce supply therefore causing demand for living. That entire thought just made me sick to my stomach. Really, restricting coverage to force demand?

Where did you get that? The system is already suffering from insufficient supply and excessive demand, that's why they are looking at changing it.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: So the system should adjust to reduce supply? That doesn't make any sense. They are being bankrupt even though there healthcare systems cost less per capita, they cover more people, but they should reduce supply therefore causing demand for living. That entire thought just made me sick to my stomach. Really, restricting coverage to force demand?

I think you have that backwards. They have to large of a demand to meet with the supply. So, they are privitizing it in hopes it will reduce the demand to a level that can be supplied. Is that really all that better? I don't know.

I've seen the effects, so to speak, here. I had insurance through my past employer. There was a $10.00 co-pay. I rarely went to the Doctor, and we didn't take our children just because they had a 100 fever or there nose was a little runny. In contrast some friends of ours had medi-cal. They were constantly asking us to watch one or two of there kids while they ran the other to the Doctor. I would estimate there children saw the doctor 3 or 4 times to ever single time our children saw the doctor. They didn't have to "pay" anything for a visit to there regular Doctor, ER or urgent care so why not take them? Why not? Because all they have is a cold. Guess what? The Doctor can't do anything about it. He's going to tell you to pick up some childrens tussin...

quote Originally posted by GT86: Where did you get that? The system is already suffering from insufficient supply, that's why they are looking at changing it.

There "insufficient supply" covers more people, less infant mortality rate, and longer average length of life, for less money? Oh and they don't have medical bankruptcy.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: There "insufficient supply" covers more people, less infant mortality rate, and longer average length of life, for less money? Oh and they don't have medical bankruptcy.

As I said, some of the various aspects of European plans have appeal. But you've ignored the fact that many of those systems are headed towards insolvency.

quote Originally posted by GT86: And at its heart, that's what this whole debate is about, rationing healthcare. It happens now under our current system, and will happen under the proposed "reform" too. Interesting read here: http://covertrationingblog....de-for-the-perplexed

Right. That is one doctors opinion. Now his points are reasonable, and routed in strict politics of a completely sick system. I will however will counter with the AMA and AARP supporting the reform.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: How can you be concerned that they are headed that way when we spend twice as much per capita as some of them. Shouldn't your focus shift towards what we spend? Or that we spend more in GDP than any of those? I mean if they are failing at what they spend technically we are failing twice as fast because we are spending twice as much.

I'm not saying our system isn't headed that way. There's little doubt our system won't be able to continue as is. But the "reform" being pushed now isn't going to solve our problems. It simply transfers them from the private to public sector.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: There "insufficient supply" covers more people, less infant mortality rate, and longer average length of life, for less money? Oh and they don't have medical bankruptcy.

You obviously strongly believe we should have government run health care.
Well you are in the minority.
About 42% strongly disapprove, while only about 21% approve.
Just like a radical you are, push your views when they are not only unpopular, but are not accepted by the majority.
This is the way radicals and dictators rule.
Is this your MO?

quote Originally posted by GT86: I'm not saying our system isn't headed that way. There's little doubt our system won't be able to continue as is. But the "reform" being pushed now isn't going to solve our problems. It simply transfers them from the private to public sector.

Personally I agree with you somewhat. Though I think if you are going to make the transition at least be dedicated to it not do it halfway like what is being done for "bipartisanship." You will never make everyone happy regardless of what you do, so just do what is best at the time.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: You obviously strongly believe we should have government run health care. Well you are in the minority. About 42% strongly disapprove, while only about 21% approve. Just like a radical you are, push your views when they are not only unpopular, but are not accepted by the majority. This is the way radicals and dictators rule. Is this your MO?

Statistics and facts man. Can you provide them?

I am glad that GT86 is in this discussion because he is providing reasonable points AND BACKING THEM UP.

EDIT: Additional statements retracted based on provided support.

[This message has been edited by MDFierolvr (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: snipped for berevity.

An interesting pipe dream, which neither you nor I will live long enough to see happen. The Pew research article omits the fact that
as young liberals mature, approach their late 40s and early 50s and accumulate security thru wealth, they tend to change philosohical ideals toward a more conservative approach. It's the nature of mankind, as has been shown in the 2 big experiments regarding both the USSR and communist China. The USSR fell on it's face due to the economic impossibilty of supporting it's people under socialism, and the PRC has now begun it's inevitable move into capitalism. The further they move into capitalism, the less they will retain socialist ideals. It's a non erasable facet of human exisitance to want to achieve. Individuals want to have more regardless of what the central govt wants for the entirety, which is why there will always be a wealthy sector and a less wealthy sector. With the emerging global aspect of economics and trade, wealth can be transferred to another nation in very short order, as we have witnessed here in the last 2 decades. Right now, we export jobs thru outsourcing. Within 2 more decades, entire corporations will transfer both assets and jobs to other nations--there will simply be no reason for them to stay here. There is an indisputable fact that has stood the test of centuries--those who have the wealth will always have it. You can divide it up evenly and within a few years, the same ones who had it before will have it again, but often, they will just be relocated in a better climate--one condusive to growth instead of stagnation. Obama's trip to China brought home the fact that they (China) are on their way up while we are in decline--he came away with no concessions--nothing from the Chinese, simply because of that.

As far as lying goes, unlike Neptune, I readily admit Fox news does so, but also readily acknowledge that everyone else does as well. NO ONE simply reports ALL the news anymore. They report very little that makes their side look bad, and omit almost anything that would make thier opponent look good. All news is now politicized, because that's what sells airtime and print. Anyone with 1/2 a brain sees this, and is able to wade thru it to find the truth. Those who don't want the truth, or can't handle the truth, whine and cry about what is said by the opposing media while extolling the virtue of their pick of reporting sources, even tho they do not report or comment on everything they should. It's this reason, that Fox is under the gun by the White House and liberals in general. They realize, approx a little over 1/3 of the US listens or watches Fox, and the left finds that very disturbing.

I am not seriously concerned with the US becoming a socialist entity in the long term. Short term, it may wander in that direction, but the fact is, neither this nation nor any other can afford such a foolhardy escapade. Socialism is very expensive and we are deep in debt. The richest state in our nation, is also the most social program intensive in the nation, and it is no coincidence that they expect a budget shortfall 2010-2011 in the tens of billions of dollars. Welcome to the Golden State.

Long term, this nation will be disolved as a union, or be absorbed by another. We are in decline, with too many who do not achieve, too much competition from abroad and no aces up our sleeves. China, India, and soon, Africa--hold all the aces, kings, queens, and jacks. As a 50 state nation--we're done. I will not see it happen in my lifetime, but you will in yours if you live to a ripe old age.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: An interesting pipe dream, which neither you nor I will live long enough to see happen. The Pew research article omits the fact that as young liberals mature, approach their late 40s and early 50s and accumulate security thru wealth, they tend to change philosohical ideals toward a more conservative approach. It's the nature of mankind, as has been shown in the 2 big experiments regarding both the USSR and communist China. The USSR fell on it's face due to the economic impossibilty of supporting it's people under socialism, and the PRC has now begun it's inevitable move into capitalism. The further they move into capitalism, the less they will retain socialist ideals. It's a non erasable facet of human exisitance to want to achieve. Individuals want to have more regardless of what the central govt wants for the entirety, which is why there will always be a wealthy sector and a less wealthy sector. With the emerging global aspect of economics and trade, wealth can be transferred to another nation in very short order, as we have witnessed here in the last 2 decades. Right now, we export jobs thru outsourcing. Within 2 more decades, entire corporations will transfer both assets and jobs to other nations--there will simply be no reason for them to stay here. There is an indisputable fact that has stood the test of centuries--those who have the wealth will always have it. You can divide it up evenly and within a few years, the same ones who had it before will have it again, but often, they will just be relocated in a better climate--one condusive to growth instead of stagnation. Obama's trip to China brought home the fact that they (China) are on their way up while we are in decline--he came away with no concessions--nothing from the Chinese, simply because of that. As far as lying goes, unlike Neptune, I readily admit Fox news does so, but also readily acknowledge that everyone else does as well. NO ONE simply reports ALL the news anymore. They report very little that makes their side look bad, and omit almost anything that would make thier opponent look good. All news is now politicized, because that's what sells airtime and print. Anyone with 1/2 a brain sees this, and is able to wade thru it to find the truth. Those who don't want the truth, or can't handle the truth, whine and cry about what is said by the opposing media while extolling the virtue of their pick of reporting sources, even tho they do not report or comment on everything they should. It's this reason, that Fox is under the gun by the White House and liberals in general. They realize, approx a little over 1/3 of the US listens or watches Fox, and the left finds that very disturbing. I am not seriously concerned with the US becoming a socialist entity in the long term. Short term, it may wander in that direction, but the fact is, neither this nation nor any other can afford such a foolhardy escapade. Socialism is very expensive and we are deep in debt. The richest state in our nation, is also the most social program intensive in the nation, and it is no coincidence that they expect a budget shortfall 2010-2011 in the tens of billions of dollars. Welcome to the Golden State. Long term, this nation will be disolved as a union, or be absorbed by another. We are in decline, with too many who do not achieve, too much competition from abroad and no aces up our sleeves. China, India, and soon, Africa--hold all the aces, kings, queens, and jacks. As a 50 state nation--we're done. I will not see it happen in my lifetime, but you will in yours if you live to a ripe old age.

A very well thought out opinion piece.

And yes I am young and foolhearty, but I can always hope that when they dissolve they will do so because it will be a world order that comes to power. And however you may look at it this is actually becoming a viable option. If not only through the "shrinking of the world through technology." I sincerely hope that a real United Nations evolves in my lifetime.

Realistically, the one rule to follow as far as the superiority of countries is concerned is learn from the past. If you become top heavy you will fall over. It has happened dozens of times in the past. As it stands, the U.S. has what I would call the first opportunity to realize and attack the problem head on. However that will not happen if we try to compete in markets that have already been outsourced. The U.S. has an opportunity with what we call the "green market" and "advanced technologies" to take hold and exceed in a market that is relatively untouched.

Also, I will not make the statement that any news source is trustworthy. I will say though that the Comedy Central News is as respectable if not more than any of the focused news sources. Now that is something to wrap your head around. Comedy is more correct than the news.

Long story short, the U.S. as it exists cannot compete in a labor market because we maintain a society that pays fairly well. We have to focus on development and implementation as a mainstay of the economy to survive as a standalone superpower.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: Statistics and facts man. Can you provide them? I am glad that GT86 is in this discussion because he is providing reasonable points AND BACKING THEM UP. See that last part is key to real debates. Your opinions will continue to be looked at then shrugged off for those of us who are willing to take the time to thoroughly support our arguments. However, when you do back this up I will retract this statement.

I cannot believe you are pushing so hard for something the vast majority of Americans don't support what-so-ever.
Here are the stats bright boy.
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week’s Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.

Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.

Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed (Premium Members can see full demographic crosstabs).

Support for health care has declined along with President Obama's approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.

Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.

While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.

Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.

Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.

On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.

Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.

While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.

Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
http://www.rasmussenreports...9/health_care_reform

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I cannot believe you are pushing so hard for something the vast majority of Americans don't support what-so-ever. Here are the stats bright boy.

I appreciate you taking the time this time around to show some initiative. And though it was sarcastic I do accept your compliment.

I will stand by the fact however that the reasons the statistics lay out they way they do is because of the current bill and not because of universal healthcare. If it were a true UHC I would believe the numbers would be more in favor, as a majority of the industrialized western world lives with and supports universal healthcare.

There will never be a 'one world order'. There has been a single constant since the day man first stood erect, and that is the irrepressable desire to impose one's will upon another. We see it as a species, as individuals, and we certainly see it as a nation culture. What do we do often, and do very very well and have always done?
We make war. On an individual scale--this thread is proof enough.
Our nation, founded in war, has made war better, more often, and more bloody than any other nation in existance during the same last 234 yrs. It's what we do, do very very well, and to be honest, as a nation, we will continue to do so.

The strong prey on the weak, and you cannot change the fact that there will always be 'the strong'.

Regarding competition ona global scale. Exactly what is that we can hope to have at any point in the next 50 yrs, that cannot and will not be instantly duplicated and sold cheaper, faster, and in more quantities by overseas producers?
Nothing. Green revolution? A flash in the pan at best.
We consume--that's all we do and is all we will be able to do for a very very long time. No consumer nation on earth has ever survived for very long throughout all of history, and we will be no exception.

BTW--I do not do comedy.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: I appreciate you taking the time this time around to show some initiative. And though it was sarcastic I do accept your compliment. I will stand by the fact however that the reasons the statistics lay out they way they do is because of the current bill and not because of universal healthcare. If it were a true UHC I would believe the numbers would be more in favor, as a majority of the industrialized western world lives with and supports universal healthcare.

You say you stand by the facts, but you then state an opinion.
Get your facts straight.
What is universal HC, government run HC?
Show where the majority are for government run health care.
This is what they are pushing and nothing else.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: I appreciate you taking the time this time around to show some initiative. And though it was sarcastic I do accept your compliment. I will stand by the fact however that the reasons the statistics lay out they way they do is because of the current bill and not because of universal healthcare. If it were a true UHC I would believe the numbers would be more in favor, as a majority of the industrialized western world lives with and supports universal healthcare.

bingo. Industrialized world. They make things--we don't. We're trillions in debt--they aren't. We consume--they build.
Socialism is very very expensive.

The reason the stats lay out as they do, is because it is being forced on the approx 1/2 of the population that does not want it, and that is the same 1/2 of the population that is going to bear the brunt of paying for it. If the bill had an amendment that said only those who want and use it would pay for it, support for the thing would drop like a rock. The only reason it has the support it does enjoy, is because so many are under the impression that it will be paid for with OPM.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: bingo. Industrialized world. They make things--we don't. We're trillions in debt--they aren't. We consume--they build. Socialism is very very expensive. The reason the stats lay out as they do, is because it is being forced on the approx 1/2 of the population that does not want it, and that is the same 1/2 of the population that is going to bear the brunt of paying for it. If the bill had an amendment that said only those who want and use it would pay for it, support for the thing would drop like a rock. The only reason it has the support it does enjoy, is because so many are under the impression that it will be paid for with OPM.

Within his lifetime there will only be a one world government if there is a nuclear war.
We may become so brainwashed to believe that radical crap, but China will never be ruled by anyone else.
The only way one world rule will exist is through forced rule or dictatorship.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Within his lifetime there will only be a one world government if there is a nuclear war. We may become so brainwashed to believe that radical crap, but China will never be ruled by anyone else. The only way one world rule will exist is through forced rule or dictatorship.

Hence DPFGE

I have no idea what your "war" link is, I'm not registering for the NY times just to read more of you're drivel.

Since all you put up is a screenshot with no context (something you do a lot of, BTW) I have no idea. I don't know what question was asked or what point was being made.

For instance, in a Gallup Poll of Nov 1 the question was "Next, I'm going to read you a list of possible Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election. Please tell me whether you would, or would not, seriously consider supporting each for president. How about . . . ?"

The results there are:

Mike Huckabee 71%
Mitt Romney 65%
Sarah Palin 65%
Newt Gingrich 60%
etc.
etc.
etc.

Because they don't total to 100 doesn't mean a thing, they aren't supposed to.

You, in your haste to prove some kind of "point", use guerilla tactics of posting screenshots with no explanation and no context that you can't even find on your own (you have to resort to "bradblog" of all places).

You say you expected better of me? I haven't even been on the forum for the last couple of weeks except for maybe one or two posts, I'm not the one posting out of context "quotes" "from the WSJ" and generally making a fool of myself.

As I said, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

In fact, I'm not sure you have any morals left.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Sure John. Are you too becoming a soldier in the domestic war? I really thought better of you. You are good at math. Tell me how this works, please: 70+63+60=193 on my Earth. But apparently not on the FOX "news" Channel.

This will help explain why this country--nor any other--can afford an agenda built around a socialist ideaology--it's financially unsustainable under good conditions--certainly so under deteriorating conditions. Socialism is very very expensive, and there is no way in hades that a nation or group of nations with consumer based economies can afford it..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009...usiness/23rates.html

quote So lets bring this back to Fox News for a minute. I am pretty sure this should fit in with the point of this thread quite well. Faux News indeed.

To get back on topic of the thread, anyone want to tackle this one? I have a post to build, so this should hold you over until I have it.

You mean to focus back on a politically biased agenda to discredit Fox for their right slant while totally ignoring everyone elses liberal slant? Nahh--I don't think so. To do that, would make us all guilty of exactly what the OP accused Fox of. Unfair and unbalanced.

Obviously that comedy guy is a lot smarter than the average FOX "news" viewer.
I didn't see this reported on FOX, but maybe I missed one of those hidden hours of real news reporting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...and_science-science/

(You probably won't get my comment unless you watched the video that MD posted. Maybe not even then.)

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: There will never be a 'one world order'. There has been a single constant since the day man first stood erect, and that is the irrepressable desire to impose one's will upon another. We see it as a species, as individuals, and we certainly see it as a nation culture. What do we do often, and do very very well and have always done? We make war. On an individual scale--this thread is proof enough. Our nation, founded in war, has made war better, more often, and more bloody than any other nation in existance during the same last 234 yrs. It's what we do, do very very well, and to be honest, as a nation, we will continue to do so. The strong prey on the weak, and you cannot change the fact that there will always be 'the strong'. Regarding competition ona global scale. Exactly what is that we can hope to have at any point in the next 50 yrs, that cannot and will not be instantly duplicated and sold cheaper, faster, and in more quantities by overseas producers? Nothing. Green revolution? A flash in the pan at best. We consume--that's all we do and is all we will be able to do for a very very long time. No consumer nation on earth has ever survived for very long throughout all of history, and we will be no exception. BTW--I do not do comedy.

So you are basically committed to the downfall of the current U.S.A.? I mean I do agree with you on the points you are making, I knew there was a problem a couple of years ago when we were getting full container ships from China daily and sending them back empty. However, I still think there is time to fix it.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: You say you stand by the facts, but you then state an opinion. Get your facts straight. What is universal HC, government run HC? Show where the majority are for government run health care. This is what they are pushing and nothing else.

Universal Healthcare

What I don't understand is that you all go along with the, "If everyone else jumps off a bridge, should we" concept. We only pull that out when it works against us. I distinctly remember the U.S. trying to push an ideal based on this exact same thing trying to ramp up efforts to support the Iraq War. Going to the United Nations with a list of willing countries and saying if you aren't on it your bad. Come on. Plus this article is a really good read, I personally believe the main reason we don't have a desire for UHC is because people believe we have to be different from everyone else. Also I believe this article covers the "government run healthcare" you refer to.

Support for Healthcare

This is my favorite part. This is an article from a month ago. You wonder why support has been wavering? Well that is because congress has been changing and adding to an overall good bill and making it completely worthless. It looks like a race to find out how many loopholes can be added before a deadline. Honestly if we didn't have a system lead by corrupt aristocrats like we do now it probably would look a lot better and maintain support. Leave it to politicians to screw things up... again.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: bingo. Industrialized world. They make things--we don't. We're trillions in debt--they aren't. We consume--they build. Socialism is very very expensive. The reason the stats lay out as they do, is because it is being forced on the approx 1/2 of the population that does not want it, and that is the same 1/2 of the population that is going to bear the brunt of paying for it. If the bill had an amendment that said only those who want and use it would pay for it, support for the thing would drop like a rock. The only reason it has the support it does enjoy, is because so many are under the impression that it will be paid for with OPM.

I keep hearing about this and for some reason you keep thinking that we who are for it are against paying for it. I would love to know where this started or any sources that support this idea. I mean really I have heard some crazy things throughout this debate like, "Keep your government hands away from my Medicare" but this is right up there with it.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Within his lifetime there will only be a one world government if there is a nuclear war. We may become so brainwashed to believe that radical crap, but China will never be ruled by anyone else. The only way one world rule will exist is through forced rule or dictatorship.

Well you believe strongly in democracy don't you. I said that it would be nice to see that if the U.S. were to fall. I wasn't stating it as fact. Also, appreciate the "brainwashed to believe radical crap" comment.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: This will help explain why this country--nor any other--can afford an agenda built around a socialist ideaology--it's financially unsustainable under good conditions--certainly so under deteriorating conditions. Socialism is very very expensive, and there is no way in hades that a nation or group of nations with consumer based economies can afford it.. http://www.nytimes.com/2009...usiness/23rates.html

So to fix it you......?

Impliment trillion dollar wars

quote Total cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars Following 9/11, the United States launched new military endeavors on a number of fronts, including in Iraq. Estimates for the total costs of these efforts remain sharply politicized. Costs have consistently outpaced government predictions. In September 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost of invading Iraq could amount to between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, who at the time headed the White House budget office, called Lindsey’s estimates “very, very high” (MSNBC) and said the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion; shortly thereafter, Lindsey left the White House. In January 2004, a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total costs of Iraq’s reconstruction would land between $50 billion and $100 billion. But in October 2007, the CBO said in a new report that the United States had already spent $368 billion on its military operations in Iraq, $45 billion more in related services (veterans care, diplomatic services, training), and nearly $200 billion on top of that in Afghanistan. The CBO now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments, and says the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

Now I am all for the Afghan War. Iraq not so much, and that happens to be where the money is spent. You want a real kicker though? considering we are talking about healthcare...

Single-payer system implemented in Iraq

Oh but we are also talking about spending aren't we and reducing the national deficit...

Public Option reduces deficit

quote Originally posted by MDFierolover: I keep hearing about this and for some reason you keep thinking that we who are for it are against paying for it. I would love to know where this started or any sources that support this idea. I mean really I have heard some crazy things throughout this debate like, "Keep your government hands away from my Medicare" but this is right up there with it.

FOX "news", maybe?

------------------

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-24-2009).]

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: Oh but we are also talking about spending aren't we and reducing the national deficit... Public Option reduces deficit

Collecting taxes for several years before even implementing services will do that. I've got some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Collecting taxes for several years before even implementing services will do that. I've got some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.

100 miles inland in NC? Sure I would love to see it. And in the contract I will make sure to state that you must continue to drive that low mpg beast so that I can have my ocean front just a little bit sooner.

I have been skimming the comments this morning. It is a lot of reading for an old guy with a weak bladder but I will weigh in on a couple points. I think MaryJane and I are part of a triad or triplets separated at birth.(he already has a twin) I agree with nearly everything he posted this morning but we differ on news media. I am at a disadvantage because I stopped watching television in 1982 and don't even own one. My news comes from newspaper and radio and to a degree what I can glean from the internet. NPR is a good souce, Hannity's opinions notwithstanding.

Last summer, I spent two weeks with my inlaws who only watch Fox and listen to right wing radio talk show hosts when not watching Fox. Talking with them was impossible because of the pervasiveness of the TV so I saw enough Fox in the 13 days we were there to form an opinion. Fox is decidedly right wing in my estimation and they blur the line between news and commentary. I watched Shepherd Smith roll his eyes while reading a quote from a Democratic congressman, I heard him say, "What else would come from his mouth?" That, friends is not news reporting but commentary. Since I don't watch TV and my inlaws didn't watch CNN, MSNBC or one of the other networks, I can't form an opinion of them.

I can tell you that national broadcast radio is, for the most part fair and balanced. I find CBS to be the most informative and seems to be apolytical while ABC leans toward fluff and is fascinated or obsessed with Hollywood and celebrities. They also lean toward the left but often balance their story selection with a reply or story from the right.

The Denver Post is a left leaning newspaper while the Colorado Springs Gazette (it appears to be on its last legs) leans to the right. I read the WSJ and the Portland Oregonian as well as the Austin American Statesman online. At least I read what both sides are saying as opposed to many here and in my own family who only read or watch TV that is aligned with their views. (my wife only listens to right wing radio and I hear regurgitations of Glenn Beck every night) How can we make an informed decision if we only read or listen to one side? Using statistics to substantiate one's opinions isn't balanced. If you were to poll the folks here, I can easily predict the results.

With respect to Fox falsifying the Palin or Hannity rally story, they used footage that shouldn't have been used. The substance of the story was essentially correct but the supporting video was not. This is not as bad as a Korean War video I saw on Youtube that inserted Korean infantrymen with American equipment and said they were Chinese. They totally screwed up the Chinese intervention with respect to maps, events, places of combat, numbers of troops and even units. While I don't like Fox from what I was force fed last summer, I don't think their sin was as bad as falsifying the story. If I were ever to watch Fox, I'd regard it for what it is: Commentary and nothing else. Adn definitely not fair and balanced so I can decide.

Here is the Korean War video in case anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld41-cyFLDk

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Collecting taxes for several years before even implementing services will do that. I've got some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.

well, there are the tobacco taxes, which have been around for quite sometime now - which were installed for exactly this....but - how's about getting back on topic - or is that over, and we are back to dragging everything down to this.....

and, while we are spouting BS - how's about another item which needs a tax to pay for it: war
have the usual "idle" time paid for - but any extra - will require taxation to pay for it. so, some of these folk realize that that junk aint free either.
and people are forced to pay for it, whether they agree with it or not.
yes - lets make a war tax. a specific war tax. are we still at $200,000 per minute with Iraq? I hope not....$200,000 PER MINUTE

quote Originally posted by MDFierolover: I keep hearing about this and for some reason you keep thinking that we who are for it are against paying for it. I would love to know where this started or any sources that support this idea. I mean really I have heard some crazy things throughout this debate like, "Keep your government hands away from my Medicare" but this is right up there with it.

Look no further than congress and the liberals here on this board. There's a reason Neptune and others have called conservatives selfish in relation to the this bill--he wants them to pay someone else's share. You know--like the idiot guy down the highway from me with 4 kids, highspeed internet, a new Dodge diesel pickup--with a custom loud exhaust, three fourwheelers in his back yard, a drug habit, a booze habit, cig habit, a bass boat that I couldn't afford if I wanted to, but no job and he can't wait for this to go into law so his family can have healthcare coverage. No thanks, but if you wish, I'll pm you his address and you folks who favor this can pay for his--and the rest of the people in his trailer park.

In a million years I couldn't have stated it more clearer.
You have given the best example I have ever heard on why government run health care will fail.
Thanks for the brilliant observation.

quote Originally posted by MDFierolvr: You wonder why support has been wavering? Well that is because congress has been changing and adding to an overall good bill and making it completely worthless. It looks like a race to find out how many loopholes can be added before a deadline. Honestly if we didn't have a system lead by corrupt aristocrats like we do now it probably would look a lot better and maintain support. Leave it to politicians to screw things up... again.

Wow... I can't believe this whole thread is about Fox being "caught" using file footage instead of a live image. Ooooooooh, scandal and controversy, scandal and controversy...

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Wow... I can't believe this whole thread is about Fox being "caught" using file footage instead of a live image. Ooooooooh, scandal and controversy, scandal and controversy...

Well, the reason is clear. When something like this happens, Neptune feels "a thrill run up his leg".