Post by: Jamisjockey on June 19, 2008, 05:44:18 AM
I'm sick of hearing about Obama. He is the total and absolute media darling, because he's articulate and cute. Oh and he's black, which for some reason the media finds it strange that a black man can be articulate and cute.
So whats been masqurading as journalisim is in fact a media coronation.
They deomonized Hillary for staying in the race. She wanted to win. She felt she was a better candidate. Yet the media portrayed her as destroying the Democrat party.
They demonize those who don't vote for him as racist. Unenlightened. Bigots. Titles such as "Is America ready for a Black president?" lead the "news". Instead, maybe they should ask "Is America ready for a Communist President?"
I will focus on my primary issue with the Obama campaign, his class warfare. "the rich" he calls anyone who makes a 6 figure income. He proposes to tax the backbone of this country, entreprenures, small business owners, successful hardworking people who provide jobs and pay into the service economy.
But he calls us "the rich", which invokes images of old white haired oil barons, smoking cigars in rooms full of animal carcasses planning the demise of the poor working class slobs. But the fact is that those people are few and far between. Its the people who work hard to make an honest living, running small businesses. Doctors who run small practices in thier communities. Franchise owners. Home builders. Common people striving to live the American Dream.
And Obama is out to destroy that through high taxes, wealth distribution, and good old fashioned communisim. Nationalization of large corporations. A worker's paradise.
Enjoy your job at tractor factory #9, Komrade!
Post by: K Frame on June 19, 2008, 06:17:42 AM
Don't you know that Paddy is behind wealth redistribution and social engineering because Thom Hartmann is behind wealth redistribution and social engineering?
And if Obama, Paddy, and Thom are behind it, it MUST be right for America?
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 19, 2008, 08:12:58 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 19, 2008, 08:50:14 AM
It's a position to strive for, not to punish.
No kidding. Why does it seem like I'm the only person who looks up to the rich and wants to join them some day?
Why does it seem like everyone wants only to punish the rich (using methods that don't punish the rich so much as make it impossible for anyone to become rich)?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 08:52:50 AM
It's a position to strive for, not to punish.
No kidding. Why does it seem like I'm the only person who looks up to the rich and wants to join them some day?
Why does it seem like everyone wants only to punish the rich (using methods that don't punish the rich so much as make it impossible for anyone to become rich)?
Because that takes hard work.
There are vast groups of people who want it handed to them.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 09:04:21 AM
Please don't misinterpret this as support for McCain, but Obama's views/support scare me. I recently graduated from college, but fear that it might be a complete waste if Obama gets his way. Also the amount of support he has from people my age (early 20's) concern me, I questioned them as to why they want socialism. People generally just refused to believe what he really stands for.
I just hope that a divided congress can keep Obama from achieving what he wants to do as president. I also hope that it becomes obvious in the presidential debates just how far left he is. I doubt that will happen though since people don't really pay attention to what he says, just how he makes them feel.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 09:07:36 AM
I don't post too often, but I felt the need to chime in on this one....
Please don't misinterpret this as support for McCain, but Obama's views/support scare me. I recently graduated from college, but fear that it might be a complete waste if Obama gets his way. Also the amount of support he has from people my age (early 20's) concern me, I questioned them as to why they want socialism. People generally just refused to believe what he really stands for.
I just hope that a divided congress can keep Obama from achieving what he wants to do as president. I also hope that it becomes obvious in the presidential debates just how far left he is. I doubt that will happen though since people don't really pay attention to what he says, just how he makes them feel.
Please don't misinterpret this as support for McCain, but Obama's views/support scare me. I recently graduated from college, but fear that it might be a complete waste if Obama gets his way. Also the amount of support he has from people my age (early 20's) concern me, I questioned them as to why they want socialism. People generally just refused to believe what he really stands for.
I just hope that a divided congress can keep Obama from achieving what he wants to do as president. I also hope that it becomes obvious in the presidential debates just how far left he is. I doubt that will happen though since people don't really pay attention to what he says, just how he makes them feel.
Thus far, the only person in the MSM I've seen directly compare what he says to Karl Marx's writings is Glenn Beck, and he even admits he's not a journalist, just a talkshow host.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 09:16:02 AM
Quote
Thus far, the only person in the MSM I've seen directly compare what he says to Karl Marx's writings is Glenn Beck, and he even admits he's not a journalist, just a talkshow host.
Yep, saw that too.
I think I have turned quite a few of his supporters away from him, simply by stating what I find to be obvious. Obama does not represent what most people want imo. I think he is just a vent for the frustrations of my generation. It makes sense when you think about it, we have seen nothing but a growing national debt, continuous wars, failed policy, and most of all further government intrusion into our lives. I usually get this consensus by saying something to the effect of "I just want to make my own choices, right or wrong, and live my own life." Most people agree with this sentiment, and hopefully start seeing expansive government (right or left) as a danger to this sort of lifestyle.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 09:21:45 AM
He makes people feel good, but says nothing.
Therefore, they assign their own hopes and platforms TO him, as if he said them.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 09:30:38 AM
Quote
Obama is popular because he is an unknown and a motivational speaker.
He makes people feel good, but says nothing.
Therefore, they assign their own hopes and platforms TO him, as if he said them.
He makes people feel good, but says nothing.
Therefore, they assign their own hopes and platforms TO him, as if he said them.
This is so true. It is amazing what people simply don't hear when he speaks. I once heard him state that he wants troops out of Iraq, because they are needed elsewhere. He never really explained what he meant by this, but I assumed (we all know what happens when you do that) that he meant other countries outside of the US.
Also after being questioned about studies showing that lowering taxes on the upper class results of more tax revenue, Obama claimed that he would still increase taxes on the upper class, because "it's more fair."
Then when I tell them that many people are starting to label the upper class as people who more than 80,000 $/year, their mouths drop open. For some reason people believe that upper class means an income of millions of dollars per year.
Peoples' heads spin when I tell them these little informational nuggets.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 19, 2008, 09:47:12 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 19, 2008, 09:52:58 AM
I don't post too often, but I felt the need to chime in on this one....
Please don't misinterpret this as support for McCain, but Obama's views/support scare me.
Please don't misinterpret this as support for McCain, but Obama's views/support scare me.
Paddy will be along to beat you up shortly for your obvious love of all things Bush, McCain and Republican.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 09:55:28 AM
Quote
Paddy will be along to beat you up shortly for your obvious love of all things Bush, McCain and Republican.
Being against socialism now equates to being a Bush supporter?
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 19, 2008, 10:20:41 AM
Quote
Paddy will be along to beat you up shortly for your obvious love of all things Bush, McCain and Republican.
Being against socialism now equates to being a Bush supporter?
According to PaddyMcRiley, yes...yes it does.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 10:23:51 AM
I would also point out that laws that punish the rich rarely actually do. They normally just punish and limit the people who are trying to get rich. So naturally rich elitists love it.
BigSuppliesCo has a cost of $1 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.
Big Goverment forces BigSuppliesCo to pay a Bread Windfall Tax of 50 cents.
BigSuppliesCo now has a cost of $1.50 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.50.
And they're too stupid to realize this...
Post by: K Frame on June 19, 2008, 10:35:10 AM
Why do you think that the Democrats have, over the last few years, been slowly scaling back their definition of "rich."
There are quite a few of us on this board who make close to $100K a year.
By Obama standards, we're filthy stinking rich and need to be punished for it, yet most of us certainly aren't living in mansions, eating fillet every meal, bossing around a cadre of servants, sitting on huge stock portfolis, or driving a new Beemer every 2 years.
Most of us who are "rich" by Democratic standards are feeling the pinch just as hard as everyone else, if not more so, and yet those bastards expect us to shoulder "our fair share" as if we've been living carefree, non taxed lives under the Republicans.
That attitude is one of the primary reasons why I hate the Democratic Party so goddamned much and why, every time I hear them yelling about the "rich" not paying their share I cringe and see red.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 10:38:05 AM
"I would also point out that laws that punish the rich rarely actually do. They normally just punish and limit the people who are trying to get rich. So naturally rich elitists love it."
Why do you think that the Democrats have, over the last few years, been slowly scaling back their definition of "rich."
There are quite a few of us on this board who make close to $100K a year.
By Obama standards, we're filthy stinking rich and need to be punished for it, yet most of us certainly aren't living in mansions, eating fillet every meal, bossing around a cadre of servants, sitting on huge stock portfolis, or driving a new Beemer every 2 years.
Most of us who are "rich" by Democratic standards are feeling the pinch just as hard as everyone else, if not more so, and yet those bastards expect us to shoulder "our fair share" as if we've been living carefree, non taxed lives under the Republicans.
That attitude is one of the primary reasons why I hate the Democratic Party so goddamned much and why, every time I hear them yelling about the "rich" not paying their share I cringe and see red.
Why do you think that the Democrats have, over the last few years, been slowly scaling back their definition of "rich."
There are quite a few of us on this board who make close to $100K a year.
By Obama standards, we're filthy stinking rich and need to be punished for it, yet most of us certainly aren't living in mansions, eating fillet every meal, bossing around a cadre of servants, sitting on huge stock portfolis, or driving a new Beemer every 2 years.
Most of us who are "rich" by Democratic standards are feeling the pinch just as hard as everyone else, if not more so, and yet those bastards expect us to shoulder "our fair share" as if we've been living carefree, non taxed lives under the Republicans.
That attitude is one of the primary reasons why I hate the Democratic Party so goddamned much and why, every time I hear them yelling about the "rich" not paying their share I cringe and see red.
Well, you should know that people like Edwards and ALGORE do not count as "rich".
They're the benevolent philosopher-kings that know better than the ignorant masses, and watch over and protect them. So of course they ought to have palaces, it's only right.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 10:41:51 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 10:47:27 AM
The people you see barely able to move, shuffling around near the door at Wal-Mart, that's what happens if you aren't rich when you retire.
Sure, you can say you want a Bohemian lifetyle now. But you're going to starve or live in a box at that age if you don't plan ahead.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 10:54:04 AM
I think a lot of people my age (I'm 25) are unhappy for the same reason the useless hippie bastards of the baby boom were unhappy. They've been raised to be ignorant, shallow, self-absorbed, whiny little kids. The .gov school system ruined their ability to think logically, their parents ruined everything else.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 11:00:26 AM
Quote
I think a lot of people my age (I'm 25) are unhappy for the same reason the useless hippie bastards of the baby boom were unhappy. They've been raised to be ignorant, shallow, self-absorbed, whiny little kids. The .gov school system ruined their ability to think logically, their parents ruined everything else.
Agreed. But the US has continuously been fighting throughout our lifetime. Not as bad as Iraq now, but it just seems like it happens a lot. I am also counting the "small" wars we were involved in, like Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, etc. I don't think the majority of these military actions were justified, or warranted.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 11:02:07 AM
The Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, and Western Europe all made their greatest advances during long, long, long periods of continual warfare and endless campaigns.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 11:05:00 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 11:08:33 AM
And what was the end result???
The greatest monuments, greatest discoveries, most amazing works of architecture, science, music and art in world history?
Like it or not, strife causes momentum.
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 11:12:27 AM
It isn't so much the wars that I have a problem with, just how they are funded, and the consequences. I believe in the principle of blow-back (I drank the kool-aid, I know) which a lot of this meddling causes. I just dont think that this behavior is sustainable, eventually the bill will come, and the children of the people we have killed will avenge someday.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 11:15:17 AM
Post by: alex_trebek on June 19, 2008, 11:17:14 AM
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 11:24:07 AM
Ok, so at fault for the term on a technicality. But it seems like every couple of years this country get sick of being at peace.
We've been at peace for a lot of years. No rationing, no strict fed.gov media control, no nationalization of industry to meet wartime demands......Very few people in this country have any idea what it looks like to not be at peace. Indeed, I'd say our reluctance to pursue the military action we do engage in with full vigour is what causes so many issues. If we'd treated some of these things as wars instead of BS "police actions" we'd have been better off.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 11:34:11 AM
Ok, so at fault for the term on a technicality. But it seems like every couple of years this country get sick of being at peace.
We've been at peace for a lot of years. No rationing, no strict fed.gov media control, no nationalization of industry to meet wartime demands......Very few people in this country have any idea what it looks like to not be at peace. Indeed, I'd say our reluctance to pursue the military action we do engage in with full vigour is what causes so many issues. If we'd treated some of these things as wars instead of BS "police actions" we'd have been better off.
This is true. I suggest people look up what life was like in WWII or moreso even in the UK to really understand what "at war" means.
Ever see those books of ration coupons? That was literally all you could buy at the store in terms of meat, butter, sugar and the like.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 11:37:18 AM
America has been uniquely blessed in being able to (mostly) fight it's wars away from home.
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 19, 2008, 11:47:09 AM
Big Goverment forces BigSuppliesCo to pay a Bread Windfall Tax of 50 cents.
BigSuppliesCo now has a cost of $1.50 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.50.
And they're too stupid to realize this...
Sorry but this is simply not true, one can very easily encounter a situation where the customer simply won't buy at the increased amount, maybe they'll shop harder and figure a way to buy at a lower price or they'll simply do without. There is a tendency for costs to cimply be passed on to the consumer but it's very possible that the business might have to eat that cost out of profits.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 11:49:47 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on June 19, 2008, 11:52:22 AM
BigSuppliesCo has a cost of $1 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.
Big Goverment forces BigSuppliesCo to pay a Bread Windfall Tax of 50 cents.
BigSuppliesCo now has a cost of $1.50 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.50.
And they're too stupid to realize this...
Sorry but this is simply not true, one can very easily encounter a situation where the customer simply won't buy at the increased amount, maybe they'll shop harder and figure a way to buy at a lower price or they'll simply do without. There is a tendency for costs to cimply be passed on to the consumer but it's very possible that the business might have to eat that cost out of profits.
Big Goverment forces BigSuppliesCo to pay a Bread Windfall Tax of 50 cents.
BigSuppliesCo now has a cost of $1.50 for a loaf of bread and sells it to Joe Consumer for $2.50.
And they're too stupid to realize this...
Sorry but this is simply not true, one can very easily encounter a situation where the customer simply won't buy at the increased amount, maybe they'll shop harder and figure a way to buy at a lower price or they'll simply do without. There is a tendency for costs to cimply be passed on to the consumer but it's very possible that the business might have to eat that cost out of profits.
Fuel costs $4.00 a gallon. Are you doing without? I know I'm not - I have to get to work every day. And guess what? Oil companies are doing quite well. And, providing that there is no price fixing going on, that is their right.
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 19, 2008, 12:08:38 PM
Strife, yes. It is my understanding that the over expansion of the Roman empire caused its inevitable collapse, and also that the resulting dark ages reversed any technological advancements made by the civilization. Probably can't be directly compared to today, but there are parallels that can be drawn imo.
It isn't so much the wars that I have a problem with, just how they are funded, and the consequences. I believe in the principle of blow-back (I drank the kool-aid, I know) which a lot of this meddling causes. I just dont think that this behavior is sustainable, eventually the bill will come, and the children of the people we have killed will avenge someday.
It isn't so much the wars that I have a problem with, just how they are funded, and the consequences. I believe in the principle of blow-back (I drank the kool-aid, I know) which a lot of this meddling causes. I just dont think that this behavior is sustainable, eventually the bill will come, and the children of the people we have killed will avenge someday.
Actually, no. I can't remember which emporer changed it, but at one point Roman Generals were expected to raise, feed, and pay thier own armies. Therefore the armies were no longer loyal to Rome, but thier Generals. And when the Generals were put in positions of lust of new power, civil wars erupted. That was one of the primary contribitors to the downfall of rome.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 12:12:19 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 19, 2008, 04:01:07 PM
Oh, I've changed my life around quite a bit to deal with gas prices, right now I use a lot less then I had even a few months ago, but what, exactly, is incorrect about what I said? Is everyone going to buy every product regardless of the price increase or will people simply decide it's not worth it at some point?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 04:22:47 PM
Fuel costs $4.00 a gallon. Are you doing without? I know I'm not - I have to get to work every day. And guess what? Oil companies are doing quite well. And, providing that there is no price fixing going on, that is their right
Oh, I've changed my life around quite a bit to deal with gas prices, right now I use a lot less then I had even a few months ago, but what, exactly, is incorrect about what I said? Is everyone going to buy every product regardless of the price increase or will people simply decide it's not worth it at some point?
Oh, I've changed my life around quite a bit to deal with gas prices, right now I use a lot less then I had even a few months ago, but what, exactly, is incorrect about what I said? Is everyone going to buy every product regardless of the price increase or will people simply decide it's not worth it at some point?
People can't not buy gas, or they can't get to work.
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 19, 2008, 05:22:20 PM
People only buy gas for work? There's no such thing as carpooling? Trading in your SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle is impossible? Using wood for fuel instead of heating oil cannot happen? Working four 10hr days instead of five 8 hour days cannot be done? Getting a job closer to home never happens?
Sorry but your previously listed example where a company's profits remain the same no matter what taxes are imposed is simply incorrect, I'm not advocating taxes do to the oil companies doing well but you shouldn't try to argue against socialism using a faulty arguement.
Post by: 41magsnub on June 19, 2008, 05:30:34 PM
People can't not buy gas, or they can't get to work
People only buy gas for work? There's no such thing as carpooling? Trading in your SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle is impossible? Using wood for fuel instead of heating oil cannot happen? Working four 10hr days instead of five 8 hour days cannot be done? Getting a job closer to home never happens?
Sorry but your previously listed example where a company's profits remain the same no matter what taxes are imposed is simply incorrect, I'm not advocating taxes do to the oil companies doing well but you shouldn't try to argue against socialism using a faulty arguement.
People only buy gas for work? There's no such thing as carpooling? Trading in your SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle is impossible? Using wood for fuel instead of heating oil cannot happen? Working four 10hr days instead of five 8 hour days cannot be done? Getting a job closer to home never happens?
Sorry but your previously listed example where a company's profits remain the same no matter what taxes are imposed is simply incorrect, I'm not advocating taxes do to the oil companies doing well but you shouldn't try to argue against socialism using a faulty arguement.
It's not just that easy to do.
Car pooling? Not possible for everyone, need the car at the office.
Trading in the SUV for a more efficient vehicle? That would in most cases ultimately cost more money, see other threads on this board for details.
Use wood? Cannot change to that in my town, only houses with a pre-existing fireplace or stove can do that. No new ones due to the inversion in the winter, damn living in a valley.
Work 4 10's instead of 5 8's? Wish I could pull that off.
Get a job closer to home? The economy is not that great, switching jobs is not such an easy thing to do. Without moving out of state, and even probably then, it's not like it used to be with offers waiting in the wings.
I'm 0/5 on those options, what else do you have?
Post by: grey54956 on June 19, 2008, 05:57:23 PM
I make money.
I spend money on stuff I want.
The money I spend on stuff ends up in some laborer's pocket.
Then, he spends money on stuff he wants, some of which may be made by the company I work for.
Some of that money finds its way back into my pocket.
Huzzah! Wealth re-distribution!
Now, if the gov't takes my money and gives it to someone else for no other reason than I have money, and he doesn't, that's not wealth re-distribution.
THAT'S #@$&'N STEALING!
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 19, 2008, 06:10:13 PM
Just because you couldn't or wouldn't make those changes doesnt mean that others havent, so other people using less means a decrease in demand. Even something as simple as a summer vacation is changing, with many people staying much closer to home, and the effect is that people are using less gas than in previous years.
Anyway, you missed the point, Maned's example of corporate profits always remaining the same despite taxes is inaccurate. There is a limit to how much one can charge for a product before people simply stop buying, and it doesnt matter if that increased expense is due to govt or to market forces.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 06:44:58 PM
People can't not buy gas, or they can't get to work
People only buy gas for work? There's no such thing as carpooling? Trading in your SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle is impossible? Using wood for fuel instead of heating oil cannot happen? Working four 10hr days instead of five 8 hour days cannot be done? Getting a job closer to home never happens?
People only buy gas for work? There's no such thing as carpooling? Trading in your SUV for a more fuel efficient vehicle is impossible? Using wood for fuel instead of heating oil cannot happen? Working four 10hr days instead of five 8 hour days cannot be done? Getting a job closer to home never happens?
Wow, you sound like an elitist liberal, sorry.
Carpooling how? Nobody who lives near me works near me, that's how it is for most people.
My car gets 32mpg, and gas still hurts.
Wood for fuel? Sure, I'll tell the mananger of my townhouse complex I'm going to bust through a wall and put a pipe out, and ignore the built-in gas central HVAC.
And sure, I'll just tell my boss I'm going to work four days a week instead.
Move closer to work? That's an option, right, when "closer" means either $3000/month for a broom closet for most people, or living in an industrial district.
Maybe I should just take the train that's 45 miles away for the nearest station, or the invisible buses that don't exist and wouldn't go anywhere in the right directions if they did?
Damn, that sounded elitist of you. Ivory-tower elitist.
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 19, 2008, 07:37:24 PM
Post by: nico on June 19, 2008, 08:25:47 PM
I recently graduated from college, but fear that it might be a complete waste if Obama gets his way. Also the amount of support he has from people my age (early 20's) concern me, I questioned them as to why they want socialism. People generally just refused to believe what he really stands for.
Heh, you think you're scared; imagine if you were in a healthcare field. I'm in dental school. In 2 years (based on the offers people I know who graduated this year are making) I should be making ~$150k a year. That sounds like a boatload, but I'll also have $250k (at ~8.5% apr) in loans to pay back. I'll be making an assload more than the average college graduate, but I'll also have worked (my ass off) for free for 4 years more than the average college graduate, and will have accrued $250k more debt than them. And that [expletive deleted] acts/talks as if I will have had that salary handed to me. I don't mean to imply that I'm more deserving than anyone else (meaning lots of people could get through dental school). But, since I actually invested the time/money in furthering my education, shouldn't I get rewarded for that?
Post by: alex_trebek on June 20, 2008, 03:59:39 AM
The only good thing that could come from true national healthcare is insurance would go away. From my understanding of our VA healthcare (which I admit is very limited) they have to sign a waver saying they won't sue if the Dr. screws up. Therefore no malpractice insurance. Do dentists have malpractice insurance?
Had a friend in the military assisting with surgeries (at least on par with a nurse) who didn't even have an associates degree.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:19:24 AM
Throw those ad hominem attacks all you want, anything to get the focus off the fact that your point does not hold up to scrutiny when it comes to markets.
Um.
You want to maybe say something that makes sense...?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:21:45 AM
Yeah I feel sorry for people our age in the med field. True national healthcare would probably put them all in the poor house. My brother is pre-med, also concerned. Personally I have ~$100,000 in debt for school, so we will see what happens....
The only good thing that could come from true national healthcare is insurance would go away. From my understanding of our VA healthcare (which I admit is very limited) they have to sign a waver saying they won't sue if the Dr. screws up. Therefore no malpractice insurance. Do dentists have malpractice insurance?
Had a friend in the military assisting with surgeries (at least on par with a nurse) who didn't even have an associates degree.
The only good thing that could come from true national healthcare is insurance would go away. From my understanding of our VA healthcare (which I admit is very limited) they have to sign a waver saying they won't sue if the Dr. screws up. Therefore no malpractice insurance. Do dentists have malpractice insurance?
Had a friend in the military assisting with surgeries (at least on par with a nurse) who didn't even have an associates degree.
National healthcare with a deliberate Dem scuttling of any sort of tort reform, meaning you'll still have to pay an arm and leg for malpractice insurance...if you can even get it anymore. Because it's become that if someone comes in in pieces, you put them back together and they don't regain full feeling in their pinkie, they'll sue you...and likely get away with it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 04:34:53 AM
So what about continuous wars?
The Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, and Western Europe all made their greatest advances during long, long, long periods of continual warfare and endless campaigns.
The Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, and Western Europe all made their greatest advances during long, long, long periods of continual warfare and endless campaigns.
I'm not sure you'd want to be imitating the culture of the Roman Empire. Or ancient Egypt. Or, to that end, Western Europe.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:36:44 AM
So what about continuous wars?
The Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, and Western Europe all made their greatest advances during long, long, long periods of continual warfare and endless campaigns.
The Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, and Western Europe all made their greatest advances during long, long, long periods of continual warfare and endless campaigns.
I'm not sure you'd want to be imitating the culture of the Roman Empire. Or ancient Egypt. Or, to that end, Western Europe.
Why not?
And are you going on the actual history, or the comic-book Hollywood popular culture versions that are completely inaccurate?
Did you mean the Roman Empire that had six-story apartment buildings, fast food restaurants with health inspections, widespread organized trade, incredible engineering feats like the still-operating aqueducts and the ability to have settlements quickly equal most of the comforts of a modern suburb with the exception of electricity? The Rome that had professional surgeons with excellent steel instruments who sterilized them in boiling water before surgery, that even did eye cataract operations successfully? The Rome where carpenters used claw and ball hammers, band saws, hacksaws, coping saws, cold chisels and planes pretty much identical to modern ones? Where they made a waterproof concrete we're still trying to figure out? Would that be the Rome of Cicero's oratories before the Senate that make our politicians look like inbred monkeys?
Did you mean the Egypt that was so well organized that it had scheduled water taxis for workers, police department precincts with formalized homicide investigations, and some of history's most skillful mathematicians, astronomers and architects? Where people were often quite healthy, and anyone who could learn to read and write could become a scribe, which was an extremely high-paying position that would probably get them their own nice multi-level villa?
Did you mean the Western Europe of the Renaissance?
Quote
As, then, this is the case, O Catiline, continue as you have begun. Leave the city at last: the gates are open; depart. That Manlian camp of yours has been waiting too long for you as its general. And lead forth with you all your friends, or at least as many as you can; purge the city of your presence; you will deliver me from a great fear, when there is a wall between me and you. Among us you can dwell no longerI will not bear it, I will not permit it, I will not tolerate it. Great thanks are due to the immortal gods, and to this very Jupiter Stator, in whose temple we are, the most ancient protector of this city, that we have already so often escaped so foul, so horrible, and so deadly an enemy to the republic. But the safety of the commonwealth must not be too often allowed to be risked on one man. As long as you, O Catiline, plotted against me while I was the consul elect, I defended myself not with a public guard, but by my own private diligence. When, in the next consular comitia, you wished to slay me when I was actually consul, and your competitors also, in the Campus Martius, I checked your nefarious attempt by the assistance and resources of my own friends, without exciting any disturbance publicly. In short, as often as you attacked me, I by myself opposed you, and that, too, though I saw that my ruin was connected with great disaster to the republic. But now you are openly attacking the entire republic.
Can you imagine any politician today speaking so eloquently, without a prepared speech, in front of our legislators as Cicero delivered that to the Senate? I would love to have been able to sit there and listen to that.
We've lost a lot since then.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 04:38:41 AM
You can't retire comfortably unless you're "rich".
The people you see barely able to move, shuffling around near the door at Wal-Mart, that's what happens if you aren't rich when you retire.
Sure, you can say you want a Bohemian lifetyle now. But you're going to starve or live in a box at that age if you don't plan ahead.
The people you see barely able to move, shuffling around near the door at Wal-Mart, that's what happens if you aren't rich when you retire.
Sure, you can say you want a Bohemian lifetyle now. But you're going to starve or live in a box at that age if you don't plan ahead.
I did not mean I want a Bohemian lifestyle. However, in the line of work I want to get into, if and when I succeed - it'll require at least six more years of college - I'm going to be paid less than a lot of the people posting in this thread.