Printable View
I just sent a copy of this fishy post to [email]flag@whitehouse.gov[/email]. I think it's important for the government to keep track of such things and the people who would say them.
[QUOTE=Sidney]TEN FACTS EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS' TRILLION-DOLLAR "STIMULUS" ON ITS SIX-MONTH ANNIVERSARY.
Sick Sid[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sidney]Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.[/QUOTE]Obama is taking lessons from his friend Hugo Chavez - unleashing the "union" thugs on opposition. Not just in Montana but all over the country. SEIU goons badly beat a man at a town hall in Missouri when the man dared have an opinion different than that allowed by Disciples of Our Savior.
This is, of course, "The Change We Were Waiting For!"
So now O is a good friend of hugo chavez?
What happen to the people who brought fire arms to the town meetings[strongly anti o+ mouthing obvious misinformation propagated by ms palin]
Hate o--that's your right, but you are too intelligent to spread misinformation. Were you joking about o being a good friend of chavez or employing hyperbole to make a point of some sort?
Jackson thank you for taking the time to list several ideas / solutions Republicans have put forward on the health care debate.
Neither side has done a great job of getting their ideas out there in the media for intelligent discussion. You would think FOX would do so for the Republican ideas, and probably they have, but almost every time I check in on them they are doing some story slanted on making the Obama administration look bad. Medical tort reform and reducing "defensive medicine" is a particularly good and powerful idea which I hope will end up in the legislation that eventually gets passed.
I have to disagree with you on a "philosophical" point, namely, that if most people have insurance and are happy with it, then health care reform should not be an important issue. There are plenty of reasons it should be, but chief among them to me is medical bankruptcy. Of course if you lose your job / employer insurance and require expensive medical treatment, you are SOL. But studies have shown that many people who file for medical bankruptcy also had insurance. High deductibles, co-pays and exclusions were cited as some of the reasons why health insurance policies offer little protection during a serious illness. Illness and medical bills are a major cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.
I don't think people should suffer financial ruin because they got sick.
[QUOTE=Esten]You would think FOX would do so for the Republican ideas, and probably they have, but almost every time I check in on them they are doing some story slanted on making the Obama administration look bad.[/QUOTE]Esten,
Consider watching Neil Cavuto at 5 pm (4 pm EST). He's a rather moderate and straight-forward guy.
Also the first 30 minutes of the O'Relliy Factor at 9 pm (8 pm EST).
Don't watch Glen Beck 6 pm (5 pm EST) He can be interesting, but he's often unnecessarily animated.
And for god's sake, don't watch Hannity 10 pm (9 pm EST) He's the #1 reason why Fox incorrectly suffers from a reputation as being overtly right wing.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson,
Being european, and therefore a liberal, at least, it always makes me smile when you say Fox News isn't right wing. Its good to get a take on the other side so I watch Fox occasionally, but the only guy I can stomach is Shepherd Smith; best quote, "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not fucking torture!". Did he really get away with that on Fox? I'll check out Neil Cavuto.
Thanks for the link.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Dear Mr. President, Senate and House of Representatives:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family (18-20 mouths) into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U. S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services iI might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Mexico government forms need to also be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy eccess to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U. S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who come to the U. S. From Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.[/QUOTE]PS: Also, please tell President Calderon that if he gives me citizenship he can safely assume that I will blindly vote for his party in every election.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Dear Mr. President, Senate and House of Representatives:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family (18-20 mouths) into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U. S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services iI might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Mexico government forms need to also be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy eccess to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U. S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who come to the U. S. From Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.[/QUOTE]You forgot your coffee and pistachio ice cream. LOL
This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.[/QUOTE]A real rusted-on Democrat. Well let's see how well the Obama can dig America out of the deep pile of doo-doo that Democrat policies initiated, save the world and make all these born-again Democrats realise that he is the messiah. Fat chance. My guess he will be like Ted Kennedy; when he was really needed, he left a young woman to drown and only admitted culpability 9 hours later. I don't think America needs that sort of role model. And Obama talks sweet but my guess he's just a cock-teaser; lots of promises but no fucky-fucky.
Argento
I don't know who wrote this but it was obviously written by a retard.
It is pretty good summary of what all of us go through when we are young, impressionable and without life experiences.
By and large, if you aren't a liberal when you are 20 years old you don't have a heart.
If you are still a liberal when you a 30 years old you don't have a brain.
This person obviously was born without a brain.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. I met President Kennedy on his last visit to Boston before he was killed. I was at a very impressionable age and, not surprisingly, that memorable event set my career focus to working in ways to fulfill the Kennedy brand of liberalism.
I was devastated by the President's death, but saw his brother Bobby, as the leader who could go beyond JFK's cerebral ways and bring passion and real compassion into US politics. Bobby's appeal to both blacks and whites held great promise. And then came the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. The summer of 68, I virtually hibernated in my bedroom - listening to a new brand of rock & roll (The Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, etc. While my broken heart mended.
In the late 60s, I dodged the Vietnam War draft, studied political science and hoped that Teddy would emerge from his own hibernation and pick up the torch so I could follow him. Chappaquiddick intervened.
Senator George McGovern's anti-war Presidential campaign was my entree into serious politics. And from 1972 through 1989, I worked in government for a variety of senior American national political leaders trying to end racism, poverty and war. We all know how that worked out!
After I left public service, I lost my taste for the business and despaired for the cause, as I saw an emerging US where everyone seemed to embrace a brutish selfishness and a mindless pursuit of lucre. Clinton was a marginal Democrat in my eyes. The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.
When Obama came along my hopes were renewed and the dream rekindled. I never assumed that single-handedly, he would overturn the forces of greed and evil, but I was, perhaps, too optimistic about how much "change" we could "believe in" would be tolerated by the powers that be.
Over the years, I had several personal encounters with Teddy. Once I brushed the stardust from my eyes, I saw a regular guy whose intelligence, charm and wit were ever present. Teddy's passing is a sad reminder of how the idealism that fueled my youth is so out of place today. It is a perverse blessing that he will not live to see the possible failure of his new champion, President Obama, not for want of trying and talent, but because the current creed of indignant indifference to others, so permeates US culture and the ruling class.
The depth of latent racism, especially among older white Americans who harbor deep fears that a multicultural America somehow holds a threat to them, is disheartening. That racism is just one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and a poisonous American media that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.
As we age, our understanding of history does give us some perspective. In my lifetime there have been 13 presidents. Only one - FDR - was a success. JFK had too little time for a fair and full judgment on his tenure to be made. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton - were mediocrities. Seven were outright political failures - Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushes One and Two. What does that track record say about the efficacy of American democracy? The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about the genius of America's scientific and business management and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.
I fear that the best days of the US are behind it, unless change occurs that seems very unlikely. That the forces that wrecked the global financial economy will emerge still in the driver's seat appalls me. I now live in a country that once had great promise and squandered it through decades of bad leadership, military dominance and dysfunctional politics. It is not impossible that fifty years from now that will describe the US.
Still, for me, the dream isn't dead. Dreams never die. They recede and reappear in the mist of sleep. Even today some will see things as they are and say why and others will see things as they should be and say why not.
My dream is that the youth of the US will wake up some morning and recognize they are being left behind, as China and other nations push the US aside. They will decide that unless they change things, their future will be a diminished one. Maybe then they will do what the New Dealers did and create the "newer world" that the Kennedy brothers tried to inspire.
My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ricardo]This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes.[/QUOTE]Hi Ricardo,
Well written, but I have to ask: Are you the original author, or did you copy this from the Daily KOS?
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/28/773808/-A-Personal-Remembrance-of-Ted-from-A-US-Expat[/url]
Inquiring minds want to know.
Furthering the discussion:
[QUOTE=Ricardo]The theft of the Presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the W / Cheney / Rove years were dispiriting enough to bring me here to Argentina.[/quote]You came to the right country, because Argentina is a perfect example of what the USA will look like in 20 years if the liberals and their Messiah have their way.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]... one of the many seemingly impossible obstacles that Obama faces, as he navigates an era of government distrust, broken political systems and [u]a poisonous American media[/u] that no longer functions as a channel of civic education or objective watchdog.[/quote]Are you serious? Where do you get this stuff? With absolute certainty throughout the election and into his presidency, the media has been in love with the Messiah.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]The fact that during those years, the US became the dominant global power may say more about [u]the genius of America's scientific and business management[/u] and the weakness of other powers than America's political leadership.[/quote]Which is exactly why government should not run the country's health care system.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I fear that the best days of the US are behind it.[/quote]Why do liberals always have such a depressing "Doom and Gloom" outlook on life? Oh, I forgot, it's because they have an ongoing need to frighten their constituency.
Thanks,
Jackson
"I fear that the best days of the USA are behind us."
Jackson,
I heard this same bullshit when that "shit for brains" idiot Carter was President.
However, if you were in office thanks to the votes of a 100 million liberals, you would probably think that it was time to throw in the towel. The people who voted you into office (the unemployed, those who refuse to work and the give me my welfare check crowd) are not people with big ideas, big plans and big dreams.
To the contrary, they are fucking liberals (leaches) who think they should have the same life style as those who actually got off their butts, took chances and made something of their lifes.
First off, I feel for anyone who loses a loved one, whether I liked the man or not. That said, the BS and revisionist history gushing out of the media about Ted Kennedy is appalling.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]This week, like millions around the world, I grieve for a fallen leader and an era that has passed. All US-born "liberals" of a certain age are Kennedy acolytes. [/QUOTE]What does that say about liberals taking false gods (Kennedys, the environment, Obama)? It says that there is a large population of people with mush for brains that will worship people who are unworthy of note for personal character but produce much fodder for the likes of People Magazine.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]My own way of following Teddy's legacy will be to emulate his personal approach, rather than the political. Like him I will cherish all children, keep my friends close, harbor few resentments, be kind to all who cross my path and laugh and sing Irish songs as often as possible.[/QUOTE]His political legacy is that of a powerful, bitter partisan (I. E. He was a successful politician) It is a blood sport, he played to win and often times he did win.
Teddy's legacy as a man, for those who wish to look beyond partisan politics, is that of a degenerate who if it were not for his last name never would have been in the Senate nor would he have evaded jail time for manslaughter, rape and sexual harassment. As far as I can tell, the last time (until this past week) that he was ever held accountable for his actions was when Harvard threw him out for cheating (and it wasn't the first time he was caught). Unless Teddy set things right with God prior to departure, it sure is hot where he is right now.
I am not casting stones, I am calling it like I see it. I like everyone have my own failings for which I will be held accountable. However, to date, I have never sex with an unwilling partner nor have my actions directly caused the death of anyone.
I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellas
Jackson - I first posted my comments on Kos and then here. The reactions to it were somewhat different as you would imagine.
Alamo - At least you serve a good American hamburger. I'll leave it at that.
Sidney - Yup! I am a liberal. Not ashamed at all about it. Think the US has seen its best days. Think the global crash pretty much sums up the validity of the Friedman / Greenspan laissez-faire, free market, invisible hand of self correcting markets, neo-liberal, neocon economic theory hog wash that became secular religion over the past thirty years and like all religions left havoc in its wake.
And, unlike your fellow commentators, I see no reason to hurl personal insults at people whose views differ from mine. Those people define themselves with their statements.
I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.
And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their own - as they search for cheap pussy, complain about its rising cost, mindlessly exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.
Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here!
Ricardo,
Your thesis or whatever you want to call it was very well written. You have a knack with words. I thought it was lifted from some national newspaper or magazine.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]If you mean creating jobs, practicing kindness to other (the real kind where you actually do something rather than spout greeting card slogans) caring for the environment (again in real life not bumper sticker liberalism) paying taxes and not killing women who work for me, yes, I have made an effort.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their own[/QUOTE]Can you read or do you only write?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.[/QUOTE]Who is being exploited? The gringos who are diverting money that could be better spent feeding their own children or the Argentine temptresses who know we can not resist their charms?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here![/QUOTE]Goes down fine, like one of Exon's girls from Checker's Pub. You see the difference here is that most of the mongering folks here welcome the opinions of others and the opportunity to debate -- based on the merits and not feel-good platitudes backed up by fluff and bull shit.
Great to know that Jackson's AP ranks #2 to the Daily Kooks. Way to go Jackson, you must have at least 3 people following your site (since Daily Kooks had 4, at last count)
Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists. And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.
I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind. But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.
If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor to carry the day in a serious debate.
Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise.
Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days, either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference.
Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists.[/QUOTE]Forgive me Brother O'Malley, I'm no Opus Dei but I've been around the church a bit too.
I am afraid that your fine Jesuit instructors skipped over humor and sarcasm and a host of other literary devices, whilst diligently drilling you on crafting earnest hyperbole.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.[/QUOTE]Thank you for confirming my suspicion and once again not reading the written word.
A snipe is a bird, my comment was a quip. It was not about your breadth or depth of the immeasurable cornucopia of material that I am sure you have read, it was about you not reading what I had written. Specifically, I made a biblical (I was counting on that as being part of your cornucopia, mentioned above) reference about not casting the first stone because I too am a sinner.
I ask you, why, why should we write at all if no one cares to read what is written? For the artistry, the beauty and of course for the grace of God (after all, were it not for this last notion, we would have all been cheated out of the beauty that accompanied the beast of the Italian Renaissance)
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind.[/QUOTE]Don't readily accept anything. I might surprise you.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. [/QUOTE]I didn't. You assumed that I did based on: 1) your spotty attention to detail in the fine art of reading comprehension, or 2) your preconceived notions of how I think / act / speak, or 3) you lack of true conviction in your political beliefs because they are based on warm feelings, slogans and the influence of the opinions of others rather than on a concrete understanding through living it.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.[/QUOTE]I don't know where that leads. I've never been one to compare myself to others.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym [sic] insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor [sic] to carry the day in a serious debate.[/QUOTE]My inference is valid, my reasoning correct.
I was trying to be nice with my ad hominem comments. How am I hiding behind them? My language may be colorful, however, my rigour is just fine, as is my principled position.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise. [/QUOTE]I would be intimidated by such interaction with an individual who clearly has a vastly superior intellect than I.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days,[/QUOTE]It's always in the last place you look.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference. [/QUOTE]Please reference the bird about your reading comprehension, above.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?[/QUOTE]No, is the Argentine senate going to remove that nonexistent facet from their legislation too? What a minute, how can you remove something that doesn't exist? I'm so confused!
Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe[/url]
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.
This Presidency is getting to the goods. Prostitution is on the way sooner rather than later, I can say that. I can't see how they're not about getting Israel wiped off the map. Argentina legalized drugs. Maybe it is a good time feel the vibes in Chicago, the only tolerable place of visit in the USA.
[QUOTE=Bame Mata]Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe[/url]
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.[/QUOTE]Very apt indeed, however, I was trying to be funny with the bird allusion (which I thought I wove into the end quite well)
I suspect that the reason you viewed my criticism as snide and petulant, had something to do with the fact that is how I intended it to be.
WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.
Let me end this little colloquy with an ancient Gaelic blessing for you (tailored for the current circumstance):
"May the sun shine warm upon your face;
The rains fall soft upon your fields;
May the road rise up to meet you.
And may the wind be always at your back."
Rather than coming out your ass! (emphasis added)
[quote] Whirlpool Corp. Announced Friday it will close its Evansville, Ind. Factory next year, moving the plant's production of top-freezer refrigerators to a facility in Mexico.
Citing the need to trim manufacturing capacity, Whirlpool said the mid-2010 plant closure will eliminate 1,100 full-time jobs.
Whirlpool (WHR) like most manufacturers, has seen its sales slump over the past year as a global economic recession and housing market slump hurt demand for home appliances. Whirlpool's latest revenue numbers show sales in the second quarter fell 18% to $4.17 billion from the second quarter of 2008. [/quote]Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn ’t we have some cash for clunker freezers?
[QUOTE=Toymann]I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellas[/QUOTE]NOSTALGIA, THE AMERICAN ELIXIR.
I'm with you, but it's the John Wayne crowd that are most entertaining.
Their "either you are a cowboy, or you're not" reflects their nostalgia for the good old days. Their need to insult and belittle people when claiming to be debating is pure arrogance. By the way, I'm conservative and do not have common grounds with the liberals.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn 't we have some cash for clunker freezers?[/QUOTE]Cash for clunkers was a give-away to spike car sales and help out Obama Motors / UAW.
Forget what the main stream media says, the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people. That number is derived from the census bureau and excludes: I) illegal aliens, ii) those making more than $75k / year, iii) those who qualify for public assistance but do not take advantage of it, and iv) those who temporarily lose insurance (averaging 4 months or less) but are not chronically uninsured.
If that program was "cash for Health Insurance" it could have paid for private health insurance (of the same quality that I have for myself and family) for 1.25 million people (10.42% of those who CANNOT get health insurance) for a period of four months.
Alas, doing that would not qualify as payback owed to the UAW by BHO and Ried and Pelosi.
Ricardo, again, you have no sense of humor (a condition that plagues the left) and you have an alternative understanding of literary devices than the one I possess.
[quote]WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.[/QUOTE]What makes you say "hmmmm" (did you have your hands on your hips when you typed that? Shit, now I feel like I have to clean the garage instead of playing golf and drinking beer with my friends.
How is being humorous through the use of sarcasm and quips, delivered in a snide and petulant manner, inconsistent? Why do you put quotation marks around these words? Did I misused them somehow or bastardize their meanings?
WW,
The main stream media use of the 47+ million Americans who are currently uninsured may be worthy of criticism. But your claim that the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people is demonstrably false. Your number is derived from an easily refuted misrepresentation of the 2007 Census Bureau telephone survey estimates that has been floating around the web for a few years. I will now detail the flaws of the so-called analysis.
The Census Bureau report issued in 2007 numbers are legitimately subject to interpretation. The 47 million figure is inclusive and is not a definitive measure of the number of American's whose health is at risk because they do not have access to affordable coverage.
I assume you recognize that the thrust of the national effort to reform the US health insurance system led by President Obama and supported by many business, labor and consumer interest groups, focuses on, not one, but, three key issues - the portion of Americans without any coverage; the practice of the insurance firms to deny coverage to classes of citizens and / or arbitrarily drop clients and refuse to pay for covered procedures; and the skyrocketing costs of coverage that threaten both businesses who share the burden of covering their employees and all insured Americans who are forced to spend a greater share of their income on premiums.
Whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem, the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul. You don't address that key concern, but rather provide debatable interpretations of the 2007 Census data.
First, the 2007 numbers are out-of-date, as they do not reflect the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the current crisis and their family members.
Second, the length of time that it now takes for newly unemployed to find work is far longer that the four month average of 2007 due to the current recession and many replacement jobs are part-time and / or do not offer health care. There is little doubt that the US employment picture will remain dim for a long time.
Third, the 2007 Census data counts 9.487 million people who are "not a citizen." Those numbers include both legal and illegal aliens. Legal "non-citizen" residents work, pay taxes and contribute to the general welfare of the nation just like all other citizens. They have contributed a fair proportion of US troops in The Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many are in the process of filing for full citizenship. Any of their children born on US soil are full citizens. Their legal status entitles them to the same treatment as full citizens.
The Census data on insurance does not break down the proportions of the uninsured "non-citizens" that are legal versus illegal aliens. Opponents of health care reform lump them together so as to state that the number of uninsured "Americans" is only 37 million. They argue somehow all 10 million uninsured "non-citizens," including legal aliens, should be ignored in the healthcare debate. That argument - to be generous - is anti-immigrant jingoism designed to delegitimize the call for health insurance reform.
Fourth, who can or cannot "afford" health insurance is not easily calculated, as it would be a function of both the ability to pay and the cost of the coverage. So arbitrary numbers used by either side on the health care "affordability" debate are not true and reliable measures of the extent of the difficulty Americans have in meeting their health care needs.
The 2007 Census report, estimates 8.3 million uninsured people made between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million made more than $75,000 a year. The opponents of health care reform extrapolate from those figures that the 17 million people in those categories ought to be able to "afford" health insurance, because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326. That is a point of view, not a statement of fact.
Average family health insurance premiums have risen from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008 and are expected to possibly double by 2020. Wages which have been stagnant through most of the Bush years are unlikely to double by 2020. So the future "affordability" of health insurance is a serious issue for every income group, as is the current status for even the fairly well-off middle class.
Maybe every family with an annual income of $50+k can now "afford" to pay up to 25% of that income on health care premiums for policies that have high deductibles and co-payments, as well as exclusions on covered procedures. Maybe many can't - depending on a variety of factors from regional costs of living, tax burdens, number of children, etc. As factored against their specific insurance costs.
If wages remain stagnant and insurance costs double as projected, a family with an income of $50k could face annual insurance costs of up to 50% of their earnings. Would anyone claim with a straight face those middle-class Americans could still "afford" health insurance.
WW - do you think, perhaps, the insurance, pharmaceutical and related health industry firms whose profit margins far exceed most general industry averages could "afford" to lower the prices they charge? Or would that be a mortal capitalist sin?
Do you think it is a good idea, as the health care reform bills move through Congress, to include the insurance industry-supported version that would guarantee a 35% profit margin? Interesting idea - have the federal government guarantee industry profit margins while refusing to guarantee health care for its citizens!
Is it possible that excessive rewards issued in malpractice law suits are similar to excess industry profits? Or is it just wrong when trial lawyers try to make a buck?
WW - I am afraid your ideology, disdain for those you disagree with, reliance on biased sources to support your preconceived notions and tendency to shoot from the hip won't get you a gig as the Argentine Rush Limbaugh, but if Faux News needs a local correspondent you could be their go-to guy. I will provide a reference if they call!
(By the way, your lame, little inference on my hands and hips could be construed as a anti-gay prejudice, but why would that surprise anyone?
I will respond to your DNC talking points, if I can find the energy (need to see the DR about my chronic fatigue (brought on by unrepentant liberal gushiness for BHO)
[QUOTE=Ricardo](By the way, your lame, little inference on my hands and hips could be construed as a anti-gay prejudice, but why would that surprise anyone?[/QUOTE]You forgot to add that I am a racist because I oppose Obama, sexist because I oppose Nancy Pelosi and anti-Nevadan because I have great disdain for Harry Ried. I also am clearly anti-dead people because of my comments critical of Ted Kennedy and Walter Crommiekrite.
I was not insinuating that I thought you were gay (I doubt this forum draws too many gay mongers) I was saying that you sound like a bitchy, disapproving wife.
I am sure that it would surprise you to learn that I am neither a homophobe nor anti-gay (particularly when it comes to lipstick lesbians)
No, you're just not very funny.
You and your ilk misrepresent facts, hurl inane insults alongside lame derivatives of the President's name, and have shown an absolute inability to even begin to debate the issues.
Ricardo has been beyond patient and understanding while trying to educate you a little. I'm sad to say it looks like a wasted effort.
I don't know what would qualify as the most pointless 1) the French and USA trying to dominate SE Asia 2) the USA and few allies going into Iraq 3) the USA and a few allies going into Afganistan.
There is not one chance in the world that we are going to have any better luck in governing or creating a government in Afganistan than Alexander the Great had. For Christ's sake, Afganistan is not even a country. Afganistan is a collection of tribes.
We can leave Afganistan now or leave Afganistan later but it is a given that we will leave Afganistan in the same shape that Alexander the Great left Afganistan, Ghengis Khan left Afganistan, Timberlane left Afganistan and Russia left Afganistan. Afganistan will always be a collection of ungovernable tribes.
Getting back to the question in the first paragraph. I vote for Iraq becuase Iraq had a successful secular government which, although not a democracy, was probably more western (womans rights etc) than any of its neighbors.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein was, in my opinion, one of the most disgraceful, disgusting and shameful acts in the history of the United States.
Now I have to put in the mandatory paragraph of Obama bashing. My question is, if Obama isn't going to get us out of Afganistan, who is (big clue, we are going to have our butts kicked out of Afganistan by tribal members who have not had one day of formal education, can't add 2 plus 2 and have no idea who Jackson is or how to log on to ArgentinaPrivate )
P.S. I forgot a tried and true option that has worked before in the United States as well as in Argentina. We could look upon the people of Afganistan the same way Indians were looked upon in the United States and Argentina i.e the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
Then we would have a vast expanse of territory that would need to be populated by guess who.