Page 41 of 71 FirstFirst ... 31363738394041424344454651 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 1405
  1. #801  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Please reread your statement.
    I already reread it. Not even keeping in mind that I wrote it.
    It may not have been your intent.
    It wasn't my intent or implication. It is only an implication if you are thinking in a purely binary mode.
    I don't recall that charge, but if you say so...
    The context was my saying that we should bring all the troops home and put that money towards infrastructure projects back home allowing for improving internal infrastructure as well as providing insurance for those working on the projects. You advanced that this was an isolationist perspective implying that having our military abroad was the only way that we could deal with other countries.
    You're so sneaky:
    You're being insulting.
    "from some perspectives?". I guess I'd have to agree since you wrote it that way. "Some perspectives" think aliens are stealing their luggage too.
    You're now being _really_ insulting. This is not a conspiracy theory. Do you really think it's necessary that we continue to have military bases in countries where we have not been at war for decades? And to think that this is coming from the same person who started a thread about Democrat plans to 'destroy healthcare'.
    Well, we could either do that, or maybe go hang out at the mall? I think there's a bit more to it than that, don't you?
    I never said there wasn't more to it that that. Do you really think that we're _not_ bordering on imperialism with some of these things?
    The day that someone can sit behind a protected wall and take pot shots at us at will and with impunity is the day we might as well close up shop.
    Who said anyone was promoting that?
    I'm still with you on the your main point... I just hate the word Imperialism when applied to US foreign policy.
    And why are you projecting that view onto me?
    I think it's based on "some perspectives" that are (IMHO) uninformed.
    So, what am I uninformed about?
    Well I get the subversion bit, but for imperialistic goals?
    Who said anything about goals? The point of something being 'effective' is that it was not necessarily the goal, but winds up having a similar 'effect'.
    Can I have an example? Iraq is NOT an example, if that's where you were going.
    What example is going to be acceptable to you? You obviously don't consider it possible for the effect of US policies to wind up at imperialism.
    "wielding"? "as weapons to get our will"? LOL! You really have a way with words! Who would ever want to trade in those conditions?! Damn those evil capitalists leveraging goods and services for profit!
    What capitalists? I'm talking about the US government taking money from the citizens of the US and using it to buy influence and control of other countries making them almost tantamount to colonies. I've no problem with corporations or charities doing their own thing.
    Anyone can choose not to trade with us, and go somewhere else. If they can't leave or say no, it's not trade... it's probably military force.
    I'm not talking about trade from a corporate perspective, and you know that. The US government is not a corporation.
    And like we're the only ones negotiating to get what we want. I don't agree with that statement at all. Our trade is nowhere near as coercive and subordinating as military force. It's not even in the same universe. If anything, we need higher tariffs on the stuff coming in from places like China. Can you say bye-bye manufacturing jobs?
    Isn't that the purpose of a good colony? To provide us with cheaper resources in exchange for other means of support?
    This is how trade is done. I see them as "incentives"... but charity is on that list? That wouldn't be charity, but simply trade for goods or services. Charity is given freely and usually for humanitarian reasons. This country provides more charity to other countries than any other. Go ahead and fact check it.
    The US government is not in the business of providing charity, or at least it's not supposed to be from a libertarian perspective. Isn't that the job of ...well... charities?
    Man, you sure are argumentative with someone who usually agrees with you.
    Nobody's perfect. I'm being intellectually honest. If one believes that the government is only allowed certain limited powers, then one must try to be consistent within the bounds of those beliefs, not just when they're convenient and non-confrontational.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #802  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Now, I'm not saying that all religions haven't had, in the distant past, people who took things to the same extreme as Muslims do today. But I don't think there are many (any?) Christian groups (there will always be an independent nut or two) running around today looking to kill someone because they didn't want to believe in Jesus.
    Glad to see you people are spending so much time talking about health care and the people who are hurt by not having it.

    Yeah, Christians are above all that. Except for the Reformation. And those Christians that kill abortion doctors. I have to admit, Christians are not any more hypocritical than other religions, including Islam. They provide a manufactured list of mores and ethics which some of you claim democrats and progressives lack. I'd like to think that we don't need some absurd creation to behave or to care about others, that it is innate if nurtured. Radicals don't, regardless of their religion, and that includes Christians just as much as any other religion; there's nothing special about Christianity. It's just as flawed and hypocritical as Judaism or Islam. You don't need religion or mystical thinking to care about people and to want people to be healthy and happy. You just have to be not so damned selfish and greedy. Try ethical humanism. Hasn't killed anyone yet. If you ever get back to talking about the realities of health care and what lack of it means to real people, maybe this thread will become useful again and not a showpiece for blabbering semantics. Nah. I take that back. It's never really been useful. Not one person's opinion or perspective has been changed in spite of all the bandwidth and angst that has been wasted. Just don't see the point, really.
  3. #803  
    You can't turn on the tv without a radical Muslim killing in the name of Allah, the number of abortions doctors killed can't even compare
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #804  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you ever get back to talking about the realities of health care and what lack of it means to real people, maybe this thread will become useful again and not a showpiece for blabbering semantics. Nah. I take that back. It's never really been useful. Not one person's opinion or perspective has been changed in spite of all the bandwidth and angst that has been wasted. Just don't see the point, really.
    Yet you're still here. And rather than take the opportunity to get it back on topic you choose to take cheap pop shots. So, please, get off your high horse.
  5. #805  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yet you're still here. And rather than take the opportunity to get it back on topic you choose to take cheap pop shots. So, please, get off your high horse.
    The dude lives on a high horse....LOL....after all....he's a "doctor", LOL.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #807  
    Thanks for posting that daThomas. I would encourage everyone to read it. Especially section 59B on page 297.
  7. #809  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I would encourage everyone to read it. Especially section 59B on page 297.
    Costs cannot be reduced if everyone is not required to carry coverage.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #810  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Costs cannot be reduced if everyone is not required to carry coverage.
    I'm sure it will be quite a consolation for people who are suddenly strapped with a brand new monthly bill that costs are actually reducing. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
  9. #811  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I'm sure it will be quite a consolation for people who are suddenly strapped with a brand new monthly bill that costs are actually reducing. I guess it all depends on your perspective.
    You can bet if your job or the insurance pool is too expensive for you, the gov't option will be affordable.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #812  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You can bet if your job or the insurance pool is too expensive for you, the gov't option will be affordable.
    A lot of people can't afford one more "affordable" bill. I wonder what the long term effects will be on entrepreneurship in this country. Since people will have to get insurance will they be less likely to venture off on their own to follow their dreams and more likely to get a cubicle job that comes with benefits? Only time will tell, as it increasingly appears that Americans prefer security over freedom.
  11. #813  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    A lot of people can't afford one more "affordable" bill. I wonder what the long term effects will be on entrepreneurship in this country. Since people will have to get insurance will they be less likely to venture off on their own to follow their dreams and more likely to get a cubicle job that comes with benefits? Only time will tell, as it increasingly appears that Americans prefer security over freedom.
    Actually, this will take the burden of insurance OFF of employers thus making it easier for business to start.

    If you're not watching C-Span right now you're missing not only history but also quite a show!
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #814  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Actually, this will take the burden of insurance OFF of employers thus making it easier for business to start.
    A) How do you figure? B) The person starting the business still needs coverage. It seems to me, a young guy who never gets sick and devotes every last cent to building his new business will not fair very well under this plan.
  13. #815  
    218 YES!

  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #816  
    Those last few weasels cut deals so they could vote no and save face with their constituency.

    I'm glad you're happy but I think this is a very bad day for the country.
  15. #817  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    A) How do you figure? B) The person starting the business still needs coverage. It seems to me, a young guy who never gets sick and devotes every last cent to building his new business will not fair very well under this plan.
    Hi costs for providing healthcare for employees he needs for his business currently is too high for him to start his business and getting higher exponentially.

    This bill will shift that costs off of his business.
  16. #818  
    w00t!



  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #819  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Hi costs for providing healthcare for employees he needs for his business currently is too high for him to start his business and getting higher exponentially.

    This bill will shift that costs off of his business.
    The problem occurs for businesses that don't have very many employees and is too small to provide benefits, which is where most businesses start. How is the head of that new start up getting coverage? And how are his employees getting coverage.

    By the way, Joseph Cao is looking for a backbone. Let him know if you have any to spare.
  18. #820  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    The problem occurs for businesses that don't have very many employees and is too small to provide benefits, which is where most businesses start. How is the head of that new start up getting coverage? And how are his employees getting coverage.

    By the way, Joseph Cao is looking for a backbone. Let him know if you have any to spare.
    Looks like Cao found some backbone.

    Under the soon to be old system, how would his employees get coverage if not through their employer?

Posting Permissions