How do you justify this lunacy?

#52
#52
truefan said:
:)

I am not going to argue with you. I am just trying to make a point about our current tax structure. I am not for major overhaul, just a little decrease for the middle class and a little increase for the wealthiest individuals.

I may or may not be a socialist. I am for a strong military yet it is time to get most of our soldiers out of Iraq. It isn't surrenduring or accepting defeat. We did what we set out to do, had no exit strategy and are now in a bind. They don't want us there, we don't want us there. They obviously haven't met their agreements. We can't continue to help them fight their civil war. it isn't our war against terror.... If in the future, we have to bomb Iran, then so be it.

I don't want to get on a soapbox. I need to go home and start getting ready for my excursion into Bonnaroo.

Lets just say there will be lots to talk about between now and November. You know Rush, Ann and Hannity will be happier if Barack wins. They will love it
Click to expand...

I care very little what they think. I do care what less extreme conservative repubs think.
 
#54
#54
UT IE 95 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

That was a goal of the campaign in Iraq. As I'm sure you well know for every stated goal in any conflict there are a few not even implied. How do you, or I for that matter know what every goal or aim there was for this conflict?
 
#55
#55
KB5252 said:
That was a goal of the campaign in Iraq. As I'm sure you well know for every stated goal in any conflict there are a few not even implied. How do you, or I for that matter know what every goal or aim there was for this conflict?
Click to expand...

If our goal was to hang Sadam I would have never supported the invasion.

There's a long list of people ahead of Sadam if we're taking on a campaign to rid the world of evil dictators.
 
#56
#56
UT IE 95 said:
If our goal was to hang Sadam I would have never supported the invasion.

There's a long list of people ahead of Sadam if we're taking on a campaign to rid the world of evil dictators.
Click to expand...

One of the stated missions was to rid Iraq of Sadam. He was found guilty in an Iraqi court and sentenced to death by Iraqi's. We helped I raq rid themselves of Sadam. I agree that there are other threats and dictators around the world Sadam just happened to have been the guy that burned his bridges and therefore was vulnerable. He also funded terrorists, and tried to cleanse his nation of those who he considered, not ethnically desirable or inferior. In short I do believe we used Sadam to send a message to the rest of the world, "this could be you". Did it go as well as they hoped it would, no!
 
#57
#57
BigPapaVol said:
Seems to me another article that you only skimmed or misunderstood. The people complaing aren't griping about his penchant for taxing and spending. They complained specifically that he's too easy on Wal-Mart, doesn't support unions and he's for globalization (which is anti-union). That's hardly where you're trying to go in making him out to be something other than he is. Being called a centrist by the LA Times is akin to being called a centrist by Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

Some other media organizations who called Furman "centrist": US News, The Economist, Bloomberg (note the first article I referenced), the NYTimes (though I can imagine what you think of that outlet). And honestly, do you think the Times and Limbaugh are equal in how extreme each is?

You say "Socialist." Others (like Paul Krugman) say "Centrist" and "Progressive."

Wouldn't a true Socialist want to take complete control from private business and have the government distribute all finances itself?

My point is that calling Obama a "Socialist" might be just a wee bit extreme. If he's a Socialist, so is Bill Clinton, b/c their economic policies seem to be pretty close.
 
#58
#58
TennNC said:
Some other media organizations who called Furman "centrist": US News, The Economist, Bloomberg (note the first article I referenced), the NYTimes (though I can imagine what you think of that outlet). And honestly, do you think the Times and Limbaugh are equal in how extreme each is?

You say "Socialist." Others (like Paul Krugman) say "Centrist" and "Progressive."

Wouldn't a true Socialist want to take complete control from private business and have the government distribute all finances itself?

My point is that calling Obama a "Socialist" might be just a wee bit extreme. If he's a Socialist, so is Bill Clinton, b/c their economic policies seem to be pretty close.
Click to expand...

Anyone who would use the means of government to take something (anything, no matter how small) from a person who earned it and give it to someone who didn't is a Socialist. So, yes, Bill Clinton was a socialist too. So are almost all current members of Congress, Dems and Republs alike. Calling someone a "centrist" or "progressive" or anything else doesn't change that. They are Socialists.
 
#59
#59
jamesd1628 said:
Anyone who would use the means of government to take something (anything, no matter how small) from a person who earned it and give it to someone who didn't is a Socialist. So, yes, Bill Clinton was a socialist too. So are almost all current members of Congress, Dems and Republs alike. Calling someone a "centrist" or "progressive" or anything else doesn't change that. They are Socialists.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. So you're railing on socialists, yet by your definition all candidates for prez are socialists. Including McCain because I don't believe I've read where he is abolishing taxes and welfare.
 
#60
#60
UT IE 95 said:
Wait a minute. So you're railing on socialists, yet by your definition all candidates for prez are socialists. Including McCain because I don't believe I've read where he is abolishing taxes and welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes, McCain is also a socialist, which I stated in my original post creating this thread. Most modern-day Republicans are as well. They vary in degree, but virtually all of them are Socialist to some degree.
 
#61
#61
Something is terribly wrong with truefan, he is not angry any more!

Although I doubt he will ever be able to get rid of the "Far Right" bull crap!
 
#69
#69
OWB said:
1. France
37. U.S.
Click to expand...

My only question would be who is responsible for the ratings and what agenda or agendas might they have. Also from what I understand about France's system they are having a horrible time paying for it and are already millions of dollars in the hole paying for it and getting worse. If this is true how can they keep it up without taxing more?
 
#70
#70
OWB said:
1. France
37. U.S.
Click to expand...

We've already discussed this misplaced reliance on WHO statistics. From several pages ago:

volinbham said:
We actually score near the top IIRC on most of the indicators except for equal access measures.

In other words, if you define quality of care as does everyone get the same level of care, we score in the middle. If you define it as the actual care that an individual receives, we are at or near the top.

As you say, the debate centers around the best way to ensure all can get care. IMHO, we've regulated a system into one that is virtually impossible to repair to achieve the goal of care for all. Neither the plan from Obama nor McCain solve this problem. Obama's creates more additional problems than McCain's does.
Click to expand...
 
#71
#71
KB5252 said:
My only question would be who is responsible for the ratings and what agenda or agendas might they have. Also from what I understand about France's system they are having a horrible time paying for it and are already millions of dollars in the hole paying for it and getting worse. If this is true how can they keep it up without taxing more?
Click to expand...

Those are WHO rankings, I suspect, and they definitely have an agenda. Also, that ranking is not a reflection of quality of care.
 
#72
#72
OWB said:
You're out of your mind. If by "best" you mean ranked 37th in the world in between Costa Rica and Slovenia, then yes, ours is the best.
Click to expand...

Ah the WHO rankings.

The organization that just admitted that AIDS is not a global pandemic threat for the heterosexual community. Good call there, it only took you 25 or so years. Yea, there rankings are reliable.
 
#74
#74
A brief explanation of the WHO-ranking bias (from here: http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_whitman11_06-11-08_S7ADJRH_v8.39cc7fe.html):

The most obvious bias is that 62.5 percent of their weighting concerns not quality of service but equality. In other words, the rankings are less concerned with the ability of a health system to make sick people better than with the political consideration of achieving equal access and state-controlled funding.

One of the five factors in the calculations is “Financial Fairness.” This favors systems that charge richer people a higher rate of health tax, irrespective of how much, or little, health service they use. Colombia comes out on top. This measure has nothing to do with the quality of health care, yet it counts for a quarter of the weighting.

The WHO claims that its rankings are a tool for comparing different means of financing health-care systems, yet this tool inherently favors taxpayer-funded systems and gives the rankings a bias that renders comparison pointless. As a result of this bias, the United States languishes in lowly 54th place on “Financial Fairness,” largely explaining its poor overall position.
 
#75
#75
Is it not my right to be a socialist if I damn well please?

Just curious as to what this argument is about.

For the record, I support Obama because I agree with him on almost everything. Why do I agree with it? Because I think it can work, if it doesn't, oh well, I was wrong. It happens. I don't have to justify myself.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top