Sen. Harry Reid, NV: Wildfires caused by global warming

[Bobo The Chimp]

I guess you didn't know that global warming road a motorcycle?

And fruit flies eight a banana.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Right wing politicians are against what they call socialised medicine

So are independents and Libertarians; the reason being that socialism
is bad.

Socialism is based on theft, and theft is a crime, ergo socialists are
de facto criminals.

Socialism is what destroyed the Soviet Union, and caused quite a
hiccup in China - it didn't get a lot of press, and they had enough
population to absorb (hide) the extent of the disaster, but suddenly
China came out on the Free Market side, like gangbusters. (I.e., they
clued up, probably from necessity.)

If Hillary gets elected, we're going to learn about socialism the
hard way.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[flipper]

Successful at politics, much like success at thievery. If you go and
steal someone's money, and get away with it, that sounds pretty
damn succesful to me, for a politician or other thief.! ;-)

You're free to vote on whatever basis you like but it isn't
'successful where I live.

 

[James Arthur]

Right wing politicians are against what they call socialised medicine
- and to the extent that they succeed in cutting back on health care
for the indigent, they damage public health.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/21/6/31.pdf

That document describes socialized medicine as "social reform,"
opposition as "right wing reaction," and originating with the Klan:

"Political reaction to these visions for social reform was also
growing. In 1915 a minister from Georgia, William Simmons, founded the
Ku Klux Klan to control minority groups and any associated social or
political nonconformity."

It then proceeds to attribute opposition to xenophobia, the Bolshevik
Revolution, rabid opposition to immigration, Republicans of the 1920s
and '30s, and degenerates from there.

Besides being stunningly partisan, it borders on delusional.


James Arthur

 

[Jim Yanik]

Yep. There's even some (unconfirmed) rumors opining that Islamic
terrorists took the opportunity to join in. We'll have to wait and
see if they claim any responsibility... which typically is their
style.

...Jim Thompson

but aren't the Hollywood lefties on their side????
(they don't seem to protest much about the Islamic oppression of
homosexuals,Jews,or women....)

B-)

 

[Martin Brown]

So are independents and Libertarians; the reason being that socialism
is bad.

It isn't quite so bad as some of the alternatives. Like unbridled
capitalism for instance where the poor are exploited on starvation
wages in sweat shops to make a handful of the richest oligarchs even
richer. Bonded labour is still alive and well in the 21st century -
mostly in clothing manufacture and agriculture.

Socialism is based on theft, and theft is a crime, ergo socialists are
de facto criminals.

Warped reasoning. What would you have happen to the poor sods who are
too sick to work then?

No job - no health insurance - unable to pay mortgage or rent. Out on
the streets begging for a living. This fate befell a famous US author
(in the amateur astronomy community at least) - his books are still
international best sellers, but he made no real money from them. They
have not been surpassed for technical accuracy. His story is online
at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burnham,_Jr.

Contemporaneous news reports were online, but Google can't see them
any more. Phoeix Times carried the story.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-09-25/news/sky-writer/

A national health service free at point of use is a very effective
insurance policy and safety net for the healthy. And free medicine (or
for a small charge) stops people who are at risk from getting much
much worse.

Free screening for glaucoma for everyone over 40 with a family history
of the disease pays for itself many times over by preventing avoidable
blindness. Ditto for high blood pressure and cholestrol.

I sincerely hope that I will never get "value for money" out of any of
the health systems that I have paid into. I would rather keep paying
just in case and remain healthly. Perhaps because at university I knew
someone who was fabulously rich but seriously ill I find that good
health seems a lot more attractive to me than money.

The problem in the USA seems to be that you don't do "enlightened self
interest". Tax evasion seems to be a national passtime. Incidentally
on that topic the folk in these wildfires who could have paid their
insurance premiums but chose not to do so deserve only minimal
rebuilding costs. They took a gamble and lost - tough.

Socialism is what destroyed the Soviet Union, and caused quite a
hiccup in China - it didn't get a lot of press, and they had enough
population to absorb (hide) the extent of the disaster, but suddenly
China came out on the Free Market side, like gangbusters. (I.e., they
clued up, probably from necessity.)

China is seriously dangerous as a competitor. They have the largest
labour force on the planet and many are willing to work on near
starvation wages. Be very careful what you wish for.

If Hillary gets elected, we're going to learn about socialism the
hard way.

You might find that a small amount of socialism is actually
beneficial.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/a8ae099c-6a23-45fd-a6fe-7b923d3e728b

...Jim Thompson
--

Haven't yet anyone suggested that the wildfires are because of the illegal
mexicans and/or insufficient prayers?

VLV

 

[flipper]

Haven't yet anyone suggested that the wildfires are because of the illegal
mexicans and/or insufficient prayers?

Why do you ask? Did they turn around 2 minutes later and claim they
hadn't said it?

 

[[email protected]]

So are independents and Libertarians; the reason being that socialism
is bad.

Your brain-washing is showing.

Socialism is based on theft, and theft is a crime, ergo socialists are
de facto criminals.

Socialism does involve taxation, just like free market capitalism. In
general, socialist administrations collect a larger proportion of the
gross national income in taxes than administrations that claim to
believe in free market capitalism, but the difference isn't dramatic.

Taxation isn't theft - it is an agreed payment for centrally organised
services negotiated between the electorate and the administration - so
socialism isn't theft, and socialists aren't necessarily criminals.

Socialism is what destroyed the Soviet Union, and caused quite a
hiccup in China - it didn't get a lot of press, and they had enough
population to absorb (hide) the extent of the disaster, but suddenly
China came out on the Free Market side, like gangbusters. (I.e., they
clued up, probably from necessity.)

The political system that destroyed the Soviet Union, and came close
to destroying China isn't socialism but bolshevism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik

It differs from socialism in restricting political control to a
disciplined group of professional revolutionaries, which makes it an
oligarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

As I've argued here before, the current U.S. political system is
getting perilously close to being another kind of oligarchy - a
plutocracy - which isn't doing it any good at all. If you want an
example of criminal behaviour, you may want to think about the way
that your own administration extracts a great deal of tax money from
the general population to spend on defence, to the extent that your
expenditure on "defence" is roughly equal to the total amount spent on
defence by the ten countries directly below you in the pecking order.

Historically, the top dog has spent as much on defence as the second
and third dog combined.

The usual explanation of the current U.S. extravagance on defence
doesn't involve perceived threats, but rather a conspiracy between
defence contractors and politicians to rip off the tax-payers, with
the "defence" contractors paying off the politicians by funding their
election campaigns.

If Hillary gets elected, we're going to learn about socialism the
hard way.

She does believe in a better health safety net than your current
administration, but she's unlikely to press for a system that will be
anything like as effective (or as cheap) as the current British,
German, French or Swedish systems. For one thing, the last time I knew
much about your medical system, half the money that got pajd to your
doctors covered their malpractice insurance premiums, and most of that
ended up with the insurers, while at least half of the residue ended
up with the lawyers who specialise in sueing for malpractice. No-fault
compensation would be a great deal cheaper, but it would put a great
many parasites out of work.

This is one explanation of how you spend some 14% of you GDP on
medical care to get poorer public health statistics than France and
Germany get by spending about half that proportion of ther GDPs. The
British system is slightly cheaper, but doesn't do quite as well as
the French and German systems, though it still delivers much better
public health statistics than the US system does.

 

[[email protected]]

That document describes socialized medicine as "social reform,"
opposition as "right wing reaction," and originating with the Klan:

"Political reaction to these visions for social reform was also
growing. In 1915 a minister from Georgia, William Simmons, founded the
Ku Klux Klan to control minority groups and any associated social or
political nonconformity."

It then proceeds to attribute opposition to xenophobia, the Bolshevik
Revolution, rabid opposition to immigration, Republicans of the 1920s
and '30s, and degenerates from there.

Besides being stunningly partisan, it borders on delusional.

If you knew anything much about the anxieties generated in the U.S. by
the Russian revolution, you'd find it less delusional. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti

to get some idea of the prevailing levels of hysteria.

 

[[email protected]]

I doubt it's 'Sama's boys. It's possible, but they're kind of busy
ducking just now.

Besides, they're pathetic--there's a lot of stuff they could do if
they had the moxie. The amazing thing is that we let them provoke us
so.

Nothing amazing about it. The amazing thing is that you guys are still
spending more on "defence" than the next ten countries down the
pecking order combined. It obviously suits the defence contractors who
are collecting the money, and the politicians whose electoral
campaigns the defence contractors are supporting so generously, but
the general public ought to be getting a little restive.

A few "Muslim" terrorists do seem to be helpful in keeping the tax-
payers distracted.

If Osama Bin Laden didn't exist, it would have been necessary for
someone to invent him.

 

[James Arthur]

If you knew anything much about the anxieties generated in the U.S. by
the Russian revolution, you'd find it less delusional. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti

to get some idea of the prevailing levels of hysteria.

Xenophobia and the KKK have nothing to do with opposition to
socialized
healthcare.

Are the authors so blind that all other theories elude them, or do
they
just reflexively greet dissent with a liberal coat of tar and
feathers?

James Arthur

 

[Jim Thompson]

Xenophobia and the KKK have nothing to do with opposition to
socialized
healthcare.

Are the authors so blind that all other theories elude them, or do
they
just reflexively greet dissent with a liberal coat of tar and
feathers?

James Arthur

Slowman is the chief village idiot of all Europe.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"It isn't that democrats are ignorant. Far from it... it's just that
they know so much that just isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

 

[James Arthur]

Nothing amazing about it.

Terrorists succeed by terrorizing. Thereby, a small action can
provoke a large cost.
Responding to terror by making big changes in our society plays into
their strategy, not ours.

The amazing thing is that you guys are still
spending more on "defence" than the next ten countries down the
pecking order combined.

We've been protecting the world since WWII. That's expensive. Europe
has reaped the benefit while we've shouldered the burden. Willingly.

I'd like to say we should withdraw, but I'm only 95% sure Europe would
survive it. And we kind of like you guys.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Slowman is the chief village idiot of all Europe.

And Eeyore is his right hand donkey.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Rich Grise]

You're free to vote on whatever basis you like but it isn't
'successful where I live.

Then it depends entirely on your definition of "success" It sounds
like you mean, "A guy who makes a lot of money, but doesn't do
anything 'sinful' to get it."

Is that pretty accurate?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

So are independents and Libertarians; the reason being that socialism
is bad.

It isn't quite so bad as some of the alternatives. Like unbridled
capitalism for instance where the poor are exploited on starvation
wages in sweat shops to make a handful of the richest oligarchs even
richer. Bonded labour is still alive and well in the 21st century -
mostly in clothing manufacture and agriculture.[/QUOTE]

Still beating that hysterical drum?

Planning on visiting the 21st century any time soon?

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Your brain-washing is showing.


Socialism does involve taxation,

And taxation is theft.

Q. E. D.

If you don't believe it's theft, just decline to pay what you "owe".

They will take it by force.

If that isn't theft, then there is something seriously wrong with
reality as we know it.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Besides, they're pathetic--there's a lot of stuff they could do if
they had the moxie. The amazing thing is that we let them provoke us
so.

They're simply showing what a mockery the Cheney-Bush regime is making
of America.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[flipper]

Then it depends entirely on your definition of "success"

That was my point about one of them being sad.

It sounds
like you mean, "A guy who makes a lot of money, but doesn't do
anything 'sinful' to get it."

I have no idea what you consider 'sinful', nor where you got the idea,
but my point was that 'stupidity' isn't a recipe for 'success' where I
live.

Is that pretty accurate?

You tell me.