It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
broganjoe wrote:
And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high.


More like millions and it was NATURE at work - not 'a lack of health care'. Whether for good or for bad, we humans have abandoned nature for the purposes of our own vanity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
mikeishere wrote:
Incidentally, if liberals were actually so concerned about keeping people alive then why do they condone the murder of millions of new ones in the womb?
Or euthanizing the old ones based on cost-benefit formulas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:39 am 
Offline
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 8221
Location: 404 Not Found
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 1:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
mikeishere wrote:
broganjoe wrote:
And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high.


More like millions and it was NATURE at work - not 'a lack of health care'. Whether for good or for bad, we humans have abandoned nature for the purposes of our own vanity.

Thank-you. You've rested my case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 5250
Location: Everett, MA
Resting comfortably at the bottom of the ocean encased in concrete.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 1:19 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, Massachusetts
Ray Gun wrote:
broganjoe wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).

And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high. Premature birth, Cesarean sections, prolapsed cords... Both of my children would have died had they not been delivered in hospitals.
Ray Gun wrote:
So, what are you, a bleeding-heart liberal? Upholding socialized medecine? Or just unable to interpret a joke when you see one?

You do like the labels... I'm guessing you have a sideline selling bumper stickers. Nothing I have ever said has suggested socialized medicine. On the contrary, I have emphasized private-sector solutions. As for interpreting your jokes, it's hard to separate the humor from your irrational rants...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 1333
"Don't let them immanentize the eschaton" so sayeth the soothsayer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 7:08 pm
Posts: 9295
Location: 4-wheelin' in my Jeep.
The system is NOT perfect. Here we have the insured paying for the uninsured. Has anyone ever looked at a hospital bill? Does anyone really think it will get better with government? Looking at socialized medicine in other countries is all anyone needs to know. Surgeries get rescheduled to the point where a patient can NO longer get treated. In some countries people are being euthanized.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 1
Dear Ann,
There are some things I don't understand in your latest op-ed. For one, no state, and I mean NO state has any authority over workers in the Federal Government. Please check with your sources on the Veterans Administration about the thefts in the VA Hospital. It could very well have been a State VA hospital. After 25 years as a Federal employee I've seen people not only fired for much less but also go to the slammer. I've only had to fire one federal employee and it took officially 30 days but the fired employee chose to leave sooner. I don't know the veracity of the State governments but I've known and participated in firing of Federal employees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
broganjoe wrote:
As for interpreting your jokes, it's hard to separate the humor from your irrational rants...
The joke was the part that was separated and in parenthesis.

The irrational rant was the part that said the problem with people getting free care from public hosptials is that the hospital has no recourse. Do you know what recourse is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 12844
Location: Concealed.
broganjoe wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
broganjoe wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
(PS, women in labor have birth for thousands of years before hospitals. Remember President Carter? First Pres born in a hospital).

And for thousands of years infant mortality was staggeringly high. Premature birth, Cesarean sections, prolapsed cords... Both of my children would have died had they not been delivered in hospitals.
Ray Gun wrote:
So, what are you, a bleeding-heart liberal? Upholding socialized medecine? Or just unable to interpret a joke when you see one?

You do like the labels... I'm guessing you have a sideline selling bumper stickers. Nothing I have ever said has suggested socialized medicine. On the contrary, I have emphasized private-sector solutions. As for interpreting your jokes, it's hard to separate the humor from your irrational rants...


:ha: ray may have a lucid day.....sometime....but don't count on it. :ha:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:47 pm
Posts: 1393
Location: USA
chipluck wrote:
Oh well she is definetely in the romney camp, what has happened to this women,she is supposed to be prolife, and here she is supporting romney, has she joined the rino in the repub party, who are against conservatism, if that is the case, then rhis country is screwed, even hannity is on the bandwagon, the only one speaking out against romney is rush, I will come back here after the general election, and remind you supporters of romney, if he gets the nomination, obama will get 4 more years, its 2008 allover again, juan lost to him and is now supporting the other eastern liberial GOD HELP US ALL


Ann is brilliant. I think I have some smarts too and I think Romney is THE best choice to beat Obama and restore America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:47 pm
Posts: 1393
Location: USA
Machine1 wrote:
chipluck wrote:
Oh well she is definetely in the romney camp, what has happened to this women,she is supposed to be prolife, and here she is supporting romney, has she joined the rino in the repub party, who are against conservatism, if that is the case, then rhis country is screwed, even hannity is on the bandwagon, the only one speaking out against romney is rush, I will come back here after the general election, and remind you supporters of romney, if he gets the nomination, obama will get 4 more years, its 2008 allover again, juan lost to him and is now supporting the other eastern liberial GOD HELP US ALL


I am new at this, so here it goes, I agree with you, my wife has been a big fan of Ann for years, both my wife and Ann, share alot in common, both are the same age, both have JD's, ect; any how she turned to me last week and said to me what happend to her. In 2008 Ann said if Mitt gets the nomination the Democrats will win. I did not know what to say except maybe she was paid off or something to that affect? My wife will no longer read any articles by Ann anymore, where I keep an open mind and know that in life people change, maybe not for the better, but none the less, change.


Maybe Ann learned something from the last election. I think she has it right. I don't think she is any less conservative, just even more serious about getting off this trainwreck which is Obama.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:26 pm
Posts: 9
Airwarrior wrote:
Machine1 wrote:
Airwarrior wrote:
No question Ann is right again, whether you can stand Romney-vision or not.

Maybe if Mitt makes liberals mad and the Left livid enough, I might take a likin' to the boy.

Go Mitt! Sik em'

:gcheer:


I will try and stay on topic but I could not help noticing your avatar, the good old F-4 Phantom. There were many of days that I would get Phantom bites working up and under door 22, that till it was replaced by the F-15. Talk about going from dark to light!



John Kennedy helped make the Phantom happen on a large scale. He saw it as a force for freedom. Sure, it was a challenge to keep going, but like a sports car, you might scuff a knuckle now and then if your work lacks elegance, planning and the right tool. Don't forget to follow your Technical Order. The F-15 lacks all the bugs the F-4 had. Be glad you were not working on the Demon the USN had in the 50's, although it too was hot stuff for its time.

Machine1 wrote:
In the world in which I and my family reside, ObamaRomney is considered a massive tool, heck my wife can not even look at that huge head of his. I am with veterans for Ron Paul.


Ron Paul was in the USAF, but that did not make him perfect. Nor was Jimmie Carter worth a hoot as President even though he was USN. Too much wishful thinking with the Libertarian point of view. And too many defective ideas.

Machine1 wrote:
You may ask yourself why would veterans support him, well their are several compelling reasons and I have only the time to list a few, 1) Our wonderfull gov. shells out billions of dollars to Pakistan for one and many others, they turn around buy bullets that shoot us and our children down dead!!! Dr. Paul would like to put a stop to that, and guess what, every vet I know is really pissed! The next reason I would hope you would take a look at and get back to me on, I really would like your opinion on this, thank you.

US gripped with offshore economy. Max Keiser Interview with Paul Graig Roberts
Posted by smeddum on July 20, 2010

PressTV

Sun, 18 Jul 2010


Jobs are becoming scarcer and scarcer particularly in the United States. Is it cyclical or is it structural? Is it something that America has completely turned its back on in a way that could potentially be a factor for decades going forward?
Max Keiser discusses this issue with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was in the Regan treasury, a former editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was inducted into the French legion honor. He is also an author; his latest book is How the economy was lost.

The following is the transcript of the interview:



No thanks. I'm not an Occupy wart. Union thugs are in it for themselves. Union employees who work for the thugs should know better. Outsourcing is what MUST follow when wages and benefits send costs out of control and make them prohibitively uncompetitive. Blaming the employer is a very short-sighted approach. If its always "their fault" remember the other 4 fingers are pointing back at you.

When you see yourself as part of a team, only then can you approach the level of a corporation or business. If you don't work together, you work for the enemy. You are handing over business to other more competitive nations. YOU are outsourcing!

Bye now.

I agree with you 100% on the Union front and that Occupy stuff, my wife told me about occupy wallstreet and I am still not clear on what they are doing. Where I might differ is when it comes to National Security. Most people are not aware that a nation is only as strong as it's economic wealth. The continued offshoring of our work force along with the continued borrowing against our 15 trillion dollar debt, will end us up with not even having the ability to defend ourselves. Case in Point: StarKist tuna operated a processing plant in American Samoa. They were informed by our Government that they would now requier them to pay their workers mininum wage. Starkist packed their bags and moved to Indonesia! No disrespect intended, acording to your logic, we would have to be living like a third world nation in order for Manufacturing jobs to return to the United States?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
monticello wrote:
:ha: ray may have a lucid day.....sometime....but don't count on it. :ha:
A secessionist claiming the high ground on lucidity? Maybe if you had a leg to stand on, you woldn't feel the need to put in so many icons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 1333
"In her book Slander, conservative commentator and pundit Ann Coulter called Newt Gingrich one of the most consequential politicians in the last century. Why would she make such a claim? What did he do that had such consequence?"

Thus Kevin Tharp writes in today's "American Thinker."

It is an awesome article, and once more makes me wonder what became of Ann Coulter?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 1150
Location: Eastern Missouri
Machine1 wrote:
I agree with you 100% on the Union front and that Occupy stuff, my wife told me about occupy wallstreet and I am still not clear on what they are doing. Where I might differ is when it comes to National Security. Most people are not aware that a nation is only as strong as it's economic wealth. The continued offshoring of our work force along with the continued borrowing against our 15 trillion dollar debt, will end us up with not even having the ability to defend ourselves. Case in Point: StarKist tuna operated a processing plant in American Samoa. They were informed by our Government that they would now requier them to pay their workers mininum wage. Starkist packed their bags and moved to Indonesia! No disrespect intended, acording to your logic, we would have to be living like a third world nation in order for Manufacturing jobs to return to the United States?


Good point about economic wealth which Obama seems hell-bent on rupturing in this country if not the world.

If I am not mistaken, Nancy Pelosi might have a major conflict of interest with her husband in the fish business abroad.

The market, by means of supply and demand, should drive wages as it does prices. With government intervention with minimum wage, what does that do to our ability to compete with other countries? Once again the collective "big heart" of Democrats and liberals works only to eliminate jobs. Surprise surprise! (no disrespect to you)

To this end, the undeveloped nations have an advantage assuming their government does not think itself to be of supreme wisdom as today's Democrat party does as a whole. Big government solutions, like RINO Republicans contend, end up costing us many times over as more and more damage is done.

Libertarians such as Ron Paul do have good answers regarding this problem, if they are not creating other problems legalizing dangerous drugs. However, much of that is untried, as we have suffered long under big government from the deceptions of the Left which drive the propagandizing liberal drive-by media, and FDR wanna-bees like recent and past Democrat Presidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
s martin wrote:
"In her book Slander, conservative commentator and pundit Ann Coulter called Newt Gingrich one of the most consequential politicians in the last century. Why would she make such a claim? What did he do that had such consequence?"
That was before he was running against Romney the Great.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:07 am
Posts: 240
Location: Somewhere in North America
I've been reading Ann's columns regularly, and during recent weeks and months, I too have been somewhat curious of her enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. I can see why Romney might (key word: might) be the most electable Republican in the race; he appeals to more centrist independent voters. But, as I recall, so did John McCain in 2008, and he lost. After all, why should voters vote for a cheap imitation of a Democrat when they can vote for a real one? Republicans perform best when they field real conservatives as candidates, regardless of what the mainstream media and liberal elite may say.

So, where are the strong candidates that are reliably conservative? Let's see...
Mitt Romney: Moderate conservative (possibly RINO), former governor of bluest-of the-blue state of Massachusetts, may (according to Ann anyway) become more conservative once he's in the White House
Newt Gingrich: Accomplished former Speaker of the House, but a hypocrite in a number of respects (i.e. posed for ad with Pelosi, was having affair of his own during Monicagate, etc.)
Ron Paul: Interesting ideas on national security, more of a libertarian than a conservative, somewhat kooky at times
Rick Perry: Governor of Texas, somewhat clumsy speaker...hey wait, didn't we have this before...?
Rick Santorum: Strong social conservative (like many Catholics) but somewhat liberal on economics (ditto), basically a pro-life, pro-family version of Ted Kennedy

Not much to choose from. And what about some of the others who were contenders at one point?
Michelle Bachmann: Strong Tea Party credentials, but weak resume as yet (only a Congresswoman), not yet ready for prime time (try 2016 or 2020)
Jon Huntsman: Jon who?
Herman Cain: Good candidate, especially running against Obama, but damaged politically by media attacks
Sarah Palin: Charming down-to-earth governor of Alaska, where she is better off staying because down in the lower 48, she is all-too-easy fodder for the late-night comedians who would have TWICE as much of a field day with her as they did with Dan Quayle

Are there no more strong, electable conservative Republicans? Or was Ronald Reagan just a fluke?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 1333
Best line of the day: "Why would you nominate the guy who couldn't beat the guy who couldn't beat Obama?"
Newt Gingrich has it exactly right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
s martin wrote:
Best line of the day: "Why would you nominate the guy who couldn't beat the guy who couldn't beat Obama?"
Newt Gingrich has it exactly right.
That takes a couple of seconds to settle in. Maybe it's better to point out he means Romney and McCain repsectively, for all those whose criticism of Gingrich includes a reference to his intelligence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
ImranRKhan wrote:
Newt Gingrich: Accomplished former Speaker of the House, but a hypocrite in a number of respects (i.e. posed for ad with Pelosi, was having affair of his own during Monicagate, etc.)
If I might, I don't understand the hypocrisy of having an affair. Gingrich never criticized Clinton for having countless affairs - as if Clinton was just a filanderer and was not a serial sexual assaulter or even a rapist. Nor was Clinton impeached for having an affair.

On impeachment: What were Gingrich's options?
First, an agent of the US Justice Department investigating Clinton announced very publicly that he wanted to proffer a report that he had discovered the President involved in perjury and obstruction to the House Judiciar Cmte., because he felt this was potentially evidence of impeachable offenses.
Should Gingrich have blocked that?

Then, the Judiciary Cmte., after reviewing the evidence, voted in favor of impeachment.
Should Gingrich have blocked that from coming up for a floor vote?

I am wide open on this one. When and how should Gingrich have put a stop to the process? And what would have been Republican and Conservative reaction to that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 41
Location: Austin,a liberal island surrounded by a sea of conservatives
dougy wrote:
I still think Romney should tap Hillary Clinton...


Ewww....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:07 am
Posts: 240
Location: Somewhere in North America
Ray Gun wrote:
ImranRKhan wrote:
Newt Gingrich: Accomplished former Speaker of the House, but a hypocrite in a number of respects (i.e. posed for ad with Pelosi, was having affair of his own during Monicagate, etc.)
If I might, I don't understand the hypocrisy of having an affair. Gingrich never criticized Clinton for having countless affairs - as if Clinton was just a filanderer and was not a serial sexual assaulter or even a rapist. Nor was Clinton impeached for having an affair.

On impeachment: What were Gingrich's options?
First, an agent of the US Justice Department investigating Clinton announced very publicly that he wanted to proffer a report that he had discovered the President involved in perjury and obstruction to the House Judiciar Cmte., because he felt this was potentially evidence of impeachable offenses.
Should Gingrich have blocked that?

Then, the Judiciary Cmte., after reviewing the evidence, voted in favor of impeachment.
Should Gingrich have blocked that from coming up for a floor vote?

I am wide open on this one. When and how should Gingrich have put a stop to the process? And what would have been Republican and Conservative reaction to that?

I'm not suggesting he should have stopped the process; he did the right thing in letting it proceed. But the fact remains that he was secretly engaging in conduct similar to what Clinton had been doing and that many thought showed poor character. Even though there were additional legal issues in Clinton's case, I don't think that Gingrich's conduct should be excused or overlooked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
ImranRKhan wrote:
I'm not suggesting he should have stopped the process; he did the right thing in letting it proceed. But the fact remains that he was secretly engaging in conduct similar to what Clinton had been doing and that many thought showed poor character. Even though there were additional legal issues in Clinton's case, I don't think that Gingrich's conduct should be excused or overlooked.
But your charge was he was a hypocrite.

And if I may, I don't think the accusers who spoke up during Clinton's Presidency - Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Juanita Brodderick - reflect anything similar to what people speculate Gingrich was doing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group