... and what was wrong with the actions taken to bring down those
governments that support and promote terrorism? After all, appeasement has
worked so well in the past -- look what an impression Carter's appeasement
policies had on the Iranians.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
This is really bothersome to me. Reminiscent of a recent Rep debate when
the candidates were all asked " was the war in Iraq a good idea worth the
cost in blood and treasure we have spent?"
ALL (with the exception of the only sane republican candidate, Ron Paul)
thought invading Iraq was the right decision. Very sad indeed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted &bl&eiP87&en d7bd56323e1b26&ex01582800&oref=slogin
Your revisionism is so funny it is laughable. So you don't think a letter
to the Ayatollah, begging him, as a man of faith, to release the hostages
and essentially pledging not to do anything from a position of strength was
not appeasement and did nothing to prolong the hostage issue nor embolden
the Iranians? The Reagan arms deals had at least a minimum of quid pro
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Was that 'unchristian' of Carter? He went with his beliefs.
The Christian schooling I received in The Netherlands, including High
School, taught me a lot about what Christianity stood for.
And if I were to be so bold as to stand Bush beside Carter and compare
notes on what *I* was taught (and still hold as true) as 'closer' to
Christ's teachings, I think you know where those conclusions would
Your man Bush wouldn't do so well. I'd much rather break bread with
the likes of Carter and Huckabee...
:Was that 'unchristian' of Carter? He went with his beliefs.
:The Christian schooling I received in The Netherlands, including High
:School, taught me a lot about what Christianity stood for.
:And if I were to be so bold as to stand Bush beside Carter and compare
:notes on what *I* was taught (and still hold as true) as 'closer' to
:Christ's teachings, I think you know where those conclusions would
:Your man Bush wouldn't do so well. I'd much rather break bread with
:the likes of Carter and Huckabee...
Well said. It's funny how non-Christian the Christian right really are.
From no-health care to tax-cuts for the wealthy to war mongering, the list
goes on and on.
Let's hit these one at at time, shall we?
No health care? Has the Christian right ever said that you shouldn't get
health care? Nope, didn't think so. On the other hand, the idea that the
government should make me (or one of your neighbors) involuntarily pay for
your health care is a distinctly non-Christian and frankly unethical idea.
It's not charity when you are using someone else's money, and Washington is
using other peoples' money.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? This is a very tired and silly canard. First,
if you aren't paying taxes, then any tax cut is going to help someone other
than yourself. It isn't going to hurt you (after all, you aren't paying
taxes). Second, if you are paying taxes, you are getting exactly the same
tax break as the "wealthy"; your taxes are going down the same percentage
amount. Finally, if you are "wealthy", you are paying the largest share of
taxes just by nature of the way the system is already skewed. The top 25%
of taxpayers are paying 86% of all federal income taxes. Of course they
are going to get more benefit from a tax cut -- THEY PAY MORE @#$%'n TAXES
TO BEGIN WITH!. Just to point out that the "wealthy" apparently didn't do
as well as you think with this taxcut for the wealthy BS: In 2000, the top
25% of taxpayers were only paying 84% of all federal income taxes in 2000.
Same with the rest of the so-called wealthy category, the top 50% pay 97%
of all federal income taxes, the top 1% pay 39%, up from 37% in 2000. So
much for them benefiting disproportionately.
War mongering? You've got a group of people saying they want to kill or
convert you, so by attacking that group, *we* are the one's warmongering?
Christian charity? That is one thing -- it's not charity when it is done
with the force of government. The whole idea of redistributing wealth is
disturbing. What's more disturbing is the fact that many people hold that
it is not only a good thing, but it is their entitlement to do so and to
vote in the people who will make this happen. That's neither Christian,
nor ethical, it's just a band of passive thugs voting in people who will do
their robbery for them.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Feb 3, 10:44 pm, tough guy or gal Mark or Juanita
No, AFAIK you're happy to see anyone get all the health care
they can afford.
Well how about if we ask each voter what percentage of his tax
money go for health care and let that be the budget? Or instead
we could just elect representatives to represent our views on the
subject. We might call them Congressmen, for instance.
You mean like when the group that not only threatens
us but also actually attacked us in in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and go and then invade Iraq, a country where
the only thing resembling al Queda was a small band
in Kurdistan that was implicated in attacks on the
regime of Saddam Hussein?
Yes, that's war mongery.
As opposed to voting in a band of thugs that will plunge
another nation into a civil war that kills hundreds of thousands
of their innocent citizens? I suggest that 'robbery' by taxation
is at worst, the lesser sin.
Bush's prescription drug plan filled a real need.....The U.S. has lots of
health care, people are not dying in the streets...anybody that needs it can
get it and currently anyone whom can't truly afford it will receive it.
Which current health care proposal actually fills any real need? The true
problem is runaway costs, any mandatory plan currently proposed by the Dems
(user pays incidentally) will do nothing for cost escalation.
>to tax-cuts for the wealthy
That 3% cut was really a giant giveaway($50 billion a year out of a $2-3
trillion a year budget)....why was the then 37% top rate the magic or
correct number? why not 30% or 40% or 50% or heck 100%?
Yes it always better to ignore the despots of the world.....long term it has
always worked out. In fact I suppose the Iraq embargoes should have been
canceled and the 50,000 troops containing Saddam should have been brought
home as well. Not to mention overthrowing the Taliban was largely a waste.
After all how many building would they have really toppled if we had just
ignored al-Qaida as was Clinton's policy.
But factually wrong as he largely misrepresented "other than his" religious
and political views.....Oddly his abortion views would make him a very good
Nazi, it is morally wrong but okay anyway. Sadly he was a disappointing
President albeit largely ineffectual and has largely as well been a
disappointing ex President although I really respect his habitat for
Let's be fair. Health care is available to anyone who cares to spend the
money. Not so in the socialized countries, where you can get ripped for
going outside the national plan and treating on an as-needed (and paid),
rather than as-allowed and when-allowed basis. Even our mini-version,
medicare, doesn't accept an MD decision over a bureaucratic DRG allowance.
Yeah, right. Ever read the notice on the wall in the ED? You're entitled
to life-saving care regardless.
Next time you're in line paying bucks for burger and see the food-stamper
swipe her card for T-bones, think about it. Oh yes, they pay for the smokes
and beer with cash. Not sure what their kids drink or smoke. Galloping
polypharmacy among the elderly where eight prescriptions have eight
physicians' names on them show you it happens with medical care, too.
Cute......If you think that story is truly about what the guy could afford I
have a bridge to sell you.......Nor does it have anything to do with Bush's
Of which every citizen already has the same ability.....
Incidentally 8 years ago I was diagnosed with a very rare disorder(no cure)
I had expensive diagnostics and life saving surgery and I face a lifetime of
required medications for control.....while I was self employed I indeed had
a medical plan( by choice)......Subsequently I have not been able to run the
small biz(closed) and the wife is now our "breadwinner".......If I had been
so foolish not to have a medical plan I would have received the same medical
treatment......obviously I would have been saddled with debt as I should for
foolish choices.....at certain medical costs and income points Medicaid
would fill the gaps. The problem is not availability but the
cost......mandatory national medical coverage as proposed does not address
Well golly I'm now convinced in spite of your rather unconvincing
argument......there are several basic reasons why someone doesn't have a
a. They simply prefer to pay out of pocket as need arises.
b. They are too cheap to pay for a rather expensive service
c. They can't afford a rather expensive service
d. They do not perceive a need for a rather expensive service
Just a hunch but price does seem to matter in our purchase choices.
Historically the country has never had 100% of the public enrolled in some
sort of medical insurance, since the poor and anyone with a serious illness
can and will receive any and all needed care, why other than your politician
of choice has "told you so" is the issue important?.......Now if we have
serious efforts at controlling costs via competition and increased supply
any of the above might just take care of themselves.
Other than ignoring my query I don't see how that link demonstrated much of
anything other than my position, if I may quote it
"The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal
taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office."
Is your zealotry so strong as to impact basic comprehension skills? There
was nothing in my paragraph linking the two. Saddam's history, his future
goals, his crimes against humanity and/or his own people, his previous
expansion wars against his neighbors, his clear violation of the cease-fire
agreement, his violation of multiple UN security council resolutions and
even his fiscal support for Palestinian suicide bombers, clearly build a
reasonable case that his removal was in the worlds best long term interest.
The only valid issue is whether the cost in both blood and treasure is worth
the price to the U.S.......Nonetheless the actual cost to remove him was
affordable.... it is the effort to establish a Iraq democracy and allow
enough time to build the basic social infrastructure, to allow self
determination in a area without such a history, that has proven expensive.
You are omitting (on purpose I presume) what may be the single most
e. After paying for rent and food, hey don't have enough left to pay
the premiums for health care.
Some single non-custodial parents
don't even have enough for rent and food after child support is
deducted. My next-door neighbor who was employed full time
had $10/month left in his paycheck after taxes and child supprt.
Isn't Walmart the largest employer in the US? Isn't it the case
that Walmart does not offer a health care plan to its workers?
There is no question bottom tier income groups cannot afford(without help)
medical care nor even child support<G>.....In 1976 a west coast HMO cost
$25.00 per month for a single person with $2.00 co-pays, today the same
coverage would be closer to $400 with $20 co-pays.....the medical affordably
problem in this country is entirely medical inflation, of which has little
in common with normal inflation. Sadly this inflation has been driven by
greed, 3rd party payees and certain standards we expect (new shiny medical
buildings, staffing levels, paper work, liability etc.). In fact under
expected market forces with modern (post 1980's) imaging , drugs and
specific procedures medical costs probably should have declined or at least
Not true at all.... One cannot believe much of the anti-Walmart
That is just plain silly.... what part of "can't afford" didn't you
understand? Affordable alternatives, your kidding right?
"c. They can't afford a rather expensive service"
And yet per capita medical costs rise by roughly 10% or more yearly
Largest employer is not in dispute nor is it propaganda nor in this context
is it particularly relevant
That they have one!!!!!!! and that you claimed that they did not.....Your
confusion probably comes from those normally complaining about Walmart, in
their ignorance they do not seem aware that an employer can't afford the
entire cost of a $400 medical plan for part time employees....and that many
part time employees want to be part time employees....and that Walmart has
many many thousands of full time employees. Also that by tradition and need
routine retail jobs across the entire industry(all employers) tend to be
fairly low paid, have few benefits and have lots of part timers including
students, teens, housewives etc..... Rod
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.