America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[Steelplate]

Heed...imagine if China didn't have a rigged trade system and didn't tariff our shit at 25%?

 

[flacaltenn]

China is now where America was in the early 1900's. A wealthy ruling class that controls everything and a massive working class that is forced to work for peanuts while the ruling class rakes it in. The only difference is that in the robber-baron days of America, the corporatists ruled....in China...it's government. No wonder you boys like them...that's your new vision of the American Dream.
Wait till the Chinese version of Lech Walesa pops up and organizes the workforce....oh yeah....that's right.....they'll just execute him...once again...no wonder you like China so much.

Naww --- WAAAY off here. I have windows open on my desktop right now doing biz in China. There has been a MASSIVE expansion in what was a NON-Existent Middle Class. It is literally amazing how that has come about.. Don't have time for charts and numbers right now -- but you're wrong about working for peanuts and dictators.

Labor costs RIGHT NOW are rapidly going up WITHOUT any help from a union. Read the freakin' paper.

Do ya later... My Chinese Master calls..

Our company does contract services for several Chinese and Korean companies. It's almost amazing that so many aircraft go back overseas with nothing but dunnage on board. So, the profits made by shipping stuff from there to here justifies flying back basically empty. At least they pay their bills.

And ---- don't forget !!!! By buying so many treasuries, THEY are actually paying our bills for us.. Perhaps contributing more than say 3/4 of the US population or our Congress..



It's all gonna change pretty quickly. I can see a last exit window for us to salvage jobs in this country. If we get leadership that's focused more on solving problems than dividing us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Takers will always take. That's just the way that goes. And it's the Makers who provide for all that taking. The Socialists/Progressives demonizing them, will hurt all Americans at some point. It may be getting them some Votes, but it's destroying the Nation.

Paulie is a taker...he takes up space on the message board repeating the same post almost verbatim...that's because he's a hard core Libertarian who only gives a shut about sparking up his next bowl legally....perhaps that's why he does it...short term memory loss?

He probably does it because repetition is the best way to teach people.

 

[flacaltenn]

Takers will always take. That's just the way that goes. And it's the Makers who provide for all that taking. The Socialists/Progressives demonizing them, will hurt all Americans at some point. It may be getting them some Votes, but it's destroying the Nation.

Paulie is a taker...he takes up space on the message board repeating the same post almost verbatim...that's because he's a hard core Libertarian who only gives a shut about sparking up his next bowl legally....perhaps that's why he does it...short term memory loss?

He probably does it because repetition is the best way to teach people.

And by "educate people" -- Avatar really means "special ed"...

 

[Listening]

Heed...imagine if China didn't have a rigged trade system and didn't tariff our shit at 25%?

Hasn't Romney said something about that.....

It was a while ago.....

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW the responses of alot of people in this thread demonstrate precisely why civil war in evitable unless we seriously change our ways and turn back to God.

 

[Steelplate]

Speak for yourself. I find that the most pious among us publicly, usually are the real slimeballs behind closed doors. So....take a good long look in the mirror before you cast a stone at the rest of us.

 

[Steelplate]

Btw...I love your second sigline. I agree 100%. That's why I'm pro-choice.

 

[Listening]

Laws are generally based on morals. The existence of laws that serve to defend basic moral values--such as laws against murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.

That fact that they work together is only a coincidence. All you need look at is abortion law to see that people have not reconciled it key areas. if you are going to base laws on morality, then you must first set forth what that morality states.

All the examples you set forth are simply things people don't want in their lives. Many people who don't have a "moral" code can still determine they want to be protected from "crimes" against them.

One way to avoid confronting the moral issue of health care is to dismiss anything that would cause you to question your own morality.

By dismissing the Harvard study, you are willfully doing that.

Sorry, but you'll need to find someone who is interested in your lectures.

The Harvard study was a load of bull and has never been proven to be of worth. And yet the entire pro-healthcare lobby has placed it as one of the key cornerstones in their arguments.

I have asked repeatedly for anyone to produce a name of someone who died from lack of health care. In fact, if you do the numbers....the study being 10 year old....you should have a pool of almost 500,000 people who can be identified as having died prematurely from lack of health care.

Nobody has come forward with a name. In reality you should be able to produce most of them......

Nada.....

And I have asked about 100 times (no joking).

If you dispute the numbers, let's cut it in half. Are you OK with 22,500 premature deaths of Americans every year who don't have access to affordable health care?

As you might imagine, they would not all fall in the same category. So, to simply said they didn't have access to health care is not very meaningful.

And let's break it down.

There are 310,000,000 people in the U.S.

If the average life expectency is about 75, then that means that 4,100,000 people die every year.

That would mean that 1 in 100 died prematurely due to lack of health care (whatever that means).

That also means that 99 out of 100 did not pass awy prematurely due to lack of health care.

For a country where (as Barbara B.S. Boxer would say) 50,000,000 don't have health care or roughly 1 in 6....

That is pretty darn good.

You are almost to the point that statistical noise is going to rub out any proof you might have of the Harvard claim.

So, in summary.

The Harvard study was a reach.

But it still fits the narative of the left...so they utilize it.

And lack of health care does not mean the same thing to everyone.

To answer your question.....no, I would not be O.K. with people dying of lack of health care.

 

[Pho_King]

Speak for yourself. I find that the most pious among us publicly, usually are the real slimeballs behind closed doors. So....take a good long look in the mirror before you cast a stone at the rest of us.

Of course. In liberal lalaland, the more seriously one takes religious matters, the more likely that person is a slime ball.

 

[Steelplate]

Learn to read....re-read my post....take an aspirin, because I know thinking hurts you....then get back to me.

 

[Pho_King]

Learn to read....re-read my post....take an aspirin, because I know thinking hurts you....then get back to me.

Fuck that. I dont deal well with bigots.

 

[Steelplate]

Bigot? Who's a bigot? I'm a Christian myself. I believe in Christ's word when he said "judge not, lest ye be judged....whoever is without sin, cast the first stone, and that which you do for the least of my people, you have dine for me"

Avatar believes in sink or swim...if you can't do it...don't expect me to....not very godly....not that I'm judging....just observing.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bigot? Who's a bigot? I'm a Christian myself. I believe in Christ's word when he said "judge not, lest ye be judged....whoever is without sin, cast the first stone, and that which you do for the least of my people, you have dine for me"

Avatar believes in sink or swim...if you can't do it...don't expect me to....not very godly....not that I'm judging....just observing.

That post made little to no sense.

 

[Pho_King]

How can you question whether or not you are a bigot when you state that there is some correlation between piety and being a slime ball.

And it sure as hell doesn't sound like you put much stock at all in the "judge not lest ye be judged" wisdom.

 

[Bfgrn]

Laws are generally based on morals. The existence of laws that serve to defend basic moral values--such as laws against murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.

That fact that they work together is only a coincidence. All you need look at is abortion law to see that people have not reconciled it key areas. if you are going to base laws on morality, then you must first set forth what that morality states.

All the examples you set forth are simply things people don't want in their lives. Many people who don't have a "moral" code can still determine they want to be protected from "crimes" against them.

One way to avoid confronting the moral issue of health care is to dismiss anything that would cause you to question your own morality.

By dismissing the Harvard study, you are willfully doing that.

Sorry, but you'll need to find someone who is interested in your lectures.

The Harvard study was a load of bull and has never been proven to be of worth. And yet the entire pro-healthcare lobby has placed it as one of the key cornerstones in their arguments.

I have asked repeatedly for anyone to produce a name of someone who died from lack of health care. In fact, if you do the numbers....the study being 10 year old....you should have a pool of almost 500,000 people who can be identified as having died prematurely from lack of health care.

Nobody has come forward with a name. In reality you should be able to produce most of them......

Nada.....

And I have asked about 100 times (no joking).

If you dispute the numbers, let's cut it in half. Are you OK with 22,500 premature deaths of Americans every year who don't have access to affordable health care?

As you might imagine, they would not all fall in the same category. So, to simply said they didn't have access to health care is not very meaningful.

And let's break it down.

There are 310,000,000 people in the U.S.

If the average life expectency is about 75, then that means that 4,100,000 people die every year.

That would mean that 1 in 100 died prematurely due to lack of health care (whatever that means).

That also means that 99 out of 100 did not pass awy prematurely due to lack of health care.

For a country where (as Barbara B.S. Boxer would say) 50,000,000 don't have health care or roughly 1 in 6....

That is pretty darn good.

You are almost to the point that statistical noise is going to rub out any proof you might have of the Harvard claim.

So, in summary.

The Harvard study was a reach.

But it still fits the narative of the left...so they utilize it.

And lack of health care does not mean the same thing to everyone.

To answer your question.....no, I would not be O.K. with people dying of lack of health care.

There have been other studies besides the Harvard study that put the numbers in the 20,000 per year range. But when you start calling the demise of fellow Americans 'statistical noise', it reveals that you and I are not operating under the same set of morals and values. Conservatives never have a penny of human capital in their thinking. It is why I call them the modern day Pharisee. If 20,000 Americans dying prematurely is 'statistical noise', then what is a mere 3,000 Americans dying on 9/11?

Let's try using some common sense here. Uninsured people are more likely to skip screenings and other preventive care, so their medical problems are often diagnosed later, when they are more advanced and tougher to treat. The uninsured are also more likely to skimp on necessary medical care, whether it’s prescription drugs to keep their blood pressure in check or surgery to clear up clogged arteries.

The bottom line is that if you don’t get a disease picked up early and you don’t get necessary treatment, you’re more likely to die.

There is a group of Americans who DO have health insurance and access to health care. They are seniors. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80.

America Before Medicare

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most telling stories occur at free health care expos around the country. People line up the day before to get free health care. These are not 'welfare queens', over 80% are employed Americans.


Health reform's human stories

New Orleans, La. — — It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.

Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

 

[Steelplate]

How can you question whether or not you are a bigot when you state that there is some correlation between piety and being a slime ball.

And it sure as hell doesn't sound like you put much stock at all in the "judge not lest ye be judged" wisdom.

Just personal experience. No man is perfect...all have sinned. None are worthy...even myself...I know I'm a sinner.

 

[Steelplate]

Bigot? Who's a bigot? I'm a Christian myself. I believe in Christ's word when he said "judge not, lest ye be judged....whoever is without sin, cast the first stone, and that which you do for the least of my people, you have dine for me"

Avatar believes in sink or swim...if you can't do it...don't expect me to....not very godly....not that I'm judging....just observing.

That post made little to no sense.

Really? Read your own sigline. #1 in particular.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bigot? Who's a bigot? I'm a Christian myself. I believe in Christ's word when he said "judge not, lest ye be judged....whoever is without sin, cast the first stone, and that which you do for the least of my people, you have dine for me"

Avatar believes in sink or swim...if you can't do it...don't expect me to....not very godly....not that I'm judging....just observing.

That post made little to no sense.

Really? Read your own sigline. #1 in particular.

Maybe if you just explained what you meant with with coherant sentences, I wouldnt have to. Of course, it makes more sense now.

You seem to think self reliance is ungodly. It's not. God teaches us self reliance.

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (2 Thess 3:10)

When people recognize that they don't need to rely on others, but they can take care of their own needs, it empowers them. Which is precisely what God wants. God empowers people.

 

[Listening]

There have been other studies besides the Harvard study that put the numbers in the 20,000 per year range. But when you start calling the demise of fellow Americans 'statistical noise', it reveals that you and I are not operating under the same set of morals and values. Conservatives never have a penny of human capital in their thinking. It is why I call them the modern day Pharisee. If 20,000 Americans dying prematurely is 'statistical noise', then what is a mere 3,000 Americans dying on 9/11?

You didn't dispute my claims.

And you don't understand statistics (that or your purposefully misinterpreting them).

Noise is noise. I can't help that and neither can you. And The Havard study does not have the kind of precision to pick out 1 in 100. I am sorry...but those are the facts. What you are calling a demise....I am calling exptrapolation based on the most specious of assumptions.

And cut the crap about what conservatives have and don't have. I am not going to rehearse to you how I think the system should work because to this point you are not worth it.

So far, we have established that health care is not explicitly called out in the U.S. Constitution.

Whether you believe, as some of us do, that the Federal Government then has no constitutional authority to pass health care administration, has not been established.

You've seen my arguments.

Let's try using some common sense here. Uninsured people are more likely to skip screenings and other preventive care, so their medical problems are often diagnosed later, when they are more advanced and tougher to treat. The uninsured are also more likely to skimp on necessary medical care, whether it’s prescription drugs to keep their blood pressure in check or surgery to clear up clogged arteries.

You can make that assertion and I would not dispute it....as a qualitative statement.

This does nothing for your Harvard argument, which also contains quantitative claims that are meaningless. And you never addressed the fact that 99 out of 100 seem to be doing fine.

The bottom line is that if you don’t get a disease picked up early and you don’t get necessary treatment, you’re more likely to die.

If this an argument for people having health care, there is no dispute.

It is somehow supposed to implicitly project a conclusion, I don't see it.

There is a group of Americans who DO have health insurance and access to health care. They are seniors. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80.

America Before Medicare

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your point ?

The most telling stories occur at free health care expos around the country. People line up the day before to get free health care. These are not 'welfare queens', over 80% are employed Americans.


Health reform's human stories

New Orleans, La. — — It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.

Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

And my mother smoked for 50 years and died of lung cancer. Something naturally follow. What is your point in all this ?

That people need health care ?

Or that we should be the ones providing it to them ?

All I need to do is look at people who are taking vacations on their Social Security all the while getting their health care paid for by the guy down the street who can't take vacations because of the money he is paying out of check for his neighbors care....to know that I don't think medicare is the greatest thing in the world...in fact....I think it sucks in many ways.

However, that does not mean I don't believe in people having health care.

They are two different issues and you somehow seem to think that we can read between the lines and figure out how you are connecting them.

In fact, there are even more issues without relevence to the conversation that you keep bringing up. As I pointed out earlier, people who lose their houses because they went bankrupt got the care they needed (and they didn't pay for it). That they lost their houses is a different issue. They got the care. If we are talking medical care, that is one thing. If we are talking safety nets, that is something else.

If these are your facts and figures you plan to bury me with, you'd better get a better shovel. Right now, all you are doing is blathering.