Prev: Photo of dying marine: was it right for AP to publish?
Next: The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
From: Walter Banks on 16 Sep 2009 17:52
> On Sep 16, 3:22 am, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
> > On the other hand for cosmetic surgery the US leads the way. Just look
> > at Michael Jackson.
> They buried him, you know.
Technically they just filed him away in a mausoleum. Drawer 4 I believe behind a marble slab in a marble wall.
From: Savageduck on 16 Sep 2009 18:12
On 2009-09-16 11:03:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said:
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
>> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
>> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
>> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is
>> best for us
>> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
>> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
>> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
>> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
>> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
>> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
>> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
>> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net
> pay. A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all
> taxes is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K.
> Even within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost
> of living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
> goods and services.
> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job,
> then they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about
> tax cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and
> lower class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off
> paying slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big
> picture of how government is funded and the effects of increasing
> deficits. It's the same people that whine about how we should have just
> let GM and Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the
> cost of liquidation would be much higher.
> Again, Obama needs to really work on the education problem. There are
> still too many people voting against their own best interests, as well
> as the best interests of the country, because they listen to and
> believe the right wing talking heads.
This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so in
opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best interests
of the nation.
From: Savageduck on 16 Sep 2009 18:17
On 2009-09-16 11:37:13 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> Here's a free hint: everything you dislike isn't automatically
>> "socialist" or "communist". Those words have real definitions, and
>> using them the same way some folks yell "NAZI!" at anyone they dislike
>> only devalues the words and convinces everyone who has even a marginal
>> grip on reality that you don't.
> Yeah, "communist" has really been devalued.
> I call people that cut me off in traffic communists. Or at least
> Bolsheviks. In fact my son and I have a routine. When someone does
> something stupid while driving, i.e. running a red light, not stopping
> in the crosswalk, etc., I yell "communist!" (with my windows closed of
> course) and my son responds with "liberal!"
I have a habit of calling particularly perplexing New York Times
From: Rol_Lei Nut on 16 Sep 2009 18:19
> This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
> followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
> and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so in
> opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best interests of
> the nation.
Shhh.... Speaking the truth is "communist"!!!
From: Bill Graham on 16 Sep 2009 18:28
"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
> "Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, "Neil Harrington" <sec...(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
> Fact is that the cost of medical care has risen all out of proportion
> to the income of the average wage earner, and medical problems that
> could easily be paid for in the '40s and '50s are now costly enough to
> put the guy on the street into a bankruptsy court if he has no medical
> If the fact that medical care in the US today costs slightly over
> *twice* what it does anywhere else in the world doesn't make you
> suspect that something has gone rotten in the medical industry, you're
> simply not paying attention.
> --It *should*, but..............................! ;-)
> --Can't have no "socialism" no-how, no-way - 'cuz it's, well, just
> --plain "un-American"! 8^)
> --BTW, in the very early '60s, I spent a night in the hospital, billed
> --$25. About seven years ago, I spent a night in a hospital, billed
> --$2200. Both were for plain double rooms, not ICU...
Yes, but that's what 40 years of government interference in our medical
profession has done......It's not free enterprise when the AMA spends 40
years lobbying our congressmen to make laws in restraint of trade for them.