Clinton to offer health care plan, only $110,000,000,000 a year

[newmindfashion]

Jewish Babble? - what are you talking about? This is becoming a rant on your part.

No difference between Hitler and Mao? That was explained to you before. Despite the Anti-democratic characteristics, thats where the similarities end.

60s liberals were neo-cons who lost their home in the democratic party? They were not neo-cons just because they were hawkish on foreign affairs. Who exactly went over to the GOP amongst these 60s Neo-con/liberals you're talking about? Bobby Kennedy? Hubert Humprey? This is a Fox news myth.


James, history is not make believe.

 

[CT Insure Guy]

I vote for a "James vs. NewMind" thread, and I got $500 on NewMind!

Here's all you guys need to know:

Liberal = good when it comes to amount of oral sex and chocolate, bad when it comes to governement spending(this includes the $$ spent on Iraq war, not just social programs)

Conservative = good when it comes to fiscal issues, protecting borders and citizens and promoting personal responsibility, and bad when it comes to the female dress code in the average office.

Simple as that...I'll be on the 2008 Ballot in the "Half Retard" party, cast your votes now, woo hoo!

 

[CT Insure Guy]

Jewish Babble

LOL, what the heck is that??

I played Jewish Scrabble once, and all I noticed was that my opponent was kicking my ass on double word scores for long Yiddish words and that the board smelled like Lox.

 

[James]

60s liberals were neo-cons who lost their home in the democratic party? They were not neo-cons just because they were hawkish on foreign affairs. Who exactly went over to the GOP amongst these 60s Neo-con/liberals you're talking about? Bobby Kennedy? Hubert Humprey? This is a Fox news myth.


James, history is not make believe.

The usuall liberal crap from basically people too dumb to debate what I said, instead you change what I said.

Neo-Cons as invented by the liberal seeking a name to call conservatives as we the conservatives did too the label of Liberal. Basically what Neo Con stands for, are the Dem's of the 60's, rather liberal on Domestic Issue yet fairly conservative on Fiscal and Foriegn Affairs, yes Humphrey and John Kennedy would fall in this catergory (they were both okay with the use of the military and fiscally conservative). Yet in the late 70's and 80's the younger liberal or the Anti War Crowd (Kerry, Pelosi etc etc) came to power and the Conservative Democrat many from the South (much of it given credit to Nixon as in the Nixon Effect) were all but shoved out of the Democratic Party by the new upcoming power brokers as named. The Jewish comment is what many call the leaders of the Neo Cons as in Wolfowitz and the Granddaddies the "Kristol" and PNAC.

If you are going to sit here and attempt to convince people on your so called intelligence, try to learn the basics! Or in other words, the Democratic Party so change that even moderate Cons and Libs could no longer call it a home. As in the so called fight with Move On and Hillary, I really don't think there is, basically Hillary is just mouthing rhetoric to make herself sound more moderate at the same time with a wink and a nod to the Move On crowd. Yet lets face it, most on the Move On Crowd isn't smart enough to understand the reality of the real world.

Plus you have to understand that Corporate America is the strongest supporter of a Nationalize Health Care System, for obvious reasons. In fact Big Business will always support a bigger and intrusive Federal Government.

 

[CT Insure Guy]

Plus you have to understand that Corporate America is the strongest supporter of a Nationalize Health Care System, for obvious reasons. In fact Big Business will always support a bigger and intrusive Federal Government.

James, buddy, work with me here...I am definitely more conservative than NewMind, though I bow to him in terms of his knowledge, education and understanding of the current and historic political landscape, for reasons very obvious in this thread. One doesn't have to agree with someone's perspective as long as they can appreciate their knowledge of the issues.

However, my question here is, are you seriously going to end your post with the above mentioned comment (that once again is dripping with bad grammar)???

Let's see 3 more people in this forum agree with your statement that "Big Business will always support a bigger and intrusive Federal Government". What are you smoking James??? You think the Phone Companies, Cable companies, Microsoft, Utilities, etc WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION??? Find me the evidence to support this! The Oil Industy (Big business indeed!) wants MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION?? Why on earth would they?? I think you are so far off base you're playing on a different field! In nearly every interview that I have heard on Fox, CNN, CNBC, Talk Radio, etc where a CEO was interviewed I have heard them express generally the complete opposite of what you're saying when questioned about "federal regulations" or any government involvement in their operations.

Also, for what "obvious reasons" does corporate America support a NationalizeD Health Care System?? Are you thinking it's because they will not have to carry the burden of paying Healthcare premiums for employees? Well first of all, that's irrelevant because they determine employees wages based on the fact that they cover a cost of their benefits; if there was no Insurance coverage they would be paying these employees more. Simple economics. So if they no longer had to buy coverage it would not have any real impact on the bottom line.

I dunno bud, you're kinda scaring me with some of your "logic", and I like to think most of us "conservative leaning dudes" are pretty with it. Then again, I make calls in my home office naked with Zappa tunes playing in the background so I certainly have issues as well...

 

[James]

James, buddy, work with me here...I am definitely more conservative than NewMind, though I bow to him in terms of his knowledge, education and understanding of the current and historic political landscape, for reasons very obvious in this thread. One doesn't have to agree with someone's perspective as long as they can appreciate their knowledge of the issues.

However, my question here is, are you seriously going to end your post with the above mentioned comment (that once again is dripping with bad grammar)???

Let's see 3 more people in this forum agree with your statement that "Big Business will always support a bigger and intrusive Federal Government". What are you smoking James??? You think the Phone Companies, Cable companies, Microsoft, Utilities, etc WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION??? Find me the evidence to support this! The Oil Industy (Big business indeed!) wants MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION?? Why on earth would they?? I think you are so far off base you're playing on a different field! In nearly every interview that I have heard on Fox, CNN, CNBC, Talk Radio, etc where a CEO was interviewed I have heard them express generally the complete opposite of what you're saying when questioned about "federal regulations" or any government involvement in their operations.

Also, for what "obvious reasons" does corporate America support a NationalizeD Health Care System?? Are you thinking it's because they will not have to carry the burden of paying Healthcare premiums for employees? Well first of all, that's irrelevant because they determine employees wages based on the fact that they cover a cost of their benefits; if there was no Insurance coverage they would be paying these employees more. Simple economics. So if they no longer had to buy coverage it would not have any real impact on the bottom line.

I dunno bud, you're kinda scaring me with some of your "logic", and I like to think most of us "conservative leaning dudes" are pretty with it. Then again, I make calls in my home office naked with Zappa tunes playing in the background so I certainly have issues as well...

First off, I don't give a whit about my grammar on public forum boards, just in case you have not figured that one out yet. Secondly, I stand by what I say, Big Business or what the liberal claim as the conservative corporate mindset is so far from reality, it is a joke. First off, besides Walmart find me a group of Conservative Boardmembers or CEO's of these corporations. You really can not, most are liberal to moderate at best even that has to be taken with a grain of salt, calling them moderate. I can not think of a group of conservatives outside of Walmart leading Big Business, if you can please inform me? Now I'm sure there are more than just Walmart, but by no means do the Conservative rule the roost.

Now the most interesting point you bring up is the "Wage" issue, if we took medical out of the employment issue. Yet, when the Liberal/Democrat attacks the HSA theory, individual H/C they do not suggest that employers would obviously increase wages just because they are no longer supplying H/C benefits. Just something I notice about some, they debate on moving issues or effects, ie not very honest! So I'm assuming you think if we moved to a National H/C the employers would raise wages, which is likely true. Yet if we went to a individual H/C with the HSA would employers increase wages, obviously if honest one would say yes, now go find my a Liberal that will agree with that including newmindset or whatever he goes by! The only question is, would it be a dollar for dollar match? Obviously it wouldn't, and there would be serious lag time with lower income jobs, if it ever would happen.

Now lets look at this statement by a so called M.A. in Political Science:

It is what it is? What it is is actually completely wrong. In academia (the scholars who actually research this stuf), liberal or neo-liberal actually refers to keeing the government out of the economy and promoting free trade between countries

Now if this is the academia definition of Liberalism that is find, but for anyone suggesting that this is the reality of today, I would say one has wasted their time in school. Or maybe the schools are failing or as some suggest, nothing more than a Propoganda outlet for the liberal of today.

First thing we have to understand, no one with any sense is arguing or debating over should there be Government or not? The real issue is how big should the Federal Government be versus State Government. And the real twist is the "Empirical Mindset" of America. Fred Thompson and maybe the guy from TX is the only politician/actors/doctors running that I know is willing to even talk about such an issue of Federalism. Now the empirical mindset, I don't know of any politician willing to say America as we were set up does not equate well with being the lone Super Power or how you view it, the largest Empire that has ever been, even though I would agree, we tend not to live up to the situation.

Ps, Big Oil is making a lot of money, even with our heavy regulated society that we now have. Imagine that! In fact, I would argue with out the regulations and intrusions of the Government, Big Oil would not be posting such large profits.

 

[CT Insure Guy]

I dunno James, why you're not President I'll never know! LOL

 

[James]

I dunno James, why you're not President I'll never know! LOL

I wonder myself!

 

[newmindfashion]

"I played Jewish Scrabble once, and all I noticed was that my opponent was kicking my ass on double word scores for long Yiddish words and that the board smelled like Lox." LOL


James,
I can't help but think you're a pissed off Dixiecrat that moved over to the GOP. You have a lot of home grown ideas on practically everything. Clearly we agree on nothing. I also don't think you've read through my posts very carefully to be debating me here. Also, its not a so-called MA in Political Science, its an actual masters degree in Political Science that I only mentioned when you claimed that I was uneducated. I'll say this, you've got some unorthodox ideas for a conservative. Your abbreviated history of the Reagan Democrat is questionable. Late 70s/early 80s? McGovern got in on the strength of the anti-war movement and counterculture in 1972. Also, you make it sound like conservative southern Dems were kicked out. Many were mad at the party and left on purpose. Their ideas no longer matched the party so they eventually converted to the GOP which came to full fruition only during the 1980 election. However this this was years in the making going back to decades prior. A lot of this stems from the civil rights movement and was exacerbated by actions and legislation from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Its not as simple as: "the late 70's and 80's the younger liberal or the Anti War Crowd (Kerry, Pelosi etc etc) came to power and the Conservative Democrat many from the South (much of it given credit to Nixon as in the Nixon Effect) were all but shoved out of the Democratic Party by the new upcoming power brokers as named."

James, you are correct that many neocons were former liberals that broke away from the Democratic party. Other than that point, not sure where you're coming from.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"Oh, lets not forget the Jewish babble"

I have followed this thread without commenting...until now.

The "Jewish babble" comment was absurd and idiotic. And that's an understatement.