Post #10
You wrote2 seconds ago
Despite the number of times it's been repeated (or because of), Obama has nothing to do with socialism. There is a huge difference between socialized medicine and socialism - an English dictionary and a few wikipedia searches will prove that.
Funny how even in an apparently free forum such as this, the limiting track marks of right vs. left politics seems to turn talking points into cherished dogma. Why should the U.S. have the worst health care statistics in the world (infant mortality, bankruptcy/financial ruin through medical bills, administrative costs, prescription med. prices, etc.)? Our health care industry makes more money than any other country's health care industry. I'm all for profit, but trying to increase the health of our nation by cutting out some of the middlemen skimming millions off of the system is far from socialism. By the way, socialism isn't a dirty word with most people I know - it's actually a philosophy - an idea - with a long noble history of fighting tyranny on behalf of voiceless suffering masses - look it up.
But, I'll just grant that everybody thinks socialism is evil right now. So, in reality, when it comes to health care, a socialist would say that rich people aren't allowed to have cosmetic surgery unless everyone can have cosmetic surgery (or really they'd say that rich people can't be rich because everyone should be roughly equal).
An investment savvy, well-educated free-market capitalist however, provided they have a conscience, would say to themselves, "since health and well-being provided by the medical industry are the most valuable commodities humans could ever think of to sell to one another, where a sick person would sign anything or go into any amount of debt to avoid the frightening shadow of death, maybe we should set some ground rules for the industry so that the blindly profit seeking Juggernauts like the pharmaceutical industry don't attract more and more aggressive profit-taking strategies (like 'K' Street) to soak up all that demand out there (not to mention creating new demand with advertising that used to be illegal). As my economics class taught me, in this kind of system over time all the investors get rich and people have less and less disposable income (or more and more bankruptcy) to keep the economy vital."
It just makes sense. The number one profit drainer for corporations is loss of productivity due to illness. Perhaps a more comprehensive national health strategy where basic costs are fixed cheaper, preventative medicine is focused on (like making sure kids get good non-processed nutrition), along with collective bargaining for better prices so that people can stop going to Canada to purchase medicine; perhaps such a strategy would be more collectivist and less individualist, but I'd suggest it is hardly enough of a change to call a President a socialist. Though I get it, that is what FOX and others say - oh well, at least we have the internet.
I look forward to seeing some of the positive changes occurring in the Republican party as well. Conservation is conservative; externalizing costs to more "liberally" (in an Ayn Rand sense) make profit is not. We'll get there when we see a popular GOP candidate who is anti-war, and probably not before.
Greetings to Eli in Wales, from where my mother's mother's family hails.
The following is a conversation thread from facebook that prompted me to write the above column as my latest reply.
It came from a random group I joined called Six Degrees, which claims to be some sort of social experiment (though I'd guess it'd be easier to prove mathematically that the theory is true or false).
Post #1
Lynn Lane (Knoxville, TN) wroteon May 17, 2009 at 5:49am
By KARL ROVE
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.
Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.
So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?
If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html
As Thomas Jefferson said, “to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Do House Democrats wish to be represented by a Speaker who most certainly does not concur in this most basic truth, and who has lied to America about her conduct in office?
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.
Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.
So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?
If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?
http://online.wsj.com/arti
As Thomas Jefferson said, “to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Do House Democrats wish to be represented by a Speaker who most certainly does not concur in this most basic truth, and who has lied to America about her conduct in office?
Post #2
Benjamin Platt wroteon May 17, 2009 at 6:34am
I'm no expert but I reckon it's both.
Looks like there's another name to add to the list of those needing investigating :-)
Looks like there's another name to add to the list of those needing investigating :-)
Post #3
Lynn Lane (Knoxville, TN) wroteon May 17, 2009 at 2:04pm
You and I must be the only ones on here up for political debate. I'm still not drinking the "feel good" Kool-Aid though.
Post #4
Linda Mitchell (Lincoln, NE) wroteon May 17, 2009 at 6:44pm
I'm a republican who became thoroughly disenchanted with the McCain/Palin ticket. I voted for Obama, but I DID not drink the Kool-Aid that you just stated as does Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity constantly call those who voted for Obama. I find that statement offensive. I voted for a change, but not one that would not be watched carefully. I think any reasonable person who watches politics should careful look at their leaders and hold them accountable.
I am not a Nancy Pelosi fan. I find her statement unbelievable. I think she should fess up and move forward.
I think and WISH we could stop the inter-party bickering and concentrate on trying to push this country forward trying to resolve our problems.
I am not a Nancy Pelosi fan. I find her statement unbelievable. I think she should fess up and move forward.
I think and WISH we could stop the inter-party bickering and concentrate on trying to push this country forward trying to resolve our problems.
Post #5
1 reply
You wrote23 hours ago
I'm a socially liberal, fiscally conservative non-partisan progressive who is thoroughly disenchanted with some of the "debate" here. I respect those who spend time engaged in political debate, regardless of their opinion on issues.
However, if all you do is post Karl Rove's opinion, well...that's not really advancing any cause, unless you count really hating Nancy Pelosi as a cause. I understand if you do - I used to really hate Karl Rove.
Now I'm happy to say I recovered and don't waste time on such nonsense anymore. After all, I don't have to care about Karl anymore since apparently all he can do is attempt to demonize politicians to reaffirm the stranglehold he has on reactionary fear-crazed neo-cons. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi will be a powerful Democrat (a party which, while fairly crappy at times, at least aren't blatantly fascist and corrupt and might put enough regulations on industry to keep the whole country from becoming as polluted as Texas) long after Karl is a foot-note in the war-concocting miserable history of our time.
Not having to pay attention to nay-sayers has freed up time in my day to read Howard Zinn, listen to Gil Scott Heron, and watch documentaries like "Voices of a People's History of the United States" and "Why We Fight". Though these sources may seem unpatriotic to symbol-minded G.O.P. sheep, they are actually well-researched critiques of our modern society (though as with anything, they are slanted and should be paid close attention to). By informing our choices with real debate and analysis instead of inflammatory opinions about a Congresswoman from San Fransisco, then we may actually be able to improve the condition of our country for our children. The Kool-aid was believing Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, that economic stimulus is wasteful spending, that taxes are evil unless on the poor or middle-class, and that torture is a necessary evil even though it is completely ineffective at intelligence gathering. Our country decided two helpings of that beverage was enough.
And I agree with you Linda, calling Obama supporters Kool-aid drinkers is offensive - yet so funny at the same time. Is he perfect and are our problems solved cause he's around? No, but at least science, reason, and law are back in the white house, so that's one fight down and a about a million other issues to go.
However, if all you do is post Karl Rove's opinion, well...that's not really advancing any cause, unless you count really hating Nancy Pelosi as a cause. I understand if you do - I used to really hate Karl Rove.
Now I'm happy to say I recovered and don't waste time on such nonsense anymore. After all, I don't have to care about Karl anymore since apparently all he can do is attempt to demonize politicians to reaffirm the stranglehold he has on reactionary fear-crazed neo-cons. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi will be a powerful Democrat (a party which, while fairly crappy at times, at least aren't blatantly fascist and corrupt and might put enough regulations on industry to keep the whole country from becoming as polluted as Texas) long after Karl is a foot-note in the war-concocting miserable history of our time.
Not having to pay attention to nay-sayers has freed up time in my day to read Howard Zinn, listen to Gil Scott Heron, and watch documentaries like "Voices of a People's History of the United States" and "Why We Fight". Though these sources may seem unpatriotic to symbol-minded G.O.P. sheep, they are actually well-researched critiques of our modern society (though as with anything, they are slanted and should be paid close attention to). By informing our choices with real debate and analysis instead of inflammatory opinions about a Congresswoman from San Fransisco, then we may actually be able to improve the condition of our country for our children. The Kool-aid was believing Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, that economic stimulus is wasteful spending, that taxes are evil unless on the poor or middle-class, and that torture is a necessary evil even though it is completely ineffective at intelligence gathering. Our country decided two helpings of that beverage was enough.
And I agree with you Linda, calling Obama supporters Kool-aid drinkers is offensive - yet so funny at the same time. Is he perfect and are our problems solved cause he's around? No, but at least science, reason, and law are back in the white house, so that's one fight down and a about a million other issues to go.
Post #6
Benjamin Platt wrote11 hours ago
Could one of you please enlighten me as to the Koolaid remarks ?
For a start we don't get Koolaid in Britain and my knowledge of it is that it's a pre-mix juice drink and they use the Koolaid guy to advertise their product but my only exposure to it is references of the advert in Family Guy.
So, what's the deal ?
How does some powdered juice drink get used as an insult and should I be insulted by those who use it against me ?
For a start we don't get Koolaid in Britain and my knowledge of it is that it's a pre-mix juice drink and they use the Koolaid guy to advertise their product but my only exposure to it is references of the advert in Family Guy.
So, what's the deal ?
How does some powdered juice drink get used as an insult and should I be insulted by those who use it against me ?
Post #7
1 reply
Linda Mitchell (Lincoln, NE) wrote9 hours ago
My take on the usage of "Kool-aid" drinkers refers to Jim Jones cult where everyone drank poisoned laced kool aid and died per his order. The Rushes, Hannitys, and those of the same ilk has named anyone who voted for Obama a "Kool aid" drinker. In other words, we have no minds, we just follow blindly. This is why I find the term offensive. As I said above, I am a republican, though I didn't vote that way this year. I do not follow blindly, I expect certain levels of behavior and action from those I elected.
Post #8
Lynn Lane (Knoxville, TN) replied to Linda's post5 hours ago
The republican ticket did leave a lot to be desired but was voting for a socialist really the best way to go?
Post #9
"I'm a socially liberal, fiscally conservative non-partisan progressive"
Best one to be, in my opinion.
Best one to be, in my opinion.
