That would be ideal, but clearly it never has, and never will work, and the people who are obese to the point of serious medical illness will turn around and sue the companies that 'made them that way', not to mention the burden they put on the health system. People SHOULD take responsibility for themselves, but they don't. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no need for drinks that big and with that much sugar.
Yeah, but come on Smith - do you think it's going to stop at sodas? What's next - smaller twinkies?? Making light of course, but in truth do you really want the government telling you that you cannot order a 'super-sized' soda? Yes, of course I realize the implications - and cost - of American obesity. But I don't want the government legislating that sort of nonsense. But hey, what the hell? It's only soda - right? It starts small - it always does.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
While it might be viewed as over simplistic and racist, it is none-the-less true that given the summation of the whole of folks in the middle east, there shall never be peace. The issue of Israel aside, they were fighting and killing each other long before 1947/48 and will be forever. Yes, I understand that there are many beautiful and wonderful people in the ME who are smart, thoughtful and do not thrive on the violence and chaos that has become so intertwined in the region. Despite so many hating westerners and particularly Americans, I hold no ill will and would gladly welcome them to my table (as many would). But given a people that generally suffer from great economic disparity in a mostly third-world region sharply divided by a zealous (read fanatical) belief in religion and hating each other with such fervor, how can it ever be otherwise? They are far too governed by religious insanity and clannish divisions to ever become (as a whole) a peaceful region in society.
If the west pulled out tomorrow and left them to it they would still likely all blow themselves up. Well, Israel would clean house to a degree. It was heartening - if somewhat sad - so see signs of apology by some in the region in the killing of Chris Stevens; he seemed to generally be extremely well respected which is a great measure of the person that he was.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Democrats turned Wednesday to a hero of the past, Bill Clinton
Sorry, my heroes don't abuse their power by convincing an impressionable (and yes, stupid) girl smitten with the man's position to perform sex acts in the WH on my tax dime. If this is a liberal 'hero', well then that says volumes. I'll give it to you the man was bright, and not a bad President. And I'm certainly no moral majority type what-so-ever. But I don't cheat on my wife and lie under oath about it. Perhaps I have a different definition of the word 'hero'.
But that seems to be a liberal trait - many of your political heroes are base womanizers - well, all we need do is look at your gods in the Kennedy clan to get a more clear picture of that. Perhaps a shot of 'God' wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.
Can't wait until they roll out the Hollywood types - because we all know what they say and believe is so earth-shatteringly important. I've often based my life compass on the teachings of Sean Penn. Yeah, yeah I know - the Republicans used Clint, which was equally lame. At least I liked his westerns. The movies with the monkey sucked, but there it is.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
They never put the two together. Most people don't think so holistically, and Republicans do tend to care too much for money. And looking at them separately, they chose the money when money is involved. And basically, someone else's abortion does not cost them, so they turn to principle.
Blah, blah, blah...it's so easy for those on the left to sweep an arm and make generalizations about how greedy Republicans are, and how they worship only the almighty dollar and don't care about their fellow human kind. All utter rubbish to portray the left as so much more humanistic. But in truth, it's not that your average Republican cares any less about their fellow man, but rather they put stock in reality. Life is a tough btch and people have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. For every five people that are in true need because of circumstances beyond their control, their are fifteen that are in need because of their own stupidity or poor choices. Creating big government and a welfare state does not create a strong and vibrant society. It's time to stop asking what is owed to you, and start doing the hard slog to see that and yours can survive. How about instead of looking at those who endeavor to, and do succeed as exploiters, stop pssing and moaning and get to work. There are no jobs? BS - I'll even give it to the President that part of the unemployment problem is not his fault - it's the American people's fault. We've become so entitled that too many jobs that are out there an available remain vacant because they are 'too hard, or beneath me' to lazy, entitled Americans.
It's time to toughen up, 'man' up and get on with what we set out to do, and stop being left-wing pansies who expect to be handed everything. That's a big part of the Republican message, and I'm all for it.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The thing that most people do not seem to take into account is that 99% of the time that we read about someone committing mass murder with a firearm, the person is nuts. You can’t really predict crazy (well, sort of but a good 70% of the US population seems to be sort of nuts and not in therapy or institutionalized). Yes, true if they did not have firearms it would be much more difficult to kill a larger number of people. But they aren’t getting squad automatic weapons and mowing down dozens, it’s usually in the double digits in the worst case. I’m not saying that’s a good thing by any stretch, but I truly could probably sharpen a length of thin steel that I can buy and Home Depot into a fantastically sharp blade and behead maybe a dozen or so in a busy shopping mall before being capped by the cops.
Of course that sounds crazy – but that is the point; they are crazy. The loon at the movie theater had his apartment rigged. With a modicum of smarts and a mind crazy enough to do it, he could just have easily made some sort of fragmentation bomb, placed it under a seat, lit the fuse and fled.
The better argument for gun control is not the flashpoint lunatic in a movie theater or this guy in Texas, but rather if you want to argue for it, use the average criminal in the average crime – which in this country is more than likely a shooting that occurs when a drug deal goes wrong. For example, I lived in DC when it was deemed the ‘murder capital of the world’ and just about all of the killings were black on black drug related shooting within the District.
So the point? The point is that rather than grab on to the media-sensationalized wacko in a shopping mall, if you want to argue gun control center your argument around the everyday occurrences and not the lunatic aberrations; the law of percentages would dictate this.
So the real gun problem (and its true here where I live now) is the teenaged punk who is selling a bag of heroin, the junkie rips him off and he pops him. Well, even though the anti-gun folks say ‘poppycock’ to the argument, it is true that these teenage punks with guns aren’t getting them at the local sporting goods shop (unless the local shop is robbed). There exists a sea of illegal weapons that can be had for not a lot of cash. After you get rid of the legal ones, how do you propose to get of all the illegal ones? Some can be seized in crimes, many cannot. They will re-circulate and they will keep coming into the country one way or another.
I guess my real point is that the issue of gun control gets over-dramatized by media hype when a crazy loses it and kills a bunch of people – and yes that is usually with a legally purchased firearm. Gun control could keep this from happening from the firearms perspective, but likely the true deviant could find other methods. In the main, this would stop infrequent violence. The main problem with guns involves the street thug indiscriminately shooting up neighborhoods in deals gone wrong, turf disputes, etc. These are rarely committed with legally purchased weapons. So in theory your thought process of making guns illegal is going to stop the dramatics that have unfolded recently, but not the mainstream problem. It would likely make it more difficult – or at least more expensive to buy said illegal guns – but it’s not going to make them disappear. I do realize that the anti-gun advocate just want to do away with them period. There are a myriad of problems with that – but in a country this invested I don’t think that’s an easy goal to obtain. Those against think that the ‘then only criminals will have guns’ is a ridiculous statement by the gun lobby, but isn’t it fundamentally true?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Democrats for Mainstreet Americans ( Small business, Blue Color Workers, Poor, Intellects with HED, Minority,Pro Environment Groups) and FORWARD thinkers
Interesting - but subject to examination. For small business - okay, but things like the Obama health care plan will not benefit the small business, and I haven't seen much SB growth in my town in the past few years, rather many have closed down - money to MWBE's (Minority and Women owned Businesses) not exactly flowing. Helping the poor. The problem is that the left consists mostly of the poor, and young people too poor to help the poor. Your idea of helping the poor almost inevitably involves taking money from those who earned it to do so. And when someone on the left becomes wealthy, suddenly it isn't so cool to give up your money (I always laugh about comedian John Lovitz freaking out and going from left to right once he realized they were coming after his funds). Intellects - there we go, the old left wing adage that you're all so much smarter than the rest of us. Truth is academics can afford to be left wing when they live quite literally in ivy covered towers in university communities. Thrust into the real world they tend to suddenly become more conservative. Minorities - the old 'I have friends who are black thing', then you turn out to be as racist as the next. I know a ton of liberal white professors who all live in white only neighborhoods. As far as the environment goes, it does need help - but the left always has us one day from global annihilation and too often wants to waste time and funding on things that hurt more than they help. Too much freak-out and over-exaggeration. Too many hippy weirdos like the Whale Wars turds to give it all a bad name.
Amazing that there's actually conservatives out there who are so willing to back a loser liike Romney.
Interesting that you classify him as a loser. You might strongly dislike his politics, but he has a happy family life, is an educated man, has an estimated worth in the hundreds of millions, and now is the one party's political candidate for US President. If you can honestly classify that as being a 'loser' I'd like to see your resume in comparison. I don't agree with President Obama's platforms and most of his policies to a large degree. I could name a laundry list of things that I don't like about him. But a loser? He's the President. I personally think we need to step away from the current name-calling trend.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
If you consider Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan "the world" then yes, your maths sucks.
Well smart-alec (for lack of being able to call you what I'd really like) if you read his post, and then my post - the point made was that 20% of Muslims are extremists. It is stated on several websites that the number of practicing Muslims in the world is 1.6 Billion. 20% of 1.6 Billion is 320 million. If I am wrong mathematically, you have cause to call me on it, otherwise what's your point? The fact that the extremists might be in a smaller number of countries is still irrelevant. 320 million extremists is no small number in any book. Isn't it possible to refute or argue a point without being an ass?
No, it does not. Extremist Christians can join priesthood and live in the Vatican, or go to a monestary. They are no skin off my nose or yours. Likewise, extremist Buddhists can (and often do) spend their lifes in temples.
Now go and count the number of extremist Christian or Buddhist groups who commit murder and terrorism to shouts of "Buddha is great". Your list will be small indeed. Or Sikhs who blow up schools and cafeterias.
Your list will be short indeed. Again, it is self-defeating to lump all "religions" together as one. Different religions have different teachings. These teachings can from extreme pacifism to glorified violence.
It is TOTALLY unfair to lump the harmless Sikh religion together with other religions who have violent strains
Dude, if you don't think extremist Christian groups don't commit horrendous acts based upon their religion, then you've been in a box.
I'm not stating that all religions are necessarily violent (although most are or have been at some point), or that one is worse than the other. I'm simply stating that by basing life beliefs and systems of values on man's interpretations of what is basically organized superstition designed to either keep the masses under control by the more powerful, or placate the masses into believing that there is 'something better' if they live as they are told to rather than just a cold, dirt nap at the end of life is silly and the cause of at least 90% of the problems in the world. These temple shootings, while done by a misguided, apparently very stupid, racist and idiotic redneck are just one of the many symptoms.
Let's just review what religion has brought us. The Inquisition, witch trials, just massive burnings, crucifixions, killings, wars and chaos throughout history from 'well-meaning' crusaders, missionaries and power mongers from the church. Rights have been trampled on, untold numbers have been murdered in causes and for reasons that have root either in religious persecution, or outright war (don't think small scale modern terrorism - think historically). The three D's - division, derision and destruction. All in the 'name of God'. And the more fervent the believer, usually the wider the path of destruction. Yes, granted some religions are basically peaceful ones. But history has shown this to traditionally not be the truth. So why bring up religion when a nutcase kills people? Well, this guy was probably just a nutjob - but there was at least some hatred of race, and most often racial hatred is based upon a differing system of beliefs, which is often formed by religion.
Think about it - 90% of the issues in the world that make people angry and make some go nuts, or make life seem so much more difficult that it could be, or makes people hate each other and divides us as human being is based upon religion. Yes, there are other factors (class, etc). But how much more productive would human history have been, and how much better off would we be today if people were not so divided based simply upon their faith (as interpreted by some other individual(s)? Of course if you're religious you're going to deny it has any root cause, and that your faith makes you stronger and more accepting. History doesn't bare you out.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Yikes! In reading other posts - Oyajid, you state that:
Now where it gets very interesting is, most extremists group hosted in Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan merely represent 20% of the muslim community and they pretty much the source of the so called "islamist supremacy" message.
Since there are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and excuse me here as my math sucks, I figure that out as 320 million extremists that call themselves Muslim. That's no small drop in the bucket. Of course in defense of that, there are some 2.2 billion Christians and I'm sure easily 20% of them are absolute far right lunatics. So I think that brings credence to my posting above.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Senseless, bias-without-real-thought post as per usual zurcronium. How about instead of blaming Republicans you put the blame where it really and truly belongs - human kind's fear of death, and therefore their need to invent religions that breed hatred, insanity and is the root cause - granted by usually extremists in whatever religion - for more murder and injustice than any other single cause. Who knows, there might be a god - but what everyone follows is man's interpretations, which inevitably is bound to serve the need of either greed or power. Just look at the Catholic Church as an example. There wouldn't be definitions of Muslin, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist without this need, and there wouldn't be the fervent desire to kill one another because of those beliefs and the differences of opinions that it fosters. And it wouldn't allow an excuse for Muslim extremists to blow blow up men, women and children in buildings and market places or nutcases to kill anyone 'in a turban' because they're too frickin stupid to even know the difference between a Muslin and a Sikh.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Ha - I always thought it was maybe a sculpture by Paul Day or something.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
meant to say 'stark reality I'm afraid'
0 ( +0 / -0 )
nigelboy - you're likely making a good point that for whatever reason I'm not really getting completely in reading your posting - but I think your basically saying that many of the victims do blame their own government (at the time) for starting a war to begin with - and if that's a very good thing. Although as quoted she states that many families of the victims could never forgive the United States. In truth I can understand this. But as you state, as long as it is realized that the Japanese military/government was to blame for the situation that ended in the horrific use of the atomic bomb. In truth, I'm not condoning bombing of any kind, and am in fact am declaring war in general as a crime against humanity. And the unfortunate part in it all is that the poor civilian bears the brunt of the injustices perpetrated by their governments, and usually without much recourse in the whole matter. The anger comes more in the too often adamant refusal by the Japanese to take any responsibility for the results of their actions during the war. I suppose it's unfair of me to expect the civilian victims to shoulder that responsibility - but that's the burden of citizenship.
Zichi - no two wrongs don't make a right. If you haven't, you should read some of the better books on Nanking and Japan's actions in China - just to give you historical perspective on the type of mentality the allies were dealing with in the Japanese at the time. It's easy to armchair quarterback (American term, sorry) some 67 years after an event and make condemnations. It was often very different at the time. After going through a European war that had killed so many, and years of a Pacific war that had killed so many, and not so very far removed from a First World War that had taken so much - I think everyone was just ready for war to end. Horrific that the final curtain call were two atomic bombs. But the horror of the rest of the show was no less gruesome, and certainly no less costly. From an Allied perspective if the bombing ended the war without further loss of Allied lives, it was a necessary thing. Start reality I'm afraid.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
On the other hand, atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where citizens were about to start their daily life in Hiroshima or in the middle of being engaged in daily work in Nagasaki, cannot be simply dubbed as a violation of the rule of war. Rather, it was an offense against human ethics and therefore a flagrant challenge to all humanity.
But here again you make a distinction that so many of you do on this point about the atomic bombing being a great 'crime against humanity' as if it's somehow separate from the rest of the war, or warfare in general. I don't see the distinction. Are you under the illusion that during most other military campaigns of the Second World War - or any other modern war for that matter - that military operations normally preclude the killing of civilians? Yes, typically towns were largely evacuated (the people fled in advance) but that was hardly always the case. War is about killing. Bullets and bombs can't determine whether or not you wear a uniform. The bombing of major cities in Europe had already been done, and killed a hell of a lot of civilians. The point is, any war is a crime. I guess I just don't put stock in the argument that if folks are in uniform it's okay to butcher them in any fashion you see fit - that war. I don't see how a Japanese soldier on Bataan riding a horse down a column of men and randomly beheading them (it happened - and worse) is okay 'because it's war', but civilians from the country that started said war to begin with being killed is so much more terrible.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Only cowards drop bombs on children.
Well, once could say only cowards declare war moments before a sneak attack killing thousands, or perhaps that only cowards throw babies on bayonets in China, or that only cowards experiment on some of those they 'capture'. And one could say only cowards behead unarmed and beaten men, and only cowards ruthlessly invade other countries and enslave the native population, and perhaps that only coward rape women and use them as concubines, and that only cowards then try to deny and erase the history of ever having done any of this, but who knows?
Reiko Yamada, a 77-year-old female survivor, said: “I would like him to know that some of those who lost their family members in the bombings will never forgive (the United States) no matter what.”
But then you have trouble understanding why China, the Koreans, Australians, US and other nations conversely have trouble forgiving the Japanese. Whether vaporized or burned by one huge bomb, or killed by a torpedo or the cold steel of a bayonet is rather meaningless in the scheme of being dead. is an instant of a massive bomb really any more evil than years of planned, deliberate and savage butchery?
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a crime of war. The atomic bombing of civilians was a war crime.
Come now Zichi - while that sounds profound, it's horse-sh__. Declaring war as your aircraft are killing troops in their billets on board ship in a harbor - and they did kill quite a few civilians at Pearl - is not excused and made 'okay' because of that declaration right before the fact. And did the Chinese civilians at Nanking have the right to be killed by the Japanese by virtue of war? Folks in Japan seem to dismiss this type of argument as mere propaganda and anti-Japanese sentiment. No, in fact the peace-loving innocent victims of Japan systematically murdered hundreds of thousands. The numbers are argued, but by most all accounts are staggeringly high. Is that an excuse to be bombed? Well, depends upon whether or not your child was stomped under the boot of an invading Japanese trooper. Poor civilian Japanese murdered by the evil U.S. atomic bomb? Maybe. But it's funny how we rarely see the Japanese or the rest of the America hating world equally condemning the acts that preceded the atomic bombing, and were the direct cause of it happening in the first place.
What the Japanese don't get - and what many of you who post on here in support of their whining about the bomb don't get is that the anger from people like me comes not from the idea that those who were bombed were unfair victims (all civilians are), but rather that they fail to understand or even entertain the totality of the reason behind the bombing. They speak of not being able to forgive the US - the ones they should not be able to forgive are the heads of their own government who perpetrated the madness to begin with.
Was the bombing necessary? Depends upon your point of view. All I know is that I had three uncles in the Pacific war - one was at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked. They were very thankful that the war ended and they did not have to invade Japan. I'm damned glad to have them around now - and they didn't start the bloody war.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I think this brief opinion article sums it up rather well. Both sides, pro and anti gun bring up meaningless points in this sense. A sudden, violent mass killer intent on his agenda will do what it takes, in spite of laws and obstacles put in place to stop them. As he states, it's one of the prices we pay for the freedoms we have. There is no reasonable accounting for insanity. And I don't see it could be argued otherwise that someone who plans a mass killing of innocent men, women and children could be anything but insane, and least in our definition of sanity.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Obama is an American citizen. But he isn't an American. Re-distribution of wealth, group rights over individual rights, denigrating the hard work of business men and women, and supporter of big government for the benefit of his politically connected cronies. No, he doesn't think like an American. He thinks more like a Greek socialist. He is the most Liberal of any president in American history. He is the worst President in American history. If he wins re-election, you can kiss America goodbye.
Well said - and accurate.
Actually the things people (er... right wing) most complain about Obama are what make him popular outside the US borders - yes, there's a world out there! I was amazed he got elected, he's undoubtedly the least world president american's elected in recent decades.
Which proves Wolfpack's point quite clearly. He is supported more outside of the US, where socialism is more excepted than our capitalist democracy. Sorry, if I wanted socialism I wouldn't live here. The view is actually better in some of those other places.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
oh god, I have a few misspelling to further perpetuate my inability to string words together. That's what I get for hanging out with those wretched gays!
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Specify DentShop - what's so poorly written? Particularly funny since you followed that with:
"Like watching a car accident, its not something you want to polite company to see"
You 'want to polite company to see'? What exactly goes that gem of wisdom mean? My simple statement is basically a known fact in the world of those that study sociology and human interaction. Those who get the most angry about 'gays' are the ones that are the most insecure in their own sexuality. Think about it - otherwise why would you possible care? True, I don't like it crammed down my throat by the openly flamboyant. But I don't in any way feel threatened about people being gay. I don't feel my children or my way of life is threatened by people who are gay. It's not a 'disease that will rub off'. I don't need to hide behind the fear that is organized religion to insist that 'God meant man and woman to be together'. While I am very far from perfection, how is that a misrepresentation that you so claim? And poorly written paragraph? I think not. Sorry my scribbling aren't as poorly crafted as the beautifully written jewels of homophobic wisdom that you espouse. Get over yourself.
Yes, the BSA is entitled to let whomever they want into their ranks, and do dis-allow whomever they wish as well. Personally I don't think that teaching your children to prejudge another person by their sexual preference is indicative to creating a well-rounded member of society that scouting espouses as their aim. But hey, that's just me.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It's been speculated that those who are the most afraid of the gay community are closet homosexuals themselves, and the fear of their own sexuality fuels their violent reactions. So are the BSA really admitting that they are secretly gay? All I know is that some of the scoutmasters in my home town were likely peepee touchers anyway. And would any self-respecting person in the gay community really want to be involved in scouting? Even way back in my day only the geekiest of kids in my school made it all the way to Boyscout. The rest of us quit after the novelty of wearing our Hitler Youth-like uniform shirts in cub scouts wore off.
Although frankly I don't think Baden Powell would have had issue with gay folks in scouting.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
The church is a money making scheme - they all are essentially (or a means of maintaining control through fear). If you want to believe in it then by all means jump in with both feet (and bill-fold). I don't need to 'donate money' to be guided in making the correct decisions in my life. I'll have a go myself, and if I screw it up there's no one to blame.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Should have read Alan's post first - much more eloquent than my own and very well put.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report
And they want to place a tax on currency exchanges and financial transactions? What?? So people will not do business between nations or try to work a way around it that most likely will not be beneficial to the poor nations in the first place? Utter madness.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Why yes, of course - let's just tax the rich. Never mind that most of these poor nations are run by corrupt governments who take what money in aid that they do get for themselves, and administer to their people in such a horribly poor and unjust way that they have no chance to become anything but a poor third-world nation. Taking more money from the rich will certainly help. What a bloody stupid bunch of useless fools the UN have turned out to be.
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.
Never mind as well that the entire world is in an economic crisis where even the people in wealthier nations such as the US find themselves struggling a bit to survive (granted, not as much as the poor nations who have nothing). Perish the thought that these nations work to make themselves somehow competitive in a world market rather than keeping on with the same old systems of corruption, splintered and clannish governments, civil wars and unwillingness to educate their own people. Why, pray-tell, is it incumbent on the rest of the world to be held responsible?
I don't quite understand this impetus to punish the wealthy because of their success. Perhaps this is because I am a capitalist. But I don't see it as a sin to succeed, and I don't see it as fair to hold those that do as responsible for the rest of the world.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
I think people distrust Scientology because it seems too much like a business venture trying to disguise itself as a religion. They apparently ask for donation (and costly amounts at that) for 'spiritual advice'. It's sort of like one of those supposed 'self-help' cheesy, sketchy kind of guys you see on tv (what was the tall guy that sort of looked like the metal-mouthed bad guy from all of the James Bond movies - Tony something?). Probably why our Hollywood elite seem to get into it so much - because they can afford it.
But in essence it's no different than any other organized religion. Promise you miracles it can never seem to deliver, and while shaking your hand with one, they are fleecing your wallet with the other.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Ahhh Wolfpack. Money money money. That's all you got on the brain. I don't care if the country is a Gaziilion dollars in debt. You are thinking about an economic dead end. I'm thinking about PEOPLE dead end cause they can't go in the hospital.
Typical, that's like cannibalizing one engine to keep the other running, then expecting somehow that they will both work to get you where you need to go. To hell with the consequences - just make sure everyone receives care. That's great in the dream world utopia that all liberals seem to live in, or at least think is achievable, but not so great in reality. Reality is a cold, hard beeyatch. Is it fair or decent or good? No of course not. Three-year-old children die of cancer while human predators go free to live long and 'healthy' lives. Life is not fair, those are the rules.
The people come first. Capitalism is up there, free markets, business. You tax the rich. You know where they are. Upstate New York, Malibu, California. Tax them!!! Stop wasting money. F35 = FAIL. Millions of dollars wasted by Republicans.
First of all, I live in upstate NY - I think people misconstrue what constitutes 'upstate' NY because in reality it is the Adirondack region and from Albany up. There aren't a whole crap-load of rich people here anymore. A few Hollywood liberals have million dollar homes on some of the lakes in the region, but other than that the 'old money' in upstate NY is long gone and the rich don't make it up here anymore. Most of us are struggling folks eaking out a living.
But then you have/give the same old lame argument: 'let's tax the evil rich'. Okay, never mind that these 'evil rich' are the ones that invest back into the communities in which they live, create jobs in the businesses they own and otherwise contribute greatly - despite what you think - to our capitalist, constitutional democracy. I'm really unclear on this whole distaste, bordering on hatred, of the 'rich' by the left. We are a capitalist society - correct? Hasn't the idea always been that in this country you can make something of yourself and become financially successful? Why is that a crime, or why does that constitute 'evil' in your minds? You think they don't pay taxes?? Yes, indeed they do. For business reasons I saw the financial papers of a local man who runs a business. He's rich - yes; he owns a boat, an small plane and a nice house. He pays about 20 times more in taxes per year just on the boat than I do on my entire income (and I'm a common shmo who has no tax accountant and pays the full of what I'm supposed to).
The point is, the rich already pay what is legally their share. And on top of that, whether they do it just for PR and show or not, most corporations do give substantial amounts to charities or sponsor various events and things that help those less fortunate. More than your liberal Hollywood elite do - oh yes, they might protest loudly, but how much of their purse do they put up for grabs? And do they not have tax accountants to keep them from paying the max? Why I'll bet all rich liberals do.
And then even outside the conservative vs. liberal arguments there is the matter of simple human responsibility. Yes, I'll give you that there are a substantial amount of people who don't have insurance because they can't afford it. But there is a huge number of the uninsured that are so because of their own inaction and/or inabilities. The unwed mothers with five kids, or the couples with five kids and no means to support them; the people who suffer from addictions that keep them from working; those that simply don't want to work; the likely hundreds of thousands who are on social security benefits for no real reason; people like my liberal brother who choose a job that he 'enjoys more' but doesn't pay enough to pay for regular premiums for health care coverage. My point is that there is a degree of human responsibility here. You paint and unfair and untrue picture of hard-hearted, uncaring conservatives who don't mind seeing a child suffer because they cannot get medical treatment. But you don't like to dissect the root problem of why that parent doesn't have normal job that might give the child health coverage. And it comes down to why should those that can provide for themselves pay for those who cannot or will not? In some cases we most definitely should. But there are too many cases where we should not, and there seems to be no dichotomy for this in the liberal world.
It's a difficult problem, and goes back to my original statement that life is tough. It's not a question of not feeling for the victims (children and those with real problems) but a disgust for the abusers that cause the situation. Where does it stop? What motivates people for life if those that have are forced to provide for them, no matter their life choices?
Just as you don't get this mindset, I don't get your idea that just because I earn a living (and I might hate every minute of my job, but I get up and do it every day anyway, and make tough choices about the number of children I have, what we can afford, what we cannot do, etc) I should be ready, willing and able to give my money away to everyone else who refuses to tackle the same responsibilities and challenges that I do. What PT Barnum said about a fool and his money should not be forced through taxes.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Again, why are you upset over ObamaCare when there is/would be also Romney/Dole/Nixon/Gingrich care?
Nixon?? Jesus, at least pick someone who's been alive in this century. I know your type as well; you aren't really intelligent enough to argue a point so you just pick on something idiotic to try and argue. I think I'll pass. Please stay in Japan - we don't need any more liberal teachers, thanks.
state broken people - beautiful post. Good show.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Oh, and one more on CNNMoney about the financial woes of the US Postal Service:
The health care mandate is a major liability for the Postal Service. Officials have said they won't have the cash to make a $5.5 billion payment that's due Aug. 1, or the $5.6 billion payment due Sept. 30.
Nah, this won't have any adverse effects, will it? Now when you send in your mandated healthcare payments they will be late because the post office will be shut down or too short staffed to get it there on time, partly courtesy of the costs of Obama-care.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Posted in: Japan to lift state of emergency nationwide