Healthcare on way, sorry sociopathic Repubs

[Shaun41178(2)]

[


Actually, my bad, you don't need to register after all.

.

AHHAHAHAHaHa so am I still a draft dodger? Hahaha dude you fucking owned yourself again. This is too funny watching you implode on yourself.

[The Dark Side of Will]

So why don't you give blood?

Isn't compulsory military service (IE, draft) something that most liberals hate?

I don't give blood because my country has asked me to give blood so some medical corporation can make $$$ from it, then deny me, a vet, medical coverage.

Compulsory military service is not actually the draft.

It's just like imperialism, then.

As for generalizations of liberals and the military and/or draft, I don't see how that would be scientifically calculable.

It's just as calculable as all of your partisan rhetoric.

I don't mind it, just thinbk I'm more of a moderate, but now we start the, 'with us or against us' debate.

Which is a debate with which you're very familiar.

As for affirmative action, it might be a conservative trait, as the same SCOTUS passed the U of M decision regarding AA that just decided DC vs Heller, so are both liberal then? I dunno. Actually the diff is Rhenquist swapped with Roberts, other than that the same.

Google "equal opportunity". The first result will be the EOEC and the first words on the page are "Equal opportunity is...."

Google "affirmative action" and you'll find a bunch of vague crap that people claim affirmative action DOES, but not once on the first page of results is affirmative action DEFINED. Affirmative action is just a pretty crock full of ugly shit that people use as a shield for their ugly actions. Anything can be called affirmative action without much criticism because nobody knows what it is.
It's not liberal or conservative... it's just corrupt.

The supreme court has fucked up before. They decided that consitutional protections don't apply in civil cases. Does that make it right?

[EBSB52]

[


Actually, my bad, you don't need to register after all.

.

AHHAHAHAHaHa so am I still a draft dodger? Hahaha dude you fucking owned yourself again. This is too funny watching you implode on yourself.

I see you omitted the part about women not needing to register. Sad, little kid needs to be dishonest to try to make a point. Go away kid, adults are here.

[Shaun41178(2)]

Hahahahaha so I guess women are draft dodgers too!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA your g/f who you hate living with is a draft dodger just like me and just like bill clinton!! LAWL

[GT86]

Now go show us you have a pair and address all of taht big post, I spent some time putting it togther; don't be a Clem.

Sorry, I've about reached my fill of EBSB52 for now. Problem is, you aren't open to anything other than "Republican = bad" and "Democrat = good". You're good at burying that sentiment under mounds of words, but that's what it boils down to. Everything else you post is static, meant to hide the fact that you're so simple-minded.

If someone posts something contrary to your narrow opinion, you simply pull out one (or many) of your standard names (you know, neo-con, elitist, pussy, Nazi, etc) and in your mind you've dismissed the argument. When someone posts a link with material contrary to your view (usually because of a request you've made), you dismiss it as a neo-con site and continue the name calling.

There's no point to debating you but at times it's an entertaining internet diversion. But like I said, I've had my fill for now.

Please commence with your crowing that you've beaten me, or that I've pussied out. You've already run through most of your repertoire of names, but if there's any you've missed calling me, now's the time. The floor is yours...

[EBSB52]

Slick Willy: Isn't compulsory military service (IE, draft) something that most liberals hate?


Me: I don't give blood because my country has asked me to give blood so some medical corporation can make $$$ from it, then deny me, a vet, medical coverage.
Compulsory military service is not actually the draft.


Slick Willy: It's just like imperialism, then.

Actually no, Slick Willy. Try, oh try with your RW, ‘black-or-white’ mind to think outside the box. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

Referring to compulsory service in the armed forces, the term "conscription" has two main meanings:

1) compulsory service, usually of young men of a given age, e.g., 17 – 18, for a set period of time, commonly one-to-two years. In the United Kingdom and Singapore this was commonly known as "national service"; in New Zealand, at first compulsory military training and later national service; in Norway, Safeguard Duty/1st time service.

2) compulsory service, for an indefinite period of time, in the context of a widespread mobilisation of forces for fighting war, including on the home territory, usually imposed on men in a much wider age group (e.g., 18 – 55). (In the United Kingdom this was commonly known as "call-up").
The term "conscription" refers only to the mandatory service; thus, those undergoing conscription are known as "conscripts" or "selectee" in the United States (from the Selective Service System or the Selective Service Initiative announced in 2004).


See, the former is the type of conscription where in peacetime all males in this case must serve, the latter is the war draft. If you want to call what I want, compulsory peacetime service, the draft, I have no problem. Sure, let’s call it the draft; anything to get those pathetic drug addicted squirrelly punks and make men out of them, I think we see a lot of that here in this forum, whatever works I’m good with. Call it the draft if that works for ya, I don’t object, altho I don’t think the definition fits it, but far be it from me to get semantic over an issue like this.

Me: As for generalizations of liberals and the military and/or draft, I don't see how that would be scientifically calculable.

Slick Willy: It's just as calculable as all of your partisan rhetoric.

But slick Willy, guys like you who refuse to answer any of the entire mountain of evidence I have posted calling me out on calculable, empirical data and other evidence? Why that just doesn’t seem right. Answer my stuff or forever be a fool.

I see you’re back to your usual 1-liners, nice to see you’re well. Again, many liberals, Dems, etc are the ones in the military, the neo-cons are the ones watching from the outside. This forum is a great example, look at the demographics of political orientation, I think I am the only liberal and yet I have service. The other neo-cons/Libertarians (same thing) have a 5% rate of military service at best. Of course this is not scientific, just fun.

As for partisan rhetoric, I lean left, but will vote right in a heartbeat. I have voted right once and indep another time, so your point is invalid, esp coming from a partisan neo-con who has only voted RW.

Me: I don't mind it, just thinbk I'm more of a moderate, but now we start the, 'with us or against us' debate.

Slick Willy: Which is a debate with which you're very familiar.

1-liner Willy. No, I allow for lot’s of latitude. I have little tolerance for sociopaths who like to see 50 million people suffer, kind of a modern-day Hitler those Republinazis. See, they think it’s ok to match the rest of the world dollar-for-dollar in military spending, yet watch millions go without healthcare, how much more psychopathically Nazi could that be?

Me: As for affirmative action, it might be a conservative trait, as the same SCOTUS passed the U of M decision regarding AA that just decided DC vs Heller, so are both liberal then? I dunno. Actually the diff is Rhenquist swapped with Roberts, other than that the same.

Slick Willy: Google "equal opportunity". The first result will be the EOEC and the first words on the page are "Equal opportunity is...."

Google "affirmative action" and you'll find a bunch of vague crap that people claim affirmative action DOES, but not once on the first page of results is affirmative action DEFINED. Affirmative action is just a pretty crock full of ugly shit that people use as a shield for their ugly actions. Anything can be called affirmative action without much criticism because nobody knows what it is.
It's not liberal or conservative... it's just corrupt.

I wrote Affirmative Action, you wrote, equal opportunity, seems the dictionary revisionist is back at it again.

Affirmative action - The term affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and public contracting to educational outreach and health programs (such as breast or prostate cancer screenings). The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize the benefits of diversity in all levels of society, and to redress disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.

Equal Opportunity - Equal opportunity is a term which has differing definitions and there is no consensus as to the precise meaning.[1] Some use it as a descriptive term for an approach intended to provide a certain social environment in which people are not excluded from the activities of society, such as education, employment, or health care, on the basis of immutable traits. Equal opportunity practices include measures taken by organizations to ensure fairness in the employment process. A basic definition of equality is the idea of equal treatment and respect.
In job advertisements and descriptions, the fact that the employer is an equal opportunity employer is sometimes indicated by the abbreviations EOE or MFDV which stands for Minority, Female, Disabled, Veteran.

Affirmative Action refers to a process of policies, equal opportunity is a basic concept that states we must be fair in hiring, education, etc practices.

This is the AA case to which I refer is the U of M case where a white female applied to a graduate school, was denied then later learned she had better scores than other non-whites that were accepted. She sued, the case went all the way up to the SCOTUS and they, but 7-2, not only sided with the schools discriminatory policies, but rubber stamped them for the next 25 years. If memory serves, the only dissent was Thomas and Scalia. So 5 of the 7 neo-con appointees went for it.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html

There was a case in the 1978 called the Bakke case where a white male sued over the quota system in effect then. They then declared quotas illegal and went to a point system, which is the same thing. What a lovely country.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... bakke.html

So Will, learn a little. I could learn as much about engineering from you as you could learn about social sciences from me, difference is, I don’t pretend I know jackshit about engineering.

The supreme court has fucked up before. They decided that consitutional protections don't apply in civil cases. Does that make it right?

Yes tehy have fucked up before, but the composition is everything. We see that Republican appointees see Affirmative Action as a good thing too, I think it's a crock.

As for US Const Protections and civil cases, esp here in Nazizona where most traffic tickets are civil, unless you appeal 2 levels up to the Court of Appeals where it's transfered as criminal, meaning all they've done is to downgrade your due process at the trial level. How red state of them. But yes, if the state is pursuing a civil matter against a person, there s/b criminal DP guaranteed. As for private people/corporations, I think lack of criminal DP protections is a good thing, considering people would just clam up and be immunized.

[EBSB52]

Now go show us you have a pair and address all of taht big post, I spent some time putting it togther; don't be a Clem.

Sorry, I've about reached my fill of EBSB52 for now. Problem is, you aren't open to anything other than "Republican = bad" and "Democrat = good". You're good at burying that sentiment under mounds of words, but that's what it boils down to. Everything else you post is static, meant to hide the fact that you're so simple-minded.

If someone posts something contrary to your narrow opinion, you simply pull out one (or many) of your standard names (you know, neo-con, elitist, pussy, Nazi, etc) and in your mind you've dismissed the argument. When someone posts a link with material contrary to your view (usually because of a request you've made), you dismiss it as a neo-con site and continue the name calling.

There's no point to debating you but at times it's an entertaining internet diversion. But like I said, I've had my fill for now.

Please commence with your crowing that you've beaten me, or that I've pussied out. You've already run through most of your repertoire of names, but if there's any you've missed calling me, now's the time. The floor is yours...

I punked you out, you have shown what a coward you are, made assertions, I hammerd them with all kinds of data and you are running. It's more manly to concede than run.

Now you're gonna plagiarize with the inverse of my point: "Republican = bad" and "Democrat = good". Sad and desperate, esp since I have called Carter non-presidential, LBJ a POS, Truman a bad president in some ways, not to mention all the scumbags like Buchanan and Pierce who served right before the civil war. You're an idiot calling me partisan when I clearly show I am not.

As for name-calling, cupcake, I call them on 2 occassions:

1) When others start it

2) When people run from data I post or are blatantly dishonest

As for your link, I addressed the 2 that were objective, posting a Hannity and Limbaugh site is universally known as an idiot's move in these conversations. I would never consider posting Moveon.org or any liberal media as an argument for my position. That's a cardinal rule, moron. I see you posted a union site, taht is permissable considering you oppose that ideology, just as I could post a Hannity hate site, but I wouldn't; too controversial. You can post the counter to your position, but not a feel-good site that panders to your belief system. That is so 101 to these arguments, but you wanted to make an ill point, so you actually thought you could slip it by. Fool.


As for you being gone, you won't stray far, then I'll be here to help you find the thread/post you chickened on. You could be a man and admit that I was right on 2 major counts:

1) This mess was caused by low interest rates, too long

2) Tax increases by GHWB and Clinton pulled us out of the 90 recession and brought us into a deficit-free period 10 years later, that is, until yoour boy came in and raised taxes and fucked it all up. The tax increase, then decrease acts as posted support this, the graph shows the results that corroborate my claim. Keep dribbling back here with your BS, promising to get to that post if ya just had time. Don't wonder why you're party has been relegated to insignificance.

[Blue Shift]

Fuck health care. Fuck it right up the ass.

That shit is responsible for a 55 hour work week at a job 50 miles from home, and being awakened and summoned to work at all hours of the day and night.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I wrote Affirmative Action, you wrote, equal opportunity, seems the dictionary revisionist is back at it again.

2:200 still in effect... I'm glad you enjoy spending your days trolling a forum.

My point, that you completely missed and even interpreted backwards somehow is that equal opportunity IS defined (by the real world outside of Wikipedia), and is a very set concept with specific applicability determined by federal law.

http://www.eeoc.gov/ *really is* the first site that a google search for "equal opportunity" returns. They used to have the definition right at the top of the front page, but they've changed their site since.

Affirmative action is a blanket to throw over ugly practices like discrimination to call them something prettier.
"Hey, hiring a black person who's less qualified than a white person is discrimination!"
"No, it's affirmative action."
It's like pornography... theres no definition, but you "know it when you see it".

I have read about the Bakke case. IIRC, the court defended the interests of an educational institution in using "other than academic" criteria and a certain amount of discretion in selecting its students.

[EBSB52]

Fuck health care. Fuck it right up the ass.

That shit is responsible for a 55 hour work week at a job 50 miles from home, and being awakened and summoned to work at all hours of the day and night.

HUH? Do you work in healthcare????

[Shaun41178(2)]

eb I love how you get all your facts from wiki!!!!! LOL

[EBSB52]

eb I love how you get ALL your facts from wiki!!!!! LOL

Wikipedia is one of the best sources, they have no bias, no political agenda and they almost generally have several supporting citations, something many other sources don't have.

BTW, see the word I put in caps, underlined and emboldened? That shows typical neo-con garbage and the use of absolutes. I just got thru writing a lengthy post illustrating how tax increases are sometimes beneficial and cuts disasterous. I used many cites that were not Wikipedia. But according to you I get ALL my facts from Wikipedia. Where do you get yours from, your trashy parents? You have to make a point, can you establish once where Wiki is blatantly wrong? Yet you have no mention for GT86 using a Hannity and LImbaugh site, a very opinion biased source.

Garbage.

[Shaun41178(2)]

Wiki has no bias? Hahahah dude wiki is written by people just like you WITH bias.

So if I created a wiki page titled "Eb is a pinko commie faggot who likes to suck cock" and post the wiki link to here, that means it must be true because obviously that page was created without bias?

Hhahaha dude you are hysterical. Keep typing.

[EBSB52]

Wiki has no bias? Hahahah dude wiki is written by people just like you WITH bias.

So if I created a wiki page titled "Eb is a pinko commie faggot who likes to suck cock" and post the wiki link to here, that means it must be true because obviously that page was created without bias?

Hhahaha dude you are hysterical. Keep typing.

And if I wrote a site refering to how Shaun fucks his mom and has for some time, ...... oh wait, that would be true, nevermind.

Once more, turd of all turds, you have no issue with GT86 posting some Nazified Hannity and Limbaugh page, yet you do with Wiki? Then as I post several issues with that issue, GT86 totally pusses out, but what can he say, I just wish he had the character to answer my post. You're like the forum buffoon, real low IQ, yet when all others have run out of room, the data backs them against the wall, they turn to you to dillute the thread with nothingness. And they refer to Aaron as the forum bitch, I think they have it wrong.

[p8ntman442]

We've shown we, as a whole, cannot act responsibly, so perhaps you would like some more of the failed experiment? I think the experiment is over and it failed, I see that we need to work on regulations in order to babysit those who wan't act with restraint.

This is a fundamental disagreement between us. Let the forclosures happen, Thats how I got my house so cheap. I'm not getting paid to babysit, and I shouldnt have to pay politicains to do so either. Darwin awards for the starving and cold.


on HOA's.

I didnt say you supported litigation to abolish them. I connected the dots logically from "further enabling them is idiotic" to I dont think they do us any good and we as non cowarly americans should act in a manner to reduce thier impact. Is that not how you feel? I'm saying the logic correlates to a hypociracy of being so Pro union and yet so anti - HOA. Its illogical in my mind.


Somewere you said somthing similar to "I'd rather have the gvt deciding my healthcare than a corporation.

Well guess what. Here is a read on how corporations are pressuring Obama, so if you think gvt legislation is not a direct extension of the corporate power arm, your in for a rude awakening when the obama plan hits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ster ... 69202.html

Andy Stern is President of the Service Employees International Union, North America's largest and fastest-growing union.

Jeff Kindler is Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, the nation's largest research-based biopharmaceutical company.

[The Dark Side of Will]

http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=313

[EBSB52]

This is a fundamental disagreement between us. Let the forclosures happen, Thats how I got my house so cheap. I'm not getting paid to babysit, and I shouldnt have to pay politicains to do so either. Darwin awards for the starving and cold.

I, like many in here, could drive at 100mph all day, everyday on the freeway w/o a problem, but most can't even do the 55-65 w/o eventually fucking up, so why shouldn't we be able to drive 100mph? The differentials in speed would show hazardous, so we have to drive at a speed that is consistent with the abilities of the worst/least skilled drivers. It would be nice to think you and me and us in here could drive 100 on teh FW and the idiots drive 55, but there would be grave problems, so either we have to slow down or they have to leave the roadway as drivers. We've decided to punish the more capable and to me that's a form of socialism. Look at he socialist countries esp Germany, they drive fast and require competence over socialism, so I get the worst of both worlds here, capitalism in general society, socialism on the roads.

So to draw this analogy, we have shown we cannot lend or borrow responsibly as a whole, just as we cannot avoid collisions, so we need regulations and recovery with our banking system and with our roads. It's unfair for people like you that can borrow responsibly and us in here that can drive at 100mph, but we live in a society of a lot of people so the rules must be across the board and not selective.

Now if we let everything crash, do you think we would not have chaos? Of course we would and that's a foolish idea, it's been tried during the GD and that was Hoover's attempt that cost thousands their lives, FDR tried the current approach and it worked.

on HOA's.

I didnt say you supported litigation to abolish them. I connected the dots logically from "further enabling them is idiotic" to I dont think they do us any good and we as non cowarly americans should act in a manner to reduce thier impact. Is that not how you feel? I'm saying the logic correlates to a hypociracy of being so Pro union and yet so anti - HOA. Its illogical in my mind.

Actually I have no issue with litigation to hammer them, it's the legislation that I think would be unfair. I know it was an honest error, but there is a huge difference; Litigation uses the statute (legislated law) to establish a contract or a tort damage dispute, legislation is the action of changing the rules in a wholesale format. IOW's, I can't sue (litigate) for the entire HOA system to change, other than on a state or federal type obscure suit where I try to deem them unconstitutional on a state or federal level, I would generally sue to recover damages from 1 specific HOA or sue to claim that they are discriminating against me, but it would be limited to 1 HOA. So you stated that about the litigation, I don't believe I stated that., just the state or federal legislation to abolish I stated I wouldn't back.

What I personally believe and what I want to see physically or legislatively done are different. Don't take this personally and this is not an insult. You have been one of the few who have been constructive here and I appreciate that. Here goes. Conservatives often will take a person's beliefs as a whole and convolute them, create an average and read that as the conclusion. Liberals will take all elements, examine each for their own merit, then factor them together at the end, keeping in mind any and all extraneous inclusions and exclusions. IOW's, a conservative says, 'looks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a duck.' A liberal draws DNA and finds it's a hybrid between a duck and something else, then treats it as such. This is why conservatism is outdated, their logic worked back in the 1950's, as life in general wasn't that complicated, now it is far more complicated. Then, blacks and whites were separated, girls and boys were often too and life was simple. If someone was gay they would be run out of town because they were defective, now socity has to be tolerant of them. Then: meat and pertatoes, now: meat is murder, not to mention it kills the consumer and creates cancer. Then: readin, ritin & rithmitic, Now: calculus, nuclear physics, interpersonal writing. Then: black and white TV, Now: Ipods, techy computers, and digital flatscreens. Also, look at how liberals write vs conservatives, liberals will talk your head off, conservatives consult their cliché handbook, make 1 assertion and walk away. Conservatism isn't really a thinking process, just a doing process. I recall seeing Bush on TV saying, 'We're not going to consult the lawyers, we're just going into Iraq.' That's how contemporary conservatism works.

Now, as for substance to the issue.

- I stated something like: Unions are necessary because...., HOA's are not because.....

- You stated something like: Ed is a hypocrite

So in conclusion, I was addressing the issue, you were addressing your interpretation of the character of the person making the assertion. This is an Ad Hominem. In order to substantively address the thread and my feelings toward HOA's you should have written:

- I think unions are not necessary because.............. I think HOA's are necessary because....... (depending upon your views, maybe you feel differently about 1 or the other - you get the idea). Then you could say, 'As an aside, I think you are being hypocritical by being so pro-union and anti-HOA, bit that's beside the point......

It appears as tho you made the union and/or HOA issue about me rather than about unions and HOA's. This is typical with conservatism. Now, you might be saying to yourself, 'Ed makes all kinds of personal attacks.' Sort of, for idiots like Shaun who constantly ring in with nothing, or guys like 86GT who bring in big points, then get shut down and say, 'I don't have time anymore...." I use insult for fun, not to support my point or make it the entirety of my point. IOW's, I don't say, 'look at the anti-union idiots in this forum, no wonder unions have gone downhill.' SO a personal attack for fun and one to address the merit of the issue are FAR DIFFERENT. The substantive discourse we're having is great, it wasn't always that way, but I would rather do it this way, that's why I waste all kinds of time in posting boards. I make great points so the reader has to make decisions:

- walk away
- attack with ad hominem
- admit I made a good point
- perhaps change their beliefs

I think we know which they will do.

Other examples:

- I think religion is a farce, I think it creates a lot more harm than good. Now should churches be outlawed? Of course not.

- I think DC vs Heller (says the 2nd gives us the right to own a firearm for personal use) is a flawed decision, but I embrace it.

Now the first example, a conservative would look at that and say that churches are harmful, hence should be abolished, or that churches are positive and participation should be mandatory.

The DC vs Heller example a conservative would look at that and figure it backwards: I like guns, I think the constitution gives us a right to carry them (not even ever having read the 2nd), I agree with DC vs Heller. A liberal reads the 2nd, familiarizes himself with case law around the 2nd, then read Heller and makes a decision on the constitutionality of it by weighing it out. They may then say, "I like the outcome, but think the logic to get there is a bit abstract." That's where I am.

So to wrap this up, my opinion is that you are using conservative logic by:

- not addressing why HOA's are necessary. In fact, I can't even recall you saying they were good or they were bad for society.
- immediately looking at my process of HOA vs Union beliefs and focusing your argument on that. Ad Hominem.
- Furthermore, isn’t it possible to think HOA’s are necessary and Labor Unions are not, or vice versa? Couldn’t someone be of the opinion that labor laws protect the workers well enough, OSHA, Workman’s Comp, etc, but that HOA are needed due to declining home values or some other whacky argument? Could someone say that HOA’s are not necessary for their reasons stated, but that unions are need due to declining worker healthcare participation, or some other reason? I just don’t see an absolute link, the 2 are in no way correlated, employer/employee relations are one entity and HOA membership, started in the 1960’s, is yet an entirely different entity. But see, this is that conservative logic thing where the user of it tends to convolute all the elements and draw a conclusion, liberals would separate all elements, analyze each, and then roughly culminate them at the end, keeping in mind any extraneous details. I don’t see how a person could try to claim that another person could be so pro-union and so anti-HOA.
Another difference, I did state that I don’t think workplaces should be union compulsory, whereas HOA’s are absolute in membership. You say you have the choice to live in an HOA, well, sometimes, as in my situation in 2002 I was looking at ere or the street. I could get several jobs, even in this market, but I couldn’t get several places to live. But as I said, first time shame on them, second shame on you (resident). People don’t know how controlling a given HOA might be and if they bought, they can’t just change that in 15 minutes.

This is how I feel about both:

- HOA’s: Although I would love to see their downfall, they have a right to exist. I wish Americans weren’t so apathetically weak and if they live in an HOA, they should be active and vote. Many HOA’s have 10% or less participation, hence it become an autocracy since <10% are making the rules.

- Labor Unions: I don’t like closed shops, I think participation s/b voluntary. I wish garbage like Reagan and GWB would quit acting outside their executive duties and quit medaling in this realm, it’s borderline illegal. If shops want to close the doors, fine, they may suffer consequences. If workers want to strike, fine, they may suffer consequences. I don’t see how anyone can advocate a free market, yet advocate medaling in union contracts; THOSE ARE IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY RELATED.

Somewere you said somthing similar to "I'd rather have the gvt deciding my healthcare than a corporation.

Well guess what. Here is a read on how corporations are pressuring Obama, so if you think gvt legislation is not a direct extension of the corporate power arm, your in for a rude awakening when the obama plan hits.

Andy Stern is President of the Service Employees International Union, North America's largest and fastest-growing union.

Jeff Kindler is Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, the nation's largest research-based biopharmaceutical company

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ster ... 69202.html

You’ve just made my argument, thanks. CORPORATISM: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5 ... ratism.htm

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy

We are corporatist, have been since the 60’s to 70’s I’d say, really fascist since 1980. Corporations easily persuaded Reagan to help kill unions, to establish via legislation, seat belts and auto insurance as law. American corporatism is here, probably to stay. So just because I say I would rather the gov decide my healthcare decision than some corporation, the context as I wrote it was that a corporation looks at our health as a profit/loss scenario, the gov looks at it as a process. The gov doesn’t generally care, corporations just want the cheapest way out. I don’t want my life to be looked at as a bottom line.

As for Obama, you have to be kidding to infer he is for sale. If he was for sale or was under intense corporate pressure he wouldn’t have passed the stimulus bill and wouldn’t be demanding accountability for the bank CEO’s for the disposition of their gift from Bush. Of all politicians, calling Obama for sale is so far off, you need some examples rather than just that some organization wrote an article that they want healthcare and that they have a couple corporate guys pushing it.

Remember, we are a classist nation, we are taught to dislike those poorer than us, embrace and idolize those richer, this is why there is some dissent to the idea that all people have healthcare.

Actually you are in for a rude awakening when Obama’s action work, I think a lot f people will be shocked, as we have been brainwashed by the type of propaganda that the right has been fooling some of us with for all this time.

[EBSB52]

http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=313

Will, if you can't even make a statement, I can't even hit this site.

[Shaun41178(2)]

And if I wrote a site refering to how Shaun fucks his mom and has for some time, ...... oh wait, that would be true, nevermind.

Cool I will go ahead and start that wiki page, and post it up on every forum I am a member of. And then just tell people that since its on wiki, it has to be true, and then tell you its true as well because its on wiki and wiki has no bias.

Its funny even after making my very simple point, you still don't get it. Its like talking to a 3rd grader using 3rd grade words and logic, but the 3rd grader doesn't understand because he should still be in preschool. Thats you ebineezer

creating the wiki page now homie

[p8ntman442]

I, like many in here, could drive at 100mph all day, everyday on the freeway w/o a problem, but most can't even do the 55-65 w/o eventually fucking up, so why shouldn't we be able to drive 100mph? The differentials in speed would show hazardous, so we have to drive at a speed that is consistent with the abilities of the worst/least skilled drivers. It would be nice to think you and me and us in here could drive 100 on teh FW and the idiots drive 55, but there would be grave problems, so either we have to slow down or they have to leave the roadway as drivers. We've decided to punish the more capable and to me that's a form of socialism. Look at he socialist countries esp Germany, they drive fast and require competence over socialism, so I get the worst of both worlds here, capitalism in general society, socialism on the roads.

So to draw this analogy, we have shown we cannot lend or borrow responsibly as a whole, just as we cannot avoid collisions, so we need regulations and recovery with our banking system and with our roads. It's unfair for people like you that can borrow responsibly and us in here that can drive at 100mph, but we live in a society of a lot of people so the rules must be across the board and not selective.

Now if we let everything crash, do you think we would not have chaos? Of course we would and that's a foolish idea, it's been tried during the GD and that was Hoover's attempt that cost thousands their lives, FDR tried the current approach and it worked.

Ive been a proponenet of graduated liscensing for a long time. Reduced laws applicable to those with proven records.

Actually I have no issue with litigation to hammer them, it's the legislation that I think would be unfair. I know it was an honest error, but there is a huge difference; Litigation uses the statute (legislated law) to establish a contract or a tort damage dispute, legislation is the action of changing the rules in a wholesale format. IOW's, I can't sue (litigate) for the entire HOA system to change, other than on a state or federal type obscure suit where I try to deem them unconstitutional on a state or federal level, I would generally sue to recover damages from 1 specific HOA or sue to claim that they are discriminating against me, but it would be limited to 1 HOA. So you stated that about the litigation, I don't believe I stated that., just the state or federal legislation to abolish I stated I wouldn't back.

What I personally believe and what I want to see physically or legislatively done are different. Don't take this personally and this is not an insult. You have been one of the few who have been constructive here and I appreciate that. Here goes. Conservatives often will take a person's beliefs as a whole and convolute them, create an average and read that as the conclusion. Liberals will take all elements, examine each for their own merit, then factor them together at the end, keeping in mind any and all extraneous inclusions and exclusions. IOW's, a conservative says, 'looks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a duck.' A liberal draws DNA and finds it's a hybrid between a duck and something else, then treats it as such. This is why conservatism is outdated, their logic worked back in the 1950's, as life in general wasn't that complicated, now it is far more complicated. Then, blacks and whites were separated, girls and boys were often too and life was simple. If someone was gay they would be run out of town because they were defective, now socity has to be tolerant of them. Then: meat and pertatoes, now: meat is murder, not to mention it kills the consumer and creates cancer. Then: readin, ritin & rithmitic, Now: calculus, nuclear physics, interpersonal writing. Then: black and white TV, Now: Ipods, techy computers, and digital flatscreens. Also, look at how liberals write vs conservatives, liberals will talk your head off, conservatives consult their cliché handbook, make 1 assertion and walk away. Conservatism isn't really a thinking process, just a doing process. I recall seeing Bush on TV saying, 'We're not going to consult the lawyers, we're just going into Iraq.' That's how contemporary conservatism works.

Now, as for substance to the issue.

- I stated something like: Unions are necessary because...., HOA's are not because.....

- You stated something like: Ed is a hypocrite

So in conclusion, I was addressing the issue, you were addressing your interpretation of the character of the person making the assertion. This is an Ad Hominem. [\quote]

I simply stated that I see the two view points as conflicting and hypocritical. you view that as a personal attack, rather than me adressing the issue. Im not sure what the issue is you would like me to adress. I agree with you on HOA's 100%. But I feel the same about unions as you do about HOA's. Do you not see that unions are often autocracy's controlling by fear and intimidation?