OCinBuffalo

Looks like this thread is DOA, unless these #s can be explained a little better. Anyway, here's the reality: Insurance companies will use any justification they can get their hands on to raise their rates. This is not news. But, unlike the government agency currently being proposed, whose employees are basically accountable to no one, insurance companies are subject to regulation by state and federal commissions, where they have to DEFEND those rate increases or pay fines, get suspended, etc. Tell me: who is going to hold the newly minted legions of government employees accountable when they decide to raise the rates of government insurance without good/real cause? How does this not become politicized(and therefore unmanageable, and therefore destined to become massively inefficient), and stay a reasoned, defensible process as it is today? How in God's name can you possibly expect those in charge of this proposed government program, to have a single meeting that is about efficiency and cutting cost, when it is so much easier to simply whine to Congress for more money, and/or simply Czar their way into merely giving away less service? Show me one department in the government, besides the DoD, who has voluntarily and assertively taken the initiative to cut one of their own programs, or make it more efficient, without any external pressure...... I will be here for the rest of the week, so you have plenty of time to find it.

I guess I am a bit of a purist on these two issues, and assisted suicide, because I see them all as intrinsically linked. All involve cold-blooded, systematic destruction of human life. We are either going to be for the possibility of systemic culling of our population, or we aren't. Once you justify one form of systematic death, you are opening the way for all the other forms. Who gets to decide which "degree" of death is justified, and, who gets to decide who decides? And, in the end, how don't we end up with hypocrisy in one form or another? Worse, can we determine that death/abortion/suicide is never acceptable in any form? And, if "some" is acceptable, then how much is OK? Who decides that? And, worst of all, which law can be written that covers all situations, and all nuances, that perfectly deals with these issues? I say perfectly, because of all the laws the we create, shouldn't "death" laws be perfect?

Yes Hilter killed a lot of people and led his country to amazing economic success, while, Mao killed a lot of people and led his country to abysmal economic failure. And both ultimately left their respective countries worse off than when they came to power. Meanwhile the US just kept getting better. Gotta hate those facts and historical realities...really mess up a loony argument.

So it's safe to assume we are done with the asshat assertion that "Lincoln would be a Democrat today"...right?

Which only earns you... ...another WTF?

Which bank? First Retarded of Asshatville? I will not tolerate historical ignorance, or the stupidity that comes from drawing conclusions based on that ignorance. THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY, IT WAS ABOUT THE CREATION OF CORPORATE AMERICA. It was specifically about: 1. North East corporations/manufacturers being behind Europe by 50 years 2. Twice as many voters living in the North, as opposed to the South, 3. Allowing their majorities in Congress to impose tariffs on Eurpean goods, bought chiefly in the South in return for agrarian goods, and electing a President who promised that the US would compete with Europe, instead of merely remaining a natural resource provider to Europe 4. The Southern State's business models being f'ed with by said tariffs, along with the fact that their entire economies were based on the exact opposite of what we all know as the American Economy today, and they were willing to fight over it, which is why they attacked a US symbol of commerce, a garrison protecting/regulating a port, and not the Underground Railroad, FIRST. Slavery wasn't even a "war aim" until 1863, more than 2 damn years after it started. And that was done to create trouble behind enemy lines, as well as to attempt to assuage the anger the people in the North had with losing the war up to then by giving them a moral imperative to justify the massive losses they had to endure. THEN, JUST AS NOW, Americans don't hate war, they hate losing wars. Also, the slaves WERE NOT emancipated in the states that were fighting with the North, because Lincoln needed those states to stay on his side. Lincoln sure as hell would be a Republican, or better, a libertarian, today. He would have nothing to do with massive taxation, massive government, labor unions, social engineering, limiting corporate interests in favor of the environment, gay rights or affirmative action of any kind....basically the entire platform of the current Democratic party. This BS revisionist history has to end. Lincoln was, is, and will always be a Republican hero....because he was a friggin Republican. Enough already. If Lincoln was magically made President tomorrow, he would massively cut taxes immediately, and throw half of the current Democratic party in jail for insurrection during war time. However, he would leave the income tax in place, but only for billionaires, since he was the first to institute it on the extremely wealthy...to pay for the Civil war, and since, they would be the ones to benefit most when the war was won. As soon as our current wars were over, he would get rid of it again, just like the Republicans did right after the Civil War was over, just like Lincoln had promised. Show me which Democrat, besides JFK and Ed Rendell, that has ever been in favor of cutting taxes or removing them. Yes, Welfare....a fake liberal(socialist) idea that got us so much "progress" when dealing with "the social paradigm"(fine example of using big words improperly) it was almost completely removed, by a Democratic President to boot. Progress? Towards what? Failure? Economic ruin? Moral relativism? Liberalism, classic liberalism anyway, is about judging ones actions and policies based solely on their real world success or failure, using the scientific method, and dare I say...furtherance of individual freedom? Liberalism is not about the coercion of individual freedom to the will of a small group of self-appointed, intellectual "aristocrats" who base their thinking on the good of the collective, and not the individual. Yes, and the big mouths in the Democratic party, and the big mouths on this board, have been acting like anything but cry babies for the last 9 years. And of course, your interpretation of "some people" demanding that their individual rights to life, liberty and especially: property = we think everything is about us. So what does a collectivist think it should be about? The state? Reminder: if you say yes...then by definition, you ain't a liberal my friend. No, you are a fascist, because only fascists put the will and well-being of the state ahead of that of the individual.

My problem with this is: 1. Let's assume this lady is the worst sort of Communist dirtbag there is(just to make my argument) 2. That is something that you want to avoid "getting out", especially when you work for the government 3. Invoking Mao, but trying to say that it's Ok, because you merely respect his philosophical abilities = Invoking Hitler, and saying the same...to all rational people ....unless of course you are trying to tell us that we should only deal with historical figures in bite-size portions , and that the context of their words and actions is irrelevant, as long as they say one thing that makes sense(cough DC_Tom, cough). While we are at it, let's say that PT Barnum is a good guy to invoke when we are talking about true success in business, because, he did show some business acumen, and didn't rip his customers off...all of the time. 4. This lady works for an administration that is currently engaged in trying to deploy a massive government program that would astound FDR in terms of it's scope and cost. 5. Talking about 3 and 4, at the same time, AND ignoring 2 such that 1 becomes a potentially fair assessment of this lady, is almost definitely gonna get you burned by everybody, to include this board. It's like touching a hot oven. So, if we can accept 1-5, then, wtf is she doing invoking Mao...in any context...ever? This action, by any definition, is stupidity. So how did we get to stupidity? Either: 1. She is just plain stupid or 2. She has 0 fear of the public, and figures she can say whatever she wants, because it won't matter to us proles anyway, since we are all so in love with her boss anyway. or 3. Both I'd love to know what other conclusions you guys think we should draw about this. Right now I do not understand why anyone would be defending an obviously stupid, or oblivious, or both, move...especially on this board.

Wait a second...isn't "controlling what the voter hears" and "not leaving it to an editor" the best possible definition of political correctness? One more example of far-left derangement. You are trying to to talk about what the right is doing...when the topic has nothing to do with them, that they had no part in, and is something the left is going out giving seminars on? What does this story, or these videos, have to do with the right, or what they are doing? Wtf? Seriously Wtf? Edit: and yeah....if "the truth will set you free", and Obama is the President of this country, not the USSR, why the punishment for "fact checking"? That I don't understand. Perhaps we can get a member of the press to explain why fact checking is a punishable offense? I would think the goal would be to make sure the media fact checks what you are saying, so that you can hammer home your point, not the other way around....that is...unless the facts don't support your point

I learned 2 things: 1. Say what you want, but when you are done babbling, the fact remains that this team played with heart today. Real heart, not Made-for-TV, Joe Buck-manufactured heart. This team could have easily used Edwards injury as an excuse to quit. But they did not. Yeah, I know about the long runs, but, I also know that we have a street FA LB make a "great"(read: confused then sick) play for a sack today. With rookies and newbies, you have to take the good with the bad. I saw players like POZ, Freddie, Evans, and dare I say, Lynch, refusing to quit out there. You can give credit to the players themselves, or, you can give credit to the coaches. Either way, the outcome is all that matters, and they got the win because they didn't quit. 2. This O line gets better every snap never mind every game. I know it wasn't a perfect, or even good, plan to get here. And, I know that they have a long way to go. But...ask yourself: who had a false start today? Not one from an O lineman, and only one from a rookie TE. That is a significant improvement, on the road, in a hostile environment the entire game. In fact, I only recall 1 penalty(Hangartener holding), for the entire line(could be wrong). Again, we can credit the players, or the coaching staff, but the improvement, against a much better defense this week, can not be denied. And therefore, I think we learned that however we end up, this is a much better team for the last 6 games, than it has been for the first 6.

Some, not most. The point is: those Americans who are willing to go along with "the party line", without any introspection or observance of the facts that don't support their arguments, are the reason we end up with the choice of: McCain or Obama.

Nah...most people know it by now. The real question is: what are they going to do about it? And, there is plenty of Republican hypocrisy as well. As in, death penalty good, abortion bad. Hypocrisy is a natural consequence for anybody who puts political ideology ahead of reality, reason, common sense, and especially common human principles(as in, Stalin killing 30 million people is OK, because his ideology says so). There is a big difference between principles(Murder is never OK) and values(I think its ok to take from the rich and give to the poor). When they are confused, or, when values are treated as though they are principles, hypocrisy ensues. Why? Because values are based on opinion, perspective, situations and conditions, which can change at any time and are therefore fallible, principles are not. Treating others who don't agree with your values as though they are breaking with principles is not OK. Worse, pretending that your values = morality, gets you into big trouble. All of this crying wolf when it comes to race, economics, the environment and especially "ethics" has and will continue to get the Democrats into hot water. It's inevitable. The only question that remains is will people hold them accountable?

To sum it up: What has made America great is the concept of the "melting pot", not to be confused with the "everybody has to accommodate my culture because I am here now, legally or illegally" pot. We have benefited greatly from taking the best of each culture and making collectively "ours". But that also means that we have ignored the worst or each culture as well. Let's be clear: the "melting pot" hasn't been this wonderfully easy or straightforward process. Anyone who is truly familiar with our history, across the entire country, knows that immigrants of all races have been treated extremely poorly when they first get here. We have all heard the Polish, Irish, Italian Chinese jokes, etc., and those were all going strong right through the 80s, even though the mass emigrations from those countries occurred 60-150 years before 1990. The fact that I have yet to meet/see an excellent Asian driver, is beside the point But here's the big difference: my Polish grandmother insisted that I NOT learn Polish, and that I speak English, even though I was interested in learning it. That's right, we didn't need or have the government, or any other institution going around telling people that they needed to accommodate the Poles, or the Italians, or the Russians/Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese or anybody else. Each culture that has come here has dealt with the same things, but, has also made a concerted effort to integrate into our society. Put simply: the current set of Spanish-speaking immigrants have not shown the same level of interest in "melting". Instead, they talk about how they are simply taking back the land that was stolen from them, aren't interested in integration, and in most cases, are simply here to make as much money as they can, and then return to their piss poor countries where they can live out their days as "wealthy" by their standards. Or, in the case of many Middle Eastern immigrants, want to set up shanty markets with no regard for law or taxes and turn our cities into bazaars, just like they have back home. The only real difference between then and now is: then we didn't have fools running around trying to tell us that we are racists because we insist that an immigrant group kick in and become Americans the same way we all have = serving in the military, paying taxes, working hard and raising their families AS Americans first. If anything, the REAL racists, like the ones that oppressed both sides of my family, are long gone, or, it's their liberal elitist children who are now telling us that we aren't supposed to expect the same treatment for new Americans that our families received. Yes, WASPs, this means you. Yes, most of this boils down to wealthy liberal guilt. And excuse me if I say: their families need to make up their minds one way or the other. Moving the goal posts, or, the finish line, to stay with the whole biking thing, to accommodate one immigrant group, when you have set up long standing rules for all the others, is simply not acceptable. The most truly American concept that we have is that "all men are created equal". If only it was written, instead of implied, that "what they do after they are created is on them".

Brought to you by: "The most ethical Congress...ever!"

Yes, yes I am sure you all voted for Obama. But the point is, you also voted for Mondale, or would have, if given the chance. Face it, far-left people, you have chosen to limit your choices to either vote for whoever has "the D", or, stay home. The trouble for you is: everyone, including Obama and team, knows that. And, to be right and fair, most of you have an opposite # on the right who will vote for "the R", instead of the best person for the job, in the same idiotic manner. So, let's put the cards on the table: Far-left people, you DID NOT elect Barack Obama, you just canceled out the vote of some other moron on the far right. Independents are the people that elected Barack Obama, and THEY, not YOU are his real constituency. He takes you for granted...and who wouldn't? Your advocacy for the state, over the individual, means you are the perfect sheep waiting to be told what to think. People: Obama is a political opportunist, a very smart guy, and a great orator. These 3 qualities mean he WILL NOT do things like: 1. Changing the "Don't ask Don't Tell" policy 2. Attacking Gay Marriage bans 3. Remove all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan 4. Lead from the front on health care 5. ....or do any other ridiculous thing that you want, especially if less than half of the American people support it. So yeah...YOU WON! But actually, you didn't win anything real. And, based on how things have been going, this is the last time you will win an election for many years, decades even. If I was you, and I couldn't get my nonsense issues addressed, even when the far-left of my party controls the entire government, it might be time to either: 1. reconsider what I want, because if I can't get it passed with EVERYTHING on my side, maybe I just have bad ideas.... 2. realize that no matter how intellectually dishonest, and vitriolic I have been during the last 9 years, it hasn't gotten me what I want. Perhaps its time to work on the positive side of things, and, use words like "here's how we can do this, and why" instead of "everybody should have this, and if you don't agree you are a racist". It's up to you of course...but learn your lesson: Obama's soaring speeches merely served to distract you from Obama's soaring ambition. He will always put his success ahead of your issues.

I think BishopHedd has inadvertently spawned another PPP colloquialism with this same response in the Nobel Prize thread. Somehow I see a lot of "girls in the back of Pintos" in our future

Move on? How is anyone supposed to move on when something hysterically funny, and bad for Obama, happens every friggin' week? And, the media keeps hyping up these 'historic' moments that end in abysmal failure? More importantly, the right has nothing to do with this. The right did not: 1. Throw the game for Obama re: the Nobel Prize 2. Diss the entire Obama family re: the Olympics 3. Make Obama look like a fool re: Iran, Afghanistan 4. Challenge Obama's health care plan in Congress = try all you want to blame the right, it's the Blue Dogs who know they will lose their seats if they vote for that abortion, that are holding it up And on and on. The problem for the left is not the right. The problem for the left is that they have the same problem they have had for years: common sense and basic economics kicks their ass, and they have no real defense against either. Also, NEWSFLASH: the rest of the world is jealous of our land, our people, and of our ability to use both to great success in whatever we do. No amount of talking is going to change their "me too" attitudes. This is about them, not whomever our President happens to be. If our President says/does things that are good for them(and bad for America) then they give out awards. It's simple really: say America Bad enough times and you get a prize...in this case, the Nobel Prize.

So do we start referring to Edwards as "The QB" or "The Player" now, since; We are not fans of Edwards, we are fans of the Bills?

This is hysterical. Like all leftist ideas, the effect of this action from a bunch of obvious leftist homers does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was was intended. Instead of playing it straight and rewarding somebody who actually earned it, they: 1. Give it away to somebody who clearly doesn't deserve it 2. Make the story not about the guy who got it(yes, far-left retards, nobody is talking about what Obama has done ont the + side now), but instead about their obvious, egregious bias and willingness to "throw the game" 3. And #2's UNINTENDED consequence is: instead of propping Obama up, they send even more criticism his way indirectly. The last thing Obama needs is more criticism at this point in the game. He's done a fine job stepping on his crank already. Right now: Obama == Dick Jauron. Both can still improve, but right now both are lower than whaleshit in the ocean in terms of performance. I think the larger indictment here is: giving things away to people that didn't earn them is BS! However, if your entire political ethos is based on "giving things away to people that didn't earn them", why is anyone surprised when a bunch of Swedish retards who believe in this nonsense do that very thing?

Reeeee TAH TAH!

The definition of moral relativism ladies and gentlemen. Finally. Yes, it is. You really don't understand the definition of the word relative do you? Moreover, you don't understand that definition of absolute either. If we are to believe that morality comes from God, then it is an ABSOLUTE morality, as in "The 10 COMMANDMENTS", not suggestions, not guidelines. "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute. It does not say: "Thou shalt not kill, unless of course this situation, in your judgment, calls for it, or, it's Wednesday, then it's OK". So babbling about how God is relative is ridiculous. In fact it is the rigidity of religion that normally draws criticism. I have never heard of any serious person trying to make the case that religion is fluid or relative and therefore bad. The other point I was making in my first post is: atheism can easily be criticized for the exact same rigidity of thinking as religion can = ACLU lawsuits, etc. So therefore you believe it's OK to steal, because it will be conducive to the thief's well being. You must also like taxes, because it's OK to take from one person, and give to another, as long as we are only concerned with the 2nd person's well being. Wrong, and wrong. Most theists believe that while God, Buddha, Allah, etc. has made laws/rules, he has done it through men. Also, it is up to each person to exercise free will as to how and when they follow those laws. They also believe that no man is perfect and therefore, atonement is necessary when those laws are not followed. Nothing relative about that. The fact that your beliefs can change, based on the situation, is by definition relative. Go look up the word for pete's sake...or better, let me do it for you:Moral relativism. Once again, instead of basing your beliefs on universal truths, you are saying that they can change at any time.... Morality by definition, and therefore, those who have morals, say that these universal principles are absolute and NEVER CHANGE regardless of the situation. Now enough of this babble. Learn what these words/concepts mean. This is a fine example, again, of why any atheist who considers himself smarter than other people, just because he is an atheist, is in fact a fool. Intellectual achievement is an individual thing. You don't get an "I'm smart" card when you join a group.

Another example of relativism. Of course you don't place 0 value on life.....but you don't say how much value you place. Instead, you leave that as an abstraction. "Value" '= "high value or low value". A "value" means nothing. $1 is a "value" and so is $1 million. And again, as long as you maintain this phony abstraction, then the value you place on any given life, at any given time, can CHANGE! This is the exact opposite of morality. This is relativism. I am not equating any of this with belief in God. I am simply saying: stop using a double negative ("I don't believe that life is meaningless") define your position. Instead, tell us what you do believe, or admit that you have no moral basis for your beliefs and instead base them on relativity, or STFU! Take your pick.

and I'm just curious...you sound like a Scientologist. As soon as the argument stops going your way, which was pages ago, now you want to personalize it to me. That's right out of the Scientologist playbook. Then, no matter what I say, this will now be about me, and conveniently gets you away from the obvious flaw in your "logic". Hint: I have nothing to do with the point currently being discussed. What does my religious "status" have to do with my argument that Sam is a phony who plays word games like saying "Well we don't think life is meaningless", instead of saying specifically what exact value they place on life. What's so difficult with simply being honest? Don't bother telling us what you don't believe = life is meaningless, and instead tell us what you do believe = what is the value you place on life, and is that consistent?

And this is all well and good, but it still doesn't tell us: Why you used atheism's moving it's followers towards happiness and away from suffering, as a counter to my clearly presented argument that says, if all you say is that: No atheists believe that life is meaningless Then, you can place any value you want on life high or low, as long as it's not 0, Which means the value of each life therefore relative, by definition. Again, I am calling out Sam, and you, for being phony. You are phony because instead of simply saying: I don't have a moral basis for my beliefs, they are relative to the situation, which would be accurate, you are saying "well, we don't place 0 value on life, therefore, it's OK if we place a value of 1 on lives we don't care about, and 10 on our kids, but you can't say we don't value life at all".

Yes, apparently I know how to, and you....well....apparently you are still learning. EDIT: and how like a typical leftist dbag to move away from the content and onto the process as soon as they have no reasonable counter Sure, I'll buy that just as soon as you tell me which religion is based on moving away from happiness and towards suffering. That's an "interesting" way to define Christianity. I guess the "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you would have done to yourself", and "anything you do unto my brothers, you do unto me" parts are only minor tenets of the faith...and the burn in hell thing is the important stuff huh? Hooray! Now you can lamely try to avoid my arguments in private. Wonderful.

I have news for you: all religious ethos are based on moving away from suffering towards happiness as well.... So how does this disprove what I wrote above? Hint: it doesn't. Essentially you have answered: "what is 2 + 2?", with "chili", again. And Martin Luther King, an ordained minister, f'ed around....so does that invalidate his entire message and his existence? Of course it doesn't. And, quote me chapter and verse where Jesus directly supports slavery please.