OCinBuffalo

Interpretation incorrect because it does not correspond to the logic I clearly stated. What a shocker! I have no hatred for anybody except the Miami Dolphins, and now, the Ottawa Senators. Let's break it down for you nice and simple-like for you, afterwards we can get you a cookie and read you a story before bed : The first poster, Bluefire, said: "Another poster that blames everything thats wrong in the world on liberals. Its a refreshing viewpoint indeed" I said: "As much as I don't like either," - Hmm. How does "I don't like blaming everything on liberals" = "I hate liberals"? "it's not surprising" - Again. No hatred here. "when one considers the substance-free, conspiracy theory, "I hate Bush" arguments that liberals have been using for years now" - Are you going to DENY that this is precisely what a clear majority of those calling themselves liberals, of all shapes and sizes - OR THOSE THAT CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR LIBERALS, have been doing for years now? Now that would be interesting. I would love to see anyone here try to BS their way out of that. Bring it! I could use the laugh! "Stupidity breeds stupidity." - A tautology. I am sure we could even get Ramius and Holcombs_Arm to agree on this one. "The liberals have no one to blame but themselves" - The person, whoever they are, that starts talking sh-- has no one else to blame when others talk sh-- back to them. This could be a Miami fan, you, or anybody. I fail to see how my "hatred", which doesn't exist, affects that simple fact of life. "for lowering the bar." - Talking sh-- is a choice. And once chosen, the chooser must accept the consequences of that choice. If liberals, OR THOSE THAT CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR LIBERALS, decided to pursue low-end political tactics, why do they expect that conservatives, Republicans, Independents, or anybody else will not use the exact same tactics? If they have chosen to sleep with the hogs, why are they upset when they get muddy? In a word: hypocrisy. It appears that you believe that it's OK for liberals, or any group, to be silly and use silly tactics, but it is not OK when those same tactics are used on liberals, or any group, which is hypocrisy defined.

It's simple: the Air Force can only be put in danger by someone with comparable technology, the Army can be put in danger by a 12 year old, who was handed a rifle 5 minutes ago. This has nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, neocons, Cheney, or anything like that. Here's the thing: if there was a modern day Luftwaffe like Hitler had in 1939, I guarantee that the Air Force wouldn't be as "willing" to get it on and fight them. As far as an Army general disagreeing with policy makers being unprecedented goes: are you kidding me? How about this: Bradley said in Congressional testimony, "Red China is not the powerful nation seeking to dominate the world. Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy." - General Omar Bradley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1951 Although this quote is frequently used by retards to prove that "all wars are bad", this is not what he was saying. In fact, he was talking about the need for us to focus our energy on the Soviet Union, since they were the "powerful nation seeking to dominate the world". He was also responding to those in power, and in congress, who wanted us to attack China. So apparently he was "using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it" too. (ridiculous - as if any real officer thought about it this way) This is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". Read on if you want to know why. There is not one general in the Army who EVER wants to go to war!(With the only exception being Patton) In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most generals, and most officers for that matter, take the view that the Army should serve as a deterrent to war. The thinking is right out of Sun Tzu's Art of War: if your army is so powerful that other nations know that any war fought against it will end in defeat, you will have peace. Sun Tzu principles form the basis of the Peace Through Strength philosophy. The Romans figured out the same thing, hence the Pax Romana period = 400 YEARS without one single war in the "known" world. Those seem to be pretty good results for the anti-war crowd. In essence a powerful military PREVENTS war. I find it odd that anit-war activists aren't the most ardent supporters of military spending. It has been demonstrated over and over and over again throughout history that the antecedents of war ALWAYS include the aggressor nation(s) firm belief that the other side cannot defend itself. Quick example: Stalin kills off 70% of his own officer corps due to the inevitable paranoia of Communism, Hitler sees that and then attacks. The Germans inflicted horrendous casualties on the Soviets and by any responsible military/political logic(sorry, I forgot we were talking about socialists here) the Soviets should have surrendered - instead they traded hundreds of thousands of their peoples' lives for time to rebuild their army(another shining example of socialism "Saving the Human Race"). But what is the root cause of this? Weakening of the Soviet military. At the very least this was Hitler's perception, and that was all it took to cause 20 million people to die. Those seem to be pretty bad results for the anti-war crowd. I can give you 5 more examples of similar declarations by American Generals, from the Revolutionary War on, off the top of my head; but I think I've proved my point. Again, this is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". In no way does it point to the condemnation of neocons, democrats, or any other political group by the U.S. Military. The U.S. military is not in the policy business/condemnation of policy business while they are in uniform. They are in the business of defining STRATEGY, which is what Bradley was doing. Policy is not Strategy. Any Admiral, General, or any officer will tell you that. Just the same, Wesley Clark taking pot shots at the military policy is political speech, which he is entitled to, since he doesn't wear a uniform any more. As far as the article goes, BIG BS Flag. No Flag officer would say this stuff because, by definition, every Flag officer wants to be able to put congress on the spot when it's "show me the money" time. This article's "sources" probably come from some pissed-off, passed-over, Lt. Col in the JAG corps who "heard" some generals talking and decided what they "meant".

Like I said, we haven't raised taxes high enough so that we can pay this super enough so that he is willing to discipline these kids. The solution is always raise taxes, it is never to hold the people who receive our tax money accountable for bad behavior. Don't you know that? Aren't you as smart as we? Only idiots and people from the Midwest think that we should actually require competence, leadership, and the ability to make sound decisions. This situation is not anyone's fault - certainly not the super's since we have already established that he doesn't have enough money. Everyone simply has a different point of view. The best thing to do is to form a study group that will study each point of view in this situation, of course we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for said group, but once that is done, we are one our way! After the six-month study, we want to be sure every voice is heard, we will then start a new program in the school district. Of course we will need to raise taxes to do that, no biggie! This new program will focus on consulting the district regarding the findings of our study group. It will also spend time counseling all principals, and the super, in the district on the points of view established in the study group. Of course once this is done, now the super in question will be armed with the power of everyone's point of view. Now they will be ready to sit down and negotiate with all the people involved. The super could not have done this alone because, for the last time, they don't have/make enough money! This is a much better plan because, of course, we came up with it! Finally, we will need to raise taxes to keep our study group and the facilitators of our new program going regardless of whether it has solved the problem or not. Why? We simply cannot afford to cut educational programs in this country. It is our children's future we are talking about here and anyone who says differently is a complete idiot! They are obviously not as smart as we, and they simply do not care about children. The adjective, of the day, for anyone who dares post something contradictory to this is: imbecilic. The number of the day is 7. I dare you to post: confirm my choice of adjective and/or number. Hey liberals, sound familiar?

Perhaps if we raised taxes and paid them more money all these problems would go away?

Tripping = acid or mushrooms, could be peyote and a bunch of other things High = weed And ROC, don't blame me, I tried to help get it going for you but SOMEBODY messed that up.

Where does this leave the "Ralph is too cheap" crowd? Is this a good move - indicative of willingness of Ralph to spend? Or, just a red herring?

umm, right. nothing gets by you.

Just saw it - I was amazed that they actually devoted significant time to the Bills. I think we already know this, but just in case you missed it: Sean Salisbury has named JP "most improved offensive player of the year". He also said: "JP has explosive ability. A guy with his ability just has to make sure of the little things. You take that explosive ability and JP has the potential to be not just good but a star in this league."(pretty close on that quote) I guess I will have to change my signature. They also said that we are sure to take Leon Hall(CB Michigan). Since we are losing Clements and since Hall ran a 4.39 40 at the combine,(I guess speed was a question since he apparently got burned deep a few times last season - they said 4.39 answers that question), they are saying that we will take him. Of course, this is ESPN, and we all know their track record on predictions. They think Okoye won't be there at #12 so we will go for the best CB in the draft. They also said, contrary to some opinions here, that we are not the team that will be most affected by FA. I guess we are a close second. Apparently, the Ravens will be hit worse. Finally, ESPN says that the best FA this year is Nate Clements and that he will command ridiculous money - no news there.

Are you: 1. Drunk? 2. High? 3. Tripping? 4. All of the above?

OMG! Pats fans are scared of us? Well, they should be(I am writing this for Hollywood D). We may have a good/getting better team, and there are certainly many things to point to that make me look forward to this season. But, if I was a Pats fan, I would be a hell of a lot more worried about my team than the Bills. The Patriots are in deep trouble, IMHO. This is evidenced by the playoffs: 1. barely getting by a team - Jets - who beat one team with a winning record all year ahHA! what a shocker! Team they beat? = Patriots 2. happening to be on the other sideline when SD beat themselves - think about that game; can you remember a "great" play from any Patriot? . I am sure there are some that could be pointed to given ample research time, but that's not the point, off-hand there is nothing that can be pointed to as "the reason the Patriots won the game"? 3. not allowing the standard Colts self-destruction to proceed, and then making it worse by not being able to do anything at all to win the game, once the Colts self-destruction process was halted. Couple this with a Bills team clearly on the rise and, yeah, Pats fans better be worried. Of course I am sure we'll hear why we are wrong/it's not possible for Belechick to be affected by the normal, cyclical changes every other coach faces. And I am also sure that we'll hear that 36-39 year old linebackers will never lose a step, because of the genius of Belechick's 3-4 D. Well, let's not forget: The Patriots have won 3 out of last 6 Superbowls. :lol: HaHa! Hysterical!

Cool video, I've been an Okoye guy for a while now. Gotta say I wouldn't cry if we got this guy though. I'm still with BillNYC on not drafting a CB - unless Marv does nothing at all about replacing Clements (and if we lose Thomas)

As much as I don't like either, it's not surprising when one considers the substance-free, conspiracy theory, "I hate Bush" arguments that liberals have been using for years now. Stupidity breeds stupidity. The liberals have no one to blame but themselves for lowering the bar.

So what you are saying is that liberals, and I guess conservatives, have no business calling themselves progressives?

My question implies nothing of the kind - it merely asks if the word "progressive" which is used by some people(whoever they are) to define their thinking, in terms of being superior to other approaches, is a good word to use when many of the policies that are based on that thinking are clearly not IMPROVING anything. Once again, if a Health Care provider cannot take on Medicaid patients and still stay financially viable, HOW IS THAT PROGRESS? Also, I clearly stated that liberal Democrats are not the only Democrats three posts ago. So how does this matter? I am not referring to Democrats, I am talking about so-called progressives!

Nothing like deflecting the issue at hand - great job. Not being able to answer a simple question IN MY LAST must be exhausting.

Fine. Nothing like making an irrelevant point. None of this is relevant to my point which was, is, and will continue to be: FDR introduced/made the concept of sweeping massive government programs in this country(there we plenty of intellectual type to suggest it before him - but frankly that is merely talk - FDR actually did something). FDR is the architect of the CONCEPT of all of these "progressive" programs. Everybody else, from Truman to "No Child Left Behind" is simply a variation on one theme - FDR'S. The issue is, was, and I guess will continue to be: How is something "progressive" if it fails miserably, or is no longer relevant?

Ha idle threats on a message board? Please internet genius tell me what I'm allowed to do some more! Incoherent? Hmm. Maybe I need to dumb it down for you: Bad guy want to get money so he do bad things. Bad guy don't want to be punished for bad things. Bad guy say it not is fault, religion makes him do bad things. We good guys. We not want bad guy to do bad things. We not able to talk to bad guy cause him not want to talk to us. Him only want to do bad things to get money. Him laugh at us cause we so dumb. He laughs cause he knows he never do anything he say to us. He say many lies about us and says religion why he do bad things. But while he talking he do more bad things for money. He laughs cause we don't do nothing but talk. He makes big attack on us(9/11). This time we get mad. We no more talk to bad guy. Bad guy hides all over the world. We try to find bad guy but it not easy. We must take 5-10 years to find all bad guys. Some of us not understand bad guy is BAD GUY, not simply "misunderstood" guy. Some of us say we is bad. We is not bad. We is good guys, remember? How's that? Coherent enough for you? I'm impressed you know what an adverb is - how's the rest of eighth grade going? Still getting picked on in Gym class? Or are you picking up this "wisdom" at the Learning Annex?

I don't have to - anyone who has any sense - knows this guy was a good time charlie that regurgitated real thinkers, like FDR's, ideas. All you need to do is see how well he did with Vietnam - what a great example of LBJ's "genius". Oh yeah I almost forgot - are u saying that Dan Quayle is now elevated to genius status cause he got elected VP too.

No, and since we are name calling(best representation of your intellect I guess) you have idiotically(word?) used standard bait and switch logic in an lame attempt to contradict historical fact. Using religion as an excuse for bad behavior is a TACTIC. Just like using the Cover-2 defense. We aren't attacking the idea, we are attacking the people who use the idea. SO, by your logic: bait = attacking the terrorists, switch = the tactic of using religion to get away with stuff. WRONG. The idea is what it is, people that use the idea are who we are going after and YES that may take 5-10 years to complete. Nice try, but we are smarter than that here. People have been using religion for millenniums to justify bad behavior. Mostly in direct contradiction the the tenets of that religion. Why? Because this way they can say: "My religion does not allow me to accept your point of view." "My religion allows me to do whatever I want." AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: "My religion allows me to negotiate in BAD faith, because you are an unbeliever anyway and my book says I should enslave you." "My religion does not allow me to negotiate at all." This is about MONEY not religion. These "religion" fighters want to dominate the middle east(and the rest of the world if they can), because they want MONEY and POWER. The only way you "solve" it, is by bringing to bear military force that intimidates the other guy, or puts him in the ground - just like we(and Europe) did with these idiot pirates. My argument is: There is no "solution" to the "islamic" terror justification any more than there is a solution to a "domestic" terror justification. Once a guy decides to cross the line from soldier to terrorist, he loses the rights of a soldier and earns the rights of a spy, or a rabid dog. We all know the only thing that can be done with a rabid dog. My argument is also: chasing down every rabid dog in the city is not gonna get done in one day. It is gonna take time. It may take 10-15 years to get every rabid dog.

Finally, something that resembles a rational thought and not more name calling. Hell, I'll even forgive the answering my questions with a question. As far as the other stuff goes: Do you really think that LBJ came up with Medicaid on his own? Nope - not smart enough. He is quoted as saying he was simply continuing FDR's policies - it's just that Truman and Kennedy(conservative Dems) and Eisenhower(Rep) got in the way. Since FDR had to deal with immediate problems (the Great Depression), NONE of the social programs he implemented were long-term oriented. What I am referring to here is a "progressive" mindset that has ALL it's roots in FDR's policies. I DON'T CARE when or how much of a policy was implemented. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that the mindset of making HUGE government programs to solve perceived IMMEDIATE needs is where Social Securtiy, Medicare, Medicaid, comes from. On to your question. As far as I am concerned, and by the way three democratic political consultant buddies of mine agree, COMPANIES should have never gotten involved with providing Health Care. By the way, if you ask any of them whose policy Medicaid represents, all three of them will tell you FDR - and that LBJ was a wanna-be(it's my guess they do this to spin away from LBJ's Vietnam mess). Anyway, I take it a step further and say the NO ONE should have gotten involved in providing health care because here's what that does: 1. If a guy can go to the doctor anytime because it's somebody else's responsibility to pay - regardless of whether he actually need to or not - he takes it for granted. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES 2. Since he knows that all of his health care will be covered no matter what, it allows him to be an **** with his body, he can do drugs, not exercise, eat crappy food, etc. and somebody else has to pay for it. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES 3. It that guy's kids are covered as well, then he doesn't have to worry about what they eat, if they have had their proper shots, etc., and when they get REALLY sick, somebody else has to pay for it. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES I am not saying that the government doesn't have a place in health care. I am saying that the place they currently hold is the PRIMARY reason health care costs continue to rise, because their policies(of NO CONSEQUENCES) allow the insurance companies to implement the same policies(of NO CONSEQUENCES) so there is no market pressure at all to cut cost - through improved effectiveness. Every time someone says the word "cut" everyone starts screaming. But why? It's not because those who want to cut are heartless, poor-haters that want to kill little kids. It is because without some sort of market pressure to improve the delivery of care( and some economic CONSEQUENCES of the consumers of care) there will be NO END to how high health care costs rise. So here's my question back to you: Do you condone the government's poorly thought out policies, which is the very reason WAL-MART DOESN'T GIVE out medical benefits, and therefore think that they should never be reformed because they were originally "progressive" ideas? How about this which gets back to my original point: IF a "progressive" policy is NOT GETTING RESULTS is there EVER a time to kill it? Or, will a "progressive" ever vote/support to kill anything, no matter how bad it is, as long as it involves handing out free schit to people?

Fact: Dude I told you(and everyone else) that you would blame someone else, not the policies/programs, for the lack of progress and sure as hell you walked right into it. You can't help yourself. Fact: You have not defended the "progressive" government programs that "progressives" supposedly support (what does that tell us?) Fact: You have yet to argue on the substance of one point I have made, ever! You can't be serious - medicaid programs were firmly in place since FDR. I don't think they were created to deal with the Great Depression - I KNOW THEY WERE. Once again, you don't know history. LBJ worked for FDR in the National Youth Association - which is why Medicaid was supposed to be used for KIDS(LBJ's influence from this time). FDR created smaller and/or program-specific "medicaid" throughout the New Deal, Second Deal, and into WWII! So you want to play word games and not address the substance of my post which says the following: ."..now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all( I AM ADDING THIS HERE - NEITHER DID LBJ! Anybody who knows anything about this time period knows that LBJ = FDR2. So it's no surprise that the same flawed thinking is shared by both). They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. " All these disparate little programs, or programs that were part of something else, were organized into a massive program(what a shocker!) and it was formally named Medicaid by LBJ in 1965. What does that prove? Nothing. And, as usual, you haven't addressed any of my points of why we still need it today IN ITS CURRENT INCARNATION, since it really hasn't fixed all that much, and definitely since providers cannot afford to treat Medicaid patients and stay financially viable. But again, you haven't addressed that. You have simply said: I am not gonna talk with you because you are stupid, etc. That my friend, is why no one really trusts liberals - you don't want to put your real ideas out for others to scrutinize( a la "I voted for it before I voted against it, etc."). Oh and by the way, genius, here's a quick history lesson for you: This comes from Democratic Underground(I had to make sure that you didn't give me source hassles): link "Franklin Delano Roosevelt first began speaking about our country’s need for economic and social rights to compliment the political rights granted to us in our original Bill of Rights during his first campaign for President, in 1932. " ....  The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. .... Nonetheless, the concept of economic and social rights did not gain much traction in the United States until the election of a President (FDR) who fervently believed in them coincided with circumstances (The Great Depression) that made their need glaringly apparent to a large proportion of American citizens. Not good enough? Try this: From National Reviewlink "Most Americans receive their health insurance from their employer. Few pause, however, to contemplate why. As part of the war effort, the FDR administration imposed wage and price controls. Employers, seeking a way to provide workers with competitive salaries without violating the law, began offering health benefits. On October 26, 1943, the IRS legitimized the practice, ruling that health benefits would remain tax free." How about this: Form Kaiser Permanente( the first health insurance company - FDR and Kaiser worked this out so that the Liberty ships could keep getting built) which, by the way, is where your link comes from "But at Kaiser's request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the present day." No one on this planet was influenced by FDR more than LBJ. And, again, the Medicaid program(or some version of it) has been with us since FDR, like it or not. But how like you to the ignore facts, no matter how true they are. Not a surprise but this is getting old. Dude I feel sorry for you. You have no idea what you are talking about. You just know how to use Google. Any number of azzholes can use Google. Sure I suppose you can use a gun to open a can, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea. You can get your understanding of history from Google as well, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea either. Unfortunately for you: I know how to use Google too. The fact is these programs have been with us, in one incarnation or another, for over 60 years and they do not address now(93% elderly) what they were created for then(kids and disabled workers). And I have no doubt that you will still not address that.

Ha - right on. And there is a historical precedent for this. There were these guys called the Barbary Pirates who also used their so-called 'Islamic' beliefs to justify their bald-faced barbarism and greed. Hey what do you know? When we asked them why they attacked us and how they developed that policy, this us what they said: That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[2] Hold the phone here. Just because one guy interprets his religious beliefs in a !@#$ed up way does not mean that all people of that entire religion do that. The quote above proves my point. If you are an ****, and you want to get away with/get "sympathy" for/not be held accountable for terrible things that you do, blame it on your religion. I mean, I'm a Christian but you are not gonna see me blowing up abortion clinics - ever! But there are azzholes who will do this and then say: God told me to break one of the Ten Commandments. Yeah it's all God's fault. As far as liberals go, I don't think they embrace these things. Rather, I think that their own need to be proven right about their assertion that: "there really is no evil in this world, just different points of view" has SERIOUSLY clouded their common sense, and therefore their judgment. Edit: Oh yeah and in case anyone wanted to know how well diplomacy works: The United Kingdom was called on to act for Europe, and in 1816 Lord Exmouth was sent to obtain treaties from Tunis and Algiers. His first visit produced diplomatic documents and promises and he sailed for England. While he was negotiating, a number of British subjects had been brutally ill-treated at Bona, without his knowledge. The British government sent him back to secure reparation, and on the 17th of August, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, he administered a smashing bombardment to Algiers. The lesson terrified the pirates both of that city and of Tunis into giving up over 3,000 prisoners and making fresh promises. Within a short time, however, Algiers renewed its piracies and slave-taking, though on a smaller scale, and the measures to be taken with it were discussed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. In 1824 another British fleet under Admiral Sir Hally Neal had again to bombard Algiers. The great pirate city was not in fact thoroughly tamed till its conquest by France in 1830. Wait! So it took 10-15 years to stop these guys OH MY GOD! How did the American people ever survive?

, what else is there to say? I honestly believed that this little hook would go by the wayside. Nope, looks like it caught it's intended target. I don't know what is worse Molson, that you are are that gullible, or that the people who have obviously brainwashed you are that sinister. I did not do this to harm you. I don't do that kind of thing. Rather, I simply wanted to point something out to you: you are in serious trouble in the "thinking for yourself" department. So much so that you can't even see an obvious setup coming. Dude - you have to open up your mind to ALL the info you can get your hands on and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you are gonna spend the rest of your life getting played as easily as I have here, and with much worse consequences than simply looking silly for a few days. Of course you can choose to interpret this differently and call me names again, but that would make you look even more silly now, wouldn't it? All I ask is that you think about it. As far as response to the others here: progressive is a word. WORDS MEAN THINGS. And yes, the meaning of words can be found in lots of places, including the dictionary. If a word does not accurately represent what you are/think, why the hell do you use it to describe yourself? More importantly, isn't it true that the reason people of a certain mindset chose to use the word "progressive" is because of what it means? Specifically, to improve? Isn't it also true that the reason they chose this word is so that they could represent their mindset to others as one of "improvement"; thereby superior to "staying the same". If these things are true, then why do they not judge the results of their policies in terms of real improvement? I think it would be a great idea to be a "true progressive" - meaning that every policy I supported would have to include measurable performance indicators and the minute that the policy either satisfied either: 1. resolution of the existing issues, or, 2. proved that it could not satisfy them, it would be discontinued. Things like traffic guards are a perfect example. Every day there is a problem: kids need to get to school safely. Every day we solve that problem by paying someone to make sure that happens. Fine. Here's what's not fine: Medicaid was established to pay for kids and poor people - not bums, but people who got hurt at work, etc. - and now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all. They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. WHY? Because Medicaid was designed to solve the IMMEDIATE problems that were in our face as a result of the Great Depression. So, once the Great Depression was over, why didn't Medicaid go away? Simple, because "phony progressive" politicians saw it as an opportunity to make a living handing out free schit in trade for votes. Now please tell me, HOW IS THAT DEFINED AS PROGRESS?

Myth my ass, come over to my mom's class sometime - I dare ya. Better yet, go with her to these kids' houses and see what they live like(I don't mean that they are poor - I mean there is a crack pipe/bong sitting out on the kitchen table). Most importantly, sit in a meeting with these parents and observe what they say(if they even show up) when she confronts them about, for example, why their kid didn't eat all weekend. "Troubled Situations" = liberal BS for "not the parent(s) fault they are a hooker, crack addict, in prison, or can't keep their hands off their kids(sexually or abuse-wise), and many other things". It is theses parents' fault because they have made, and more importantly continue to make, the choices to put themselves in that situation. Especially when one considers states like PA and NY with the myriad of "progressive" social programs and "safety nets" and treatments of which they could use to "progress" themselves out of these "Troubled Situations". There is no doubt that rich kids can be ridiculous in school as well. In my view this is even worse because that kid has absolutely no excuse, and the parents have even less of an excuse. But here's the thing: rich people can be just as selfish and poor people. This is why I my plan in the post above doesn't discriminate based on anything at all. The "care plan" for every kid has the same requirements and structure, it's just modified to suit individual needs. So if you are a "rich" parent and your kid is banging around with coke in his pocket and skipping class - you get to pay the full amount(or how about double) of taxes-> rich people's favorite thing to do! True. This point of view always intrigues me every time I hear it. And, in my job I hear it a lot. It seems everyone is convinced, without any real supporting data of course, that their job is harder than everyone else's. I've got news for you. It isn't. I can say this because of what I do, which is to work with all kinds of companies, and public sector organizations, departments, etc. I have been doing this long enough now that I can honestly say that 80-90% of people's perceptions about "how hard their job is compared to somebody else" are exactly that - mere perceptions. In fact, the whole thing is in the mind and I can prove it. You are right in that when or where or how long a job/task takes to do is almost irrelevant when compared whether or not doing that job produces results. I don't care how long teachers work each day or how many months they get off as long as they produce results. We shouldn't think of teachers as "hourly" employees because ultimately we don't care how many hours they worked, as long as little Johnny gets in to college/gets a good job.

Progress means "to improve". So if one is a "progressive" I would think that means that they are concerned primarily with improvement. Or, at the very least, the solving of problems->results. So here's my question: if something(a government policy/law/injustice/disaster, etc.) has been fixed, and "progress" has been made, why is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore(since it has been fixed) need to be perpetuated? If it does need to continue, then I guess it hasn't fixed the problem. If it hasn't worked, why are we still doing it? I understand that there may be a need for ongoing solutions, but how are these solutions measured in terms of "progress", or improvement? Take any entitlement program/policy/government department. If you are a "progressive", tell me about the progress - in terms of improvement over the last ten years - the thing you chose has made. I am interested to see if any "progressive" on this board can point to improvement. Or, if what is really going on is simply "progressives" getting more schit for the people that vote for them. If it's the latter, should "progressives" be held accountable for policies that do not make progress? (Because according to progressives, all conservative policies will not make progress, by definition) Or, sadly I am sure I will hear this despite it being a non-answer, is it somebody else's fault?