Liberal Media Bias

[Wacka]

I had a boss that was from England. This was in the 90s. He said you had to buy private insurance there. He had an infected ingrown toenail. He was told he had to wait 3 months for an appointment. He had not mentioned that he had private insurance. He called back later and told them he had insurance. They could see him the next week.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Sicko??

 

 

Why not just post something from Alex Jones.

 

 

 

The fact is to get 2 ultrasounds and 1 MRI for the damn thing cost over $1,000. Of course if I had gone the public route I'd have waited quite a bit. You're right, it did turn out to be nothing but do you really think I'm not going to sacrifice that cash to make sure? As I already said, I have many friends who are choosing the private route because public has become way too much of a hassle. Semi-private is growing dramatically here. Now tell me if it's normal in your honest opinion that tax payers are paying out of their pocket as well as tax dollars for health services when it's supposedly !@#$ing free?

 

The link below says it all.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/27/wait-times-longer-for-sickest-patients-poll/

 

You must have missed the part where she was testifying before congress that she denied healthcare to patients knowing that it would end their lives. If people want to also get themselves private insurance as well that's fine. The idea is to make sure that everyone has access to basic care.

[meazza]

You must have missed the part where she was testifying before congress that she denied healthcare to patients knowing that it would end their lives. If people want to also get themselves private insurance as well that's fine. The idea is to make sure that everyone has access to basic care.

 

I didn't watch your video as I think anything related to Michael Moore is garbage.

 

You're right, so on top of paying the highest tax rates this side of the pond, I also have to pay out of pocket for a corrupt badly run bureaucratic system so long as your bleeding heart feels better at the end.

[birdog1960]

forget the vehicle and pay attention to the source! she's dripping with guilt. and why not? she swore to do no harm. how did she end up doing this? it's a question i often ask of insurance docs over the phone. "is this what you sought when you applied to med school?"

 

i have no problem with your paying for an mri and ?2 ultrasounds. $1000 is a bargain for that here. would the anti universal care crowd here agree that the government sponsored system should have paid for these tests for a unemployed medicaid patient with similar findings? your outcome seems a good compromise illustrating flexibility in the system to me.

Edited January 10, 2012 by birdog1960

[meazza]

 

i have no problem with your paying for an mri and ?2 ultrasounds. $1000 is a bargain for that here. would the anti universal care crowd here agree that the government sponsored system should have paid for these tests for a unemployed medicaid patient with similar findings? your outcome seems a good compromise illustrating flexibility in the system to me.

 

Yes you're totally right. I'm convinced. That or you're !@#$ing delusional but hey, it's not your pocket being raped.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I didn't watch your video as I think anything related to Michael Moore is garbage.

You're right, so on top of paying the highest tax rates this side of the pond, I also have to pay out of pocket for a corrupt badly run bureaucratic system so long as your bleeding heart feels better at the end.

 

So yeah, you did miss the point where she was testifying before congress. I would at least watch the vid before making a statement about it. However speaking before even knowing what the hell you're talking about seems to be a staple of the right on this board.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan

[birdog1960]

I had a boss that was from England. This was in the 90s. He said you had to buy private insurance there. He had an infected ingrown toenail. He was told he had to wait 3 months for an appointment. He had not mentioned that he had private insurance. He called back later and told them he had insurance. They could see him the next week.

yes, because ingrown toenails are a huge cause of mortality in the uk

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Yes you're totally right. I'm convinced. That or you're !@#$ing delusional but hey, it's not your pocket being raped.

 

Your pocket is getting raped? Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that just sounded?

[meazza]

So yeah, you did miss the point where she was testifying before congress. I would at least watch the vid before making a statement about it. However speaking before even knowing what the hell you're talking about seems to be a staple of the right on this board.

 

What subject am I discussing? If you look up you may notice I'm discussing health care in Canada so pulling out a random video of a girl testifying to Congress about insurance companies in the US isn't really relevant to what I'm discussing so therefore I didn't even !@#$ing make a statement about the video.

 

Your pocket is getting raped? Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that just sounded?

 

As if your opinion is relevant?

Edited January 10, 2012 by meazza

[birdog1960]

What subject am I discussing? If you look up you may notice I'm discussing health care in Canada so pulling out a random video of a girl testifying to Congress about insurance companies in the US isn't really relevant to what I'm discussing so therefore I didn't even !@#$ing make a statement about the video.

 

perhaps you forgot the part about comparing the us system to the canadian. maybe you should have bought an mri of your brain looking for causes of dementia.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

What subject am I discussing? If you look up you may notice I'm discussing health care in Canada so pulling out a random video of a girl testifying to Congress about insurance companies in the US isn't really relevant to what I'm discussing so therefore I didn't even !@#$ing make a statement about the video.

 

 

 

As if your opinion is relevant?

 

Were we not just comparing it to the US system? As in, you would rather have our system in Canada? And I posted a vid that explained why our system sucks. Are you able to carry coherent thoughts from one minute to the next? I guess not.

[meazza]

perhaps you forgot the part about comparing the us system to the canadian. maybe you should have bought an mri of your brain looking for causes of dementia.

 

Actually no, I responded to this:

 

To answer another question by asking another - would those be the civilized nations that are now having trouble paying their bills?

 

like Canada?

 

jw

 

Hence I was simply pointing out the irrelevant statement that Canada is able to provide healthcare and is fully able to cover the costs but if you really think I need a brainscan MRI, would you be so kind as to pay for it?

 

Were we not just comparing it to the US system? As in, you would rather have our system in Canada? And I posted a vid that explained why our system sucks. Are you able to carry coherent thoughts from one minute to the next? I guess not.

 

Did I say I'd rather have one or the other or did I just tell you that the Canadian system is actually more expensive if you take into account taxes paid vs insurance premiums?

 

Don't assume criticizing one system means I automatically want the other.

Edited January 10, 2012 by meazza

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Actually no, I responded to this:

 

 

 

 

 

Hence I was simply pointing out the irrelevant statement that Canada is able to provide healthcare and is fully able to cover the costs but if you really think I need a brainscan MRI, would you be so kind as to pay for it?

 

 

 

Did I say I'd rather have one or the other or did I just tell you that the Canadian system is actually more expensive if you take into account taxes paid vs insurance premiums?

 

Don't assume criticizing one system means I automatically want the other.

 

Then what system would you rather have?

[IDBillzFan]

really, this is just in America. wow. how naive. no one else in the world wants to aspire to make more money instead of less. that's quite an innovative thing. maybe someone should write a book about it. if you'd stop for a second in your name-calling naivete, perhaps you'd actually give yourself time to think things through and take a little time to step off a ledge that's so instably elitist, that it could well topple over with the next gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket.

 

at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. though greed is a dreadful thing, and it is the root cause for much of humanity's problems going back to, well, the first day someone traded something for something.

yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion, and seem to suggest that the haves should limit themselves to living in gated communities and limit to the poor what can be stored away in compost bins.

 

of course, i might be exaggerating your point here, but not by far.

 

i've made a good life for myself, and i won't apologize for it. but it's beyond me to suggest anyone to thumb their nose at the less fortunate. that's, well, freaking mean.

 

 

jw

Way too many unbelievably inane and mindless assumptions for me to address on a tablet while on travel, so when I return to a keyboard, I will gladly display the ridiculousness of your naive speculations and accusations.

[Delete This Account]

An utter crock of crap if I ever read one, while cleverly disguised in colorful words, including the ones that you put in his mouth.

 

You bring up greed a hell of a lot in this discussion. There's also a lot of talk about other deadly sins in this thread, yet I've never heard liberals admit that the entire basis of their feel good movement is envy masquerading as caring for the little guy. Only you would jump to a conclusion that successful and wealthy people got to their stead in life only due to greed, and worse, doing it by trampling on the success of others. Nah, it has nothing to do with making the right choices in their lives, taking risks, making sacrifices and working their butts off to move up the ladder.

 

Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed.

 

Funny part is in the straw poll of people I know (yes, a limited sample) - all of the successful people I know worked their way to get to their spot, and all the sad poor unfortunate people are there because of continued pattern of making stupid choices and never learning from their mistakes.

 

If you're not too blind to take a real look around you, you will find that far more often than not, people deserve their fate because of choices they made on their own.

oh, my god. such self-serving, navel-centric bull.

you can't name another place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches. well, i bring up my father, who went from being an off the boat immigrant in Canada to building TVs at General Electric to eventually running two bars in Windsor, where he set his family up before he died too early to enjoy what he built.

and yes, he was hard-working and fortunate, and got a few breaks along the way. and yet, enough of him rubbed off on his oldest son to know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's not Christian to judge one person's success over another's failures.

 

this self-made man baloney is usually elicited by self-made men, and more-over become a myth in a modern society in which the wealthier among us have a far easier path to success. and i was one of those fortunate ones who "made" it, but made it in part because i had the benefit of a good start and in a position where i could make mistakes along the way. perhaps i learned from those mistakes, but at the very least i had the cushion to make them, whether it was the opportunity to go to school of my choosing, and to move to Vancouver, with my first 3-4 years there partially covered by my mother.

 

thank god, i had that, and made something out of the half-lick of talent i had, because i was given far more than many in different circumstances ever have the chance to benefit from.

 

i refuse to judge people because of their status in life. everyone has their own crosses to bear, and that's on them.

 

everyone might have the opportunity to be successful, but if everyone were successful, then there would be no poverty. and when it comes to math, that equation just doesn't add up because even if you have a penny in your pocket, there will always be those less fortunate than you.

 

people "deserving fates." that's quite a loaded statement. i pray nothing goes wrong to those you know.

 

but good god, what you suppose GG just seems wrong, and to throw in liberal guilt into the mix is attempting to score debating points without taking into account compassion or reason.

 

jw

 

Way too many unbelievably inane and mindless assumptions for me to address on a tablet while on travel, so when I return to a keyboard, I will gladly display the ridiculousness of your naive speculations and accusations.

and there are those in this world who by virtue of geography and the unluck of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time have no tablet, keyboard, the luxury of travel or even the ability to know i'm making naive speculations and accusations on their behalf ...

 

jw

 

 

 

So what about the people who do make good choices but still end up in a shithole?

well, that's just bad luck. there is no room for accidents in a Darwinian world.

 

jw

Edited January 10, 2012 by john wawrow

[Wisconsin Bills Fan]

oh, my god. such self-serving, navel-centric bull.

you can't name another place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches. well, i bring up my father, who went from being an off the boat immigrant in Canada to building TVs at General Electric to eventually running two bars in Windsor, where he set his family up before he died too early to enjoy what he built.

and yes, he was hard-working and fortunate, and got a few breaks along the way. and yet, enough of him rubbed off on his oldest son to know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's not Christian to judge one person's success over another's failures.

 

this self-made man baloney is usually elicited by self-made men, and more-over become a myth in a modern society in which the wealthier among us have a far easier path to success. and i was one of those fortunate ones who "made" it, but made it in part because i had the benefit of a good start and in a position where i could make mistakes along the way. perhaps i learned from those mistakes, but at the very least i had the cushion to make them, whether it was the opportunity to go to school of my choosing, and to move to Vancouver, with my first 3-4 years there partially covered by my mother.

 

thank god, i had that, and made something out of the half-lick of talent i had, because i was given far more than many in different circumstances ever have the chance to benefit from.

 

i refuse to judge people because of their status in life. everyone has their own crosses to bear, and that's on them.

 

everyone might have the opportunity to be successful, but if everyone were successful, then there would be no poverty. and when it comes to math, that equation just doesn't add up because even if you have a penny in your pocket, there will always be those less fortunate than you.

 

people "deserving fates." that's quite a loaded statement. i pray nothing goes wrong to those you know.

 

but good god, what you suppose GG just seems wrong, and to throw in liberal guilt into the mix is attempting to score debating points without taking into account compassion or reason.

 

jw

 

 

and there are those in this world who by virtue of geography and the unluck of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time have no tablet, keyboard, the luxury of travel or even the ability to know i'm making naive speculations and accusations on their behalf ...

 

jw

 

 

well, that's just bad luck. there is no room for accidents in a Darwinian world.

 

jw

 

I do think it is fair to judge women that get knocked up by losers and have 4,5,6.....children, because it isn't on them, the burden ends up those who work and pay taxes. People need to start acting responsibly or this country is screwed. Big changes need to happen because the cradle to grave entitlement system we currently have is not sustainable.

[birdog1960]

oh, my god. such self-serving, navel-centric bull.

you can't name another place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches. well, i bring up my father, who went from being an off the boat immigrant in Canada to building TVs at General Electric to eventually running two bars in Windsor, where he set his family up before he died too early to enjoy what he built.

and yes, he was hard-working and fortunate, and got a few breaks along the way. and yet, enough of him rubbed off on his oldest son to know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's not Christian to judge one person's success over another's failures.

 

this self-made man baloney is usually elicited by self-made men, and more-over become a myth in a modern society in which the wealthier among us have a far easier path to success. and i was one of those fortunate ones who "made" it, but made it in part because i had the benefit of a good start and in a position where i could make mistakes along the way. perhaps i learned from those mistakes, but at the very least i had the cushion to make them, whether it was the opportunity to go to school of my choosing, and to move to Vancouver, with my first 3-4 years there partially covered by my mother.

 

thank god, i had that, and made something out of the half-lick of talent i had, because i was given far more than many in different circumstances ever have the chance to benefit from.

 

i refuse to judge people because of their status in life. everyone has their own crosses to bear, and that's on them.

 

everyone might have the opportunity to be successful, but if everyone were successful, then there would be no poverty. and when it comes to math, that equation just doesn't add up because even if you have a penny in your pocket, there will always be those less fortunate than you.

 

people "deserving fates." that's quite a loaded statement. i pray nothing goes wrong to those you know.

 

but good god, what you suppose GG just seems wrong, and to throw in liberal guilt into the mix is attempting to score debating points without taking into account compassion or reason.

 

jw

 

 

the most impressive prose description of the womb lottery i've see...."there, but for the grace of God, go i"

[OCinBuffalo]

right, the economy needs to continue sucking for a little while longer because who the hell cares about the people. it's all about scoring debating points, no?

 

and that's the trouble with the Republicans right now. they are failing to provide a vision as to what they will do, and instead attempting to score debating points by poking holes in what someone has done -- not for the betterment of the country, but for the betterment of themselves.

it's disappointing. at a time when an incumbent president is vulnerable, and there are bona fide questions about his ability to forcefully govern, the opposition continues down a winding road of blind-foolery by standing up for the rich, who have contributed in putting the country in this mess to begin with.

 

this has the looks of Barry Goldwater vs. LBJ redux.

 

jw

I have watched almost every single Republican debate. Clearly, you haven't. If you had, you'd know that they have a whole lot of ideas. More specifics than I can remember in any debate for either party. Which of Obama's ideas are better for the country in general, and NOT simply better for specific Democratic constituencies? Where are the results?

Are you seriously comparing reporting on Bledsoe's last season to the slant that some business journalists put in their stories? How about the final version that comes out of editing?

 

In any event, why should Hannity be thought of in a different than Ohlbermann? Both are blowhard who push an ideological point.

The difference between Hannity and Olbermann is really straightforward:

Hannity is a good person

Olbermann is not

That's why Hannity still has a job, and Olbermann doesn't. We can talk for hours about this, but it simply comes down to the fact that Hannity is not a mean, self-centered jerk whose efforts at convincing other people of his superiority fail to the point of convincing them otherwise. Hannity goes out amongst the people via fundraisers and concerts and has a ball, Olbermann couldn't be bothered with such trifles as actually interacting with people that watch his show. Hannity's entire perspective is based on humility and self-determination, Olbermann's is based on hubris and self-congratulation. Hence there is no mystery as to why either get the results they have.

putting the economic meltdown into context is no easy thing.

of course, those opposed to Obama like to blame him fully and completely for that, when it's clear that the downturn began before he was elected.

so to tie the 7.6 percent unemployment number of the Obama administration is quite wrong. but why quibble with points. (and note, the downturn was bound to happen because people were both naive and greedy.)

 

an argument can be made that this economy didn't become Obama's economy until say three months into his term when the money began flowing out of Washington hand over fist. don't know exactly what the unemployment rate was then. but a case could be made that would be where the comparisons should begin.

 

to call this "gratuitous editorializing" is a little far-fetched.

Romney asserts that Obama has ruined the economy, even though it's showing signs of coming back.

 

either way, the facts balance the story out, rather than slant it.

it quotes Romney and points out how his comments might be going against the grain.

 

in the Bledsoe piece, we (me and other reporters) quoted Bledsoe, and then noted that what he thinks might go against reality. i don't see how different this is.

 

jw

 

not entirely. the heart attack happen in 2006.

i don't buy this Darwinian response because it assumes we all started out equally.

we all came from the womb. the few fortunate among us, landed in middle-to-upper class households. others in poverty. others ethiopia. it doesn't fly with me.

and to say she or anyone didn't take care of herself well ... geez. the judgemental thing just doesn't suit you.

 

jw

 

like Canada?

 

jw

Oh, horseshit. Nobody I know blames the initial problems on Obama. Nobody. Certainly nobody on this board blames them on Obama. Liberal victim mentality on display here. Too much Oprah there wawrow? The fact is that the economy should have turned around, as it has historically, which is why the WH went with the whole "recovery summer" thing. They expected it to come around, and when it didn't, they were left holding the Obamacare/Dodd Frank bag. The fact is that Obama's policies have either slowed down or killed the recovery in some verticals/sectors, and there's no denying it for rational people.

 

Ask Bill Gates or Steve Jobs if they would rather have been born with a silver spoon. Hell, ask me. Part of what motivates is the desire to finish stronger than you started, and as banal as it is, it's definitely enjoyable to pass the blue bloods along the way. The fact is that everyone's lot in life from 7 years old on is largely due to the choices they make, and in many cases, minorities and women now get the game called their way, so they can even afford to make a bunch of bad ones along the way. After all, Obama is President, isn't he?

 

I have never met a Canadian doctor who defends their health care system, and I have met 40+ so far. Now, is that an accident? I wonder if birddog can tell us where all the "I'm overjoyed to be a Canadian doctor" people are hiding. Probably the same place where all the striped ass apes are hiding as well.

i stand in judgment at St. Pete's gates. i'm serious.

 

as for this, the theory kinda works, and then you bring greed into the equation. people helping one another is all well and good, until it comes time to help one another. i see the wall street boys are doing a bang-up job in helping us all out, out of the goodness of their hearts. and we all know how the middle-east dictators work in doling out the gold nuggets.

works great.

greed effects more greed. some people, i've found, have difficulty getting their hands dirty.

to take your point further, why have traffic lights.

liberals like me, think there outta be laws in place to prevent people from running through intersections like morons.

conservatives like you, think there should be no laws because people generally go out of their way to look out for each other.

 

 

right, more often than not, a majority of today's billionaires were born into poverty and through the magic of free enterprise rose up from nothing.

head down to the local food bank and trot out that theory, and see where it gets you. but wait, you have money. good for you.

 

 

funny, i keep thumbing through my Bible, and can't seem to find the chapter and verse on that approach. was that in Mark or Luke?

 

jw

Since we are talking Bible, and mortal sins, where is the discussion of pride and envy? Pride as in "we can create a Welfare system and other government programs that will end poverty that is so awesome that it won't be effected by the participants making bad choices and/or dehumanize them, because we are awesome". Envy as in the endless talking about what other people have, instead of talking about making the most with what you have. What is the point of having a life, or being human at all, if you are going to spend it wishing you were somebody else and not wanting to earn something that is great for you? We pay billions of tax dollars for education, yet it's our fault that it is underutilized, managed poorly, and executed poorly, so we must pay more? GTFO of here.

It probably has a lot more to do with the fact that she's at least 100% overweight. I'm sure the liberals will be able to solve that little problem with the magic wand of legislation and just a little more tax payer money.

Extremely obese people have significantly more heart attacks. She was obviously so concerned about her health after the heart attack that she started taking far better care of herself.

Just a little more. But don't you understand the need? Not the problem. The need.

 

Wawrow doesn't want to define problems properly, therefore, he is doomed to support solutions that don't fix them properly.

Standing in line for hours vs Meazza waiting for months?

Well, you have to stand in line at all, so it's the same thing in liberal land. Liberals are absolutist when it comes to the need, but then suddenly relativist about the very same need, when it comes to judging the success rate of their solutions.

what did it turn out to be meazza. for $1000 it was almost certainly benign and nonthreatening. maybe the system was right to refuse the cost? untreated diabetes, heart disease, hypertension...not so much.

As above: we NEED universal health care, but, when you NEED to be universally checked out for cancer, well, you can afford to wait a little while, right?

truly doubt it was six months to see a primary care doc or midlevel to evaluate a lump. meazza obviously can tell us. but emotion (and bias) needs to be removed from broad policy decisions, however insensitive. despite spending almost $8000 per year per american (in 2010) misdiagnoses happen here too...and on average we live shorter lifespans than many countries that spend much less. yes, there are mitigating circumstances (not the least of which is the abysmal life expectancy of certain socioeconomic and racial groups) but shouldn't that measure be the overriding standard? it is certainly the most objective and concrete "endpoint". Universal healthcare disfavors the less affluent? maybe. for profit medicine disfavors the less affluent? absolutely and by orders of magnitude more.

Here we go again: the NEED for universal health care is absolute. "Everyone must have immediate medical attention, especially preventative care". (Think Walter Sobcheck conducting the choir as he says "there going to kill that poor woman") But, when we quantify the liberal methods used to supposedly achieve universal health care and attend to preventative medicine....well....you don't actually need it, do you? The pattern here is hysterical.

oh, my god. such self-serving, navel-centric bull.

you can't name another place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches. well, i bring up my father, who went from being an off the boat immigrant in Canada to building TVs at General Electric to eventually running two bars in Windsor, where he set his family up before he died too early to enjoy what he built.

and yes, he was hard-working and fortunate, and got a few breaks along the way. and yet, enough of him rubbed off on his oldest son to know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's not Christian to judge one person's success over another's failures.

 

this self-made man baloney is usually elicited by self-made men, and more-over become a myth in a modern society in which the wealthier among us have a far easier path to success. and i was one of those fortunate ones who "made" it, but made it in part because i had the benefit of a good start and in a position where i could make mistakes along the way. perhaps i learned from those mistakes, but at the very least i had the cushion to make them, whether it was the opportunity to go to school of my choosing, and to move to Vancouver, with my first 3-4 years there partially covered by my mother.

 

thank god, i had that, and made something out of the half-lick of talent i had, because i was given far more than many in different circumstances ever have the chance to benefit from.

 

i refuse to judge people because of their status in life. everyone has their own crosses to bear, and that's on them.

 

everyone might have the opportunity to be successful, but if everyone were successful, then there would be no poverty. and when it comes to math, that equation just doesn't add up because even if you have a penny in your pocket, there will always be those less fortunate than you.

 

people "deserving fates." that's quite a loaded statement. i pray nothing goes wrong to those you know.

 

but good god, what you suppose GG just seems wrong, and to throw in liberal guilt into the mix is attempting to score debating points without taking into account compassion or reason.

 

jw

 

and there are those in this world who by virtue of geography and the unluck of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time have no tablet, keyboard, the luxury of travel or even the ability to know i'm making naive speculations and accusations on their behalf ...

 

jw

 

 

well, that's just bad luck. there is no room for accidents in a Darwinian world.

 

jw

Really? Then how do you explain your constant assault on those who have made a lot of money? How do explain your reasoning that the less fortunate need your help, if you haven't judged their status in life? How do you continue to support one failed government program after then next, if you haven't judged that people's status in life warrants that ongoing support?

 

Yes, naive. Childlike, really. Since FDR we have had all sorts of social spending programs in place, and spent a buttload of both tax dollars and charitable giving all over the world. We have fought awful governments with the military spending you hate so much, and won. We have done a ton. Yet, it will never be enough for people like you.

 

I have news that isn't naive, it should be refreshing for you: bad things happen to people, and that's unfortunate, but destroying our wealth as a result only means that: a lot more bad things will happen to people.

[Delete This Account]

 

Really? Then how do you explain your constant assault on those who have made a lot of money? ... I have news that isn't naive, it should be refreshing for you: bad things happen to people, and that's unfortunate, but destroying our wealth as a result only means that: a lot more bad things will happen to people.

yes, we should hold a parade every day at noon to salute the rich because we simply wouldn't know misfortune without them. they deserve our glowing praise and sympathy for the hard work many of them put in influencing government to ensure the rules continue to be fixed in their favor. because who, but them, have access to the front door of government, and the opportunities and lawyers to water down laws, win government contracts and reap the whirlwind of gold and silver poured into our failed banking and investment institutions without even to have to say thank you. after all, we are indebted to all of them.

 

and in the spirit of "let them eat cake," perhaps we can cobble up a collection and buy them all a gold-plated Rolls Royce as a sign of our unfettered gratitude.

 

in fact, i will begin taking up a collection, because without the rich, we wouldn't have someone to aspire to or grace our magazines (though, speaking of winning the baby womb lottery, how misfortunate so many of us are to not be born into great inheritance. Paris Hilton will forever remain my hero, because of her wealth, grace and charm, and in that order.) ....

 

my apologies for questioning the rich. unlike we here in the trenches, they are without sin.

 

jw

[GG]

So what about the people who do make good choices but still end up in a shithole?

 

Everyone has made mistakes. But life is long and there's enough opportunity to set things right. Where I find the difference between doers & complainers is that the doers look at a setback as a temporary hurdle, and move their lives on.

 

the most impressive prose description of the womb lottery i've see...."there, but for the grace of God, go i"

 

Yup, the people who are arguing with jw came from privileged backgrounds.

 

And only if you knew the true idiocy of your womb comment (thanks to socialized free medicine, no less)

 

yes, we should hold a parade every day at noon to salute the rich because we simply wouldn't know misfortune without them. they deserve our glowing praise and sympathy for the hard work many of them put in influencing government to ensure the rules continue to be fixed in their favor. because who, but them, have access to the front door of government, and the opportunities and lawyers to water down laws, win government contracts and reap the whirlwind of gold and silver poured into our failed banking and investment institutions without even to have to say thank you. after all, we are indebted to all of them.

 

and in the spirit of "let them eat cake," perhaps we can cobble up a collection and buy them all a gold-plated Rolls Royce as a sign of our unfettered gratitude.

 

in fact, i will begin taking up a collection, because without the rich, we wouldn't have someone to aspire to or grace our magazines (though, speaking of winning the baby womb lottery, how misfortunate so many of us are to not be born into great inheritance. Paris Hilton will forever remain my hero, because of her wealth, grace and charm, and in that order.) ....

 

my apologies for questioning the rich. unlike we here in the trenches, they are without sin.

 

jw

 

Couldn't find any more nuggets on the rich in People or US magazines? Talk about a tired stereotype. Wonder if you'll throw in one of these nuggets next time to talk to Ralph Wilson and how he's fleeced New York State taxpayers to line his pockets?