ParanoiA

Well I was just joking. But, in reality, I would let them fail. I don't believe a state would fall into economic despair and never recouperate if they change their policies. Also, in reality, there is commerce between states and incentive to "help your neighbor" without necessarily providing all out welfare. Of course, this is where my thoughts aren't really worked out. There are a lot of dynamics here that I don't fully appreciate.

So do you agree that it was too much freedom? I believe you're right. But then, maybe we could just surround the "test" states with liberal ones so they'll bail them out.

No, I think Lugar believes what he's saying. I just don't think "the republicans" are in a shift because they share Lugar's concerns, but rather because of the swing vote. Everyone is going to distance themselves from Bush to get elected - even Cheney would if he could. "Stay the course" has become a Bush-ism, and no one is going to win elections like that - even if it's the right thing to do. Politicians have no shame. I agree. And the occupation is successful in terms of holding the country, but unsuccessful in terms of appropriate law and order for a respectable society. Apparently so. I'm also curious about the actual intent of the surge - Tony and Dick seem to disagree as to it's purpose to begin with, let alone the effectiveness of said purpose. It is when the only defeat realized is that created in the news. That's fantasy, not reality. We may not be getting anywhere, or progressing, but that's not losing and that's not hopelessness - that's a stalemate and the grim reality of occupation. Here's another truth: The only way an occupation would look like "winning", would be if we slaughtered anyone who poked their head out of a door. There's no such thing as an occupation in the middle east, west, Europe, that wouldn't involve the people fighting back against the occupational force. Period. You already know that going into it. To then point and cry "defeat" is defeatist fantasy. I'm a little skeptical of the "lies" in the clip since there's no time stamp to know when Tony made his comments compared to when Lugar made his. In any case, it's clear they don't agree and Tony appears to be clueless as to the level of disagreement between them. I've provided facts, and included the links. We control the country - fact. We have lost about 3,560 per DoD and they have lost over 66,000 per http://www.iraqbodycount.net - fact. Now the Iraqis may not be doing much, but WE are not "losing" anything. This is an occupation. If you expected them to bake us brownies and welcome our gun wielding soldiers into their homes then that's fantasy. If you expect no one to fight back, that's fanstasy. If you expect neighboring THIRD WORLD countries with gigantuan histories of conquest, enslavement and war to not take advantage of our occupation then that is fantasy. I just think the occupation is going as should have been expected. What did they think was going to happen? If this is losing, then we've sure given ourselves an unwinnable goal.

Depends on why they're failed. If it's bad policies, then do nothing and let them fix themselves, as the country will be chaulk full of good examples. Yes, because they won't. No parent will let their child starve. They're not changing because we keep feeding them. There's no incentive to stop sponging off of the system. This is the liberal's paradox. But that's a community experiment that isn't a government, itself. They can't pass laws and raise taxes or anything. It was designed to sponge. You say "nice try, thanks for showing us that didn't work out, must suck to be you". Then, they change to a system that works. I'm not sure why you keep terminating these examples as if there's no going back, as if they're stuck with the bad system. Your examples are good ones in terms of demonstrating the strengths of a diversified union, trying things here and there, while the other states watch and take note. But nothing is permanent - if it doesn't work, then go back. I think this is a good point. It's almost like we really don't want to know if liberalism is truly better than conservatism or etc. Although, I always thought that most ideologies are more about preferred "pros and cons" rather than which outperforms the other.

I think they would. One of the biggest dissappointments in the internet is the lack of support for it. For example, you can't order automobiles direct from Detroit online anymore...because the car lots threw a fit when they found out we didn't need them anymore. So instead of forcing business to change with the advancements - allowing the market to adjust on it's own - we get the shaft while crybaby businessmen use the law to make us need them.

It's quite constitutional, I'm not sure why you'd say that. In fact, it's arguably not constitutional for the federal government to be the presence it is today.

Was thinking on this yesterday, and admittedly, I don't have my thoughts finalized on this... I think the federal government has ruined America. I believe the intent of this great experiment was to unite states with an open architecture they can all operate differently in, but still with each other. But, with all of the federal laws and power gained incrementally over the years, states don't have much individuality at all. We habitually force laws on all of the states without a moment's consideration to leaving it up to the states to decide individually. And when someone suggests such a thing, they are an "extremist". I don't understand why the idea of a libertarian federal government has never taken off in this country. It seems like the perfect platform for shaking down the various ideologies as they play out in the various states. Competition between the states could prove superior philosophies. Also, some people define life by how long they live it...IE banning public smoking, trans fats and etc. And they're always at odds with those that define life by how free they live it - all the fat and cholesterol they can ingest, indifferent to second hand smoke. Why can't we both live in America the way we want? Why must we perpetuate the erosion of state individuality? Why not push for a libertarian federal government, and focus our liberal/conservative/other views on the state level? Seems obvious to me.

Perfect example of repititious propaganda regurgitation. Just say it over and over enough... Still waiting for your facts and evidence to support your claims...any of them. You can be against the war without misrepresenting the facts. Just so you know...

The republicans are just ditching because of election season. The american sheeple have been told by CNN and company that we're losing in Iraq, so much so that now candidates have to pretend like the brainwashed pop culture mind numbed mainstream knows what they're talking about. Never mind what the military says, it's just their specialty... Let me just say right here...we're not losing in Iraq no matter how badly folks want us to. I know, it sucks to mount an anti-war campaign when you're not losing, but that's how it goes. I don't think we should be there either, but fantasizing about defeat is irresponsible. Our country just gets more and more shallow and disingenuous as we allow pandering repitition to define our positions. Honesty is not an american value for either side...I hope it's not our undoing.

No need to apologize since you're not really talking to anybody that I can figure out. In fact, I have no idea what post or ideas you think are an example of "conformism" or comfortable beliefs. What if the truth isn't ugly or disturbing? Would you still recognize it? Or does it have to be ugly and disturbing before you believe it is truth? What is more important? Complexity and irreverance, or the truth (even when it is simple and pleasant)?

Now you're swinging the pendulum all the way the other way. We try to prevent traffic accidents, understanding we can't be perfect. Terrorism is a legitimate concern for many. We should try to prevent it, and then not act equally stupid and a hang people out to dry via the classic american witch hunt, when it happens anyway - like 9/11. 9/11 was horrible. We realized that we can't ignore this stuff, or we'll get 9/11's on a regular basis. We should recognize that, and we should take steps to combat it, and it is a quite legitimate political position. Just because other people are abusing the situation and using "the war on terror" to further propaganda efforts, doesn't mean we should respond by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist, or selling some misanthropic "who cares if a few people die ever now and then".

The government already takes care of this, it's called Title 19. And they usually get something else, I forgot what it's called, but it gets free milk, juice and other stuff. My sister in law used title 19 for 3 of her children. She got better care than my wife, using our insurance I get from work. We got ok care, don't get me wrong, but I was surprised how much her sister didn't have to worry about anything at all, while I had to worry about co pays and insurance claims. I really don't understand the urgency or perceived problem with getting care for the poor. They are not turned down in an emergency, and there are lots of government programs for people who'd rather sponge off of the system rather than do work for it.

See, what bothers me is this "service" mentallity. Sure it would be great not to open a check book for a doctor visit. So would a 10,000 dollar check from the national treasury to my house everyday. Sure it's nice not to have to worry about switching health insurance when changing jobs...but then so would a mandatory 5 hour work week with 40 hours pay. I think it contributes to the wussification of america in a different way - it validates the notion that the government should be a "service". I guess in some ways it ultimately is, but moreso I thought government was simply a necessary means of basic law and order for people to operate in. It's job should be basic, with the least possible interference in anything. I think we've gotten wussified in thinking life should be so smooth and kind. How long before we see "working to make money for food" as cruel? I can see Michael Moore now..."this poor family has to work a job, just to feed themselves". I don't see anything wrong with opening your checkbook to cure your sick baby. Universal or not, you're still opening your proverbial wallet to pay for medical care. We all have jobs to do and we all deserve to get paid, no matter how noble or self-less you've fantisized our jobs to be. The cruelty would be, that when we're broke, no one would help us. That isn't the case. Instead, someone will help you, and like all FREE things in life, it won't be very desirable. Big whoop...

Oh I get it, you choose to live your life on other people's terms and you expect us to do the same. You want to restrict freedom and advance oppression in order to make monotheistic adversaries content with us? I reject such notions, vehemently and proudly. I prefer freedom - real freedom. And you're not a patriot when you advocate interference in civil liberties. Government should have ZERO say in what marriage is. I don't care if a midget wants to marry a carrot - that's none of your business. That's what real freedom is. A good patriot will always support the advancement of his country and the liberty of its people. So what about the KKK and Wal-Mart? Both ideas have the united states in common too. So, according to your logic, they are connected. Due to the existence of the KKK, Wal-mart has flourished. We need to crush the KKK in order to stop Wal-Mart from owning the country and selling it in bulk to poor countries. Exactly, because AMERICANS can't keep their noses out of anybody's business. Because AMERICANS meddle with their governments and then act all surprised when they get pissed about it. Because AMERICANS make believe that our freedom is being attacked while we occupy their soil and pretend that's not it. Who's denying the atrocities? And it isn't treason even if we were. I think you need to look that word up before you use it. I don't have any love for terrorists and in fact, I view them as children. Much of the middle east suffers from trust fund mentallity - oil in the ground. If it wasn't for oil, why would we give a crap about that region? They just sell rights to drill for their oil - don't have to lift a finger to make ridiculous amounts of money. They are irrational in their politics and governments. We don't interface well because they don't want to. The thing is, we force the issue and impose ourselves on that region - in politics, business, and etc. I would much rather ignore them until their governments grow up and act like adults. But we won't...we'd much rather impose ourselves and continue the ideas that promote hatred for the US and act all surprised when they attack us.

I don't get this. Personal liberty and freedom is not a good picture about the united states? If anything it solidifies the original intent of america. I fail to see the relationship between gay marriage and patriotism. In fact, that whole paragraph seems a mess. Wouldn't we get peace and harmony by letting them get married? Actually, allow me to re-word that to a more accurate distinction - wouldn't we get peace and harmony by not interfering with their marriage? I prefer the government to stay the hell out of my life, I've seen the mess they've become. Dead american troops and gay marriage? You won't maintain any credibility with people when you so obviously force two ideas together that have nothing to do with each other, in a feeble attempt at shaming people into your view. That's what terrorists do. The american troops are not be killed for what they believe in, they're being killed because they're on foreign soil with guns and artillery - they're being killed for what some politicians believe in and have duped you into believing in as well. Yeah, it's because we're "free" right? Nothing to do with military invasions, bases, sanctions...none of that....

And that, exactly that, is why I get pissy and pessimistic around election time. It's that time when you hear folks, co-workers, friends, everybody talks about how wonderful it would be for a real candidate that isn't bought and sold by "the machine" - and I just sit quietly shaking my head, thinking to myself "then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and quit voting for these salesmen". Reminds me alot about how GWB got re-elected, yet nobody voted for him. Can't find anyone to admit they voted him in, yet he managed to get about half the country's votes. I don't want to hear any of these idiots cry and moan about the leadership we have, when every time they have a chance to practice what they preach, they vote for the salesman.

No' date=' instead the health costs will be determined by an entity who has NO incentive to control any costs...in fact, has incentive NOT to control costs at all. Kind of like how our school system begs parents to sign their kids up for "free lunch" whether they need it or not - so they can get the most federal money possible. Not having to worry about suing anybody after they mangle your body in surgery huh? The government protects itself from lawsuits...with laws. You're actually arguing to lose power over accountability. Everyone gets taken care of in this country, in an emergency, whether they have insurance or not. Oh, and I see you're hung up over privacy because you want everyone working on you to know exactly how to do their job, but you don't want them to have to know what the hell is wrong with you?? Nice. Many of these laws come from people who love to make money litigating. Some of them are really freaking practical and don't make sense until you critically think them out a little further than their face value, or headliner effect. Yeah I agree these things suck' date=' but I don't think universal healthcare is going to be any better. You may fix some of [i']this[/i] list, then you get a different list of problems - long waiting periods (yeah, trying waiting a week or two to see a doctor for the flu...work that logic out, who's going to still have the flu in a week?), no "care" incentive whatsoever, impersonal care - doctors "process" you, they don't really "see" you, the government decides what brand of medicine you will take, the government decides the methods to be used for healthcare with no incentive to please anyone. You think it's bad being dictated to by the insurance companies? You can actually go around them - there are other options - but when the government is running it and THEY dictate your healthcare, there is no getting around it. I don't think you're thinking this out very carefully. I used to be a strong supporter of universal healthcare, but my Dad has been exposed to this concept of medicine and it's horrible. All universal healthcare benefits is the money trail - not the people. It just simplies healthcare "conceptually" - but healthcare should NOT be simple. It should be personal. You get better care when you're seen, not processed. You get better care when the workers have incentive to be excellent at what they do. You get better talent when medical professionals can compete with each other. You get better facilities when they have to compete as well. There are problems with our healthcare system, but they don't need to be solved by exchanging them for other problems. We're americans, we can do SO much better without copying a socialist system that doesn't rid any more problems than we have now. We can do better. Why is that so out of question?

Sure, military action. It is an actual war. What is it about that word that's hanging you up? And why does it matter? It's a label, a reference for efficient communication. War implies all the peripherals that go with it. It could be military conflict, propaganda, information and disinformation, economics, and etc. I think the point is that it establishes, or anchors, a focus for the country - a concerted effort to thwart terrorism. Personally, I think that's best achieved with trade and withdrawel from the role of world police.

Amen...

No, you can take up the struggle, the war, against terrorism without using arms at all. And then, consider that at the end of the day, it will get a slogan one way or another if for no better reason than to have a label for reference's sake.

You know, I've never paid much attention to the primaries in the past, so I don't know if this is common or not, but I find it interesting that a number of media outlets and various politicians have named him the winner of the republican debates so far - by a good margin too. In Ron Paul I see the "adult" politician. The real McCoy. He lectures when he speaks. He doesn't dumb down his language so you can keep up. He doesn't just repeat himself, he explains himself. And he's not afraid to say exactly what he stands for. In the rest I just see teenie bopper politicians. They got all the great one liners. They got the capitalist money machine churning them along. They'll keep it all nice and simple so the sheeple can understand them when they pander to their issues and pay lip service to the american public's required list of stuff candidates must pretend to care about - all with a car saleman's smile. I admit, Dr. Paul might not be a winner right now, if ever, but he has been a congressman in Texas (of all places) for 10 years. Somebody is listening, and now that they've seen his actions, they're still electing him.

Interesting. Dissappointing attitude by MIT as well.

A better plan. A mirror image or copy off of some other system that is just as "arguably" good or bad is not a positive step in any direction - rather just a great way to blow an ass load of money converting over. How is that better? Let's do the american thing here and come up with something better. Since when do we require a ready made template?

Islamoracist murder clubs and their members. Seems to be multiple parties with precarious alliances. Pretty nasty business. To the Islamoracist murder clubs - also fractioned and precarious, they have declared Jihad on most of the world, which is actually quite humorous when you think about it. The other side, the west I guess, have responded similarly humorously in that some of us are mad, some of us want to shoot 'em up with our guns, some of us want to bake them brownies and change ourselves to please them and etc. So, yes it's a war. I'm sorry in doesn't fit in the box we'd like it to fit in, but now we have a chance to prove evolution correct - that we can adapt and learn to survive.

No it doesn't. Care to explain why you think it does? Numbers on paper don't say anything at all about the quality of care. That's what those who actually work in universal healthcare complain about. I still think there's a better idea to be thought of and have yet to hear a compelling reason to trade one set of problems for another.