Thank you Massachusetts!

DG no I was suggesting YOU leave my country. I'm tired of people trying to change what I and many others have given many years of our lives to protect. FREEDOM

When this administration gets finished I hope you are happy with what you asked for. Wait till they tell you where to live ,what to eat, and how much money you are allowed to earn.

I'l start making your reservations what country is your choice?

Can anyone name something the Gov't has done successfully and made a profit.

Or do you want your Healthcare runlike the Drivers License office.

Well let's see, Lonesome Dove is the guy who said that Obama is not his President, the simple logical conclusion is that he must be from some other country or wishes to leave the US and you are encouraging him to do so. As for me I was born in the US, if holding views that are vastly different than you mean to you that I should leave your country than you are the one who has misread most of the history of this country. You claim to value FREEDOM, well that fortunately includes the freedom to disagree. to have a different faith, etc., etc. It was my country when those you favored were in political power and it is still my country when those I favor are in political power. If that is not how you understand freedom then you probably should go find a tropical island and form your own country with a population of 1 where everyone will agree on everything.

Now about this thing called freedom, I don't recall seeing any memos during the current administration that justified what we all know is torture; I don't recall seeing an end-run around Congress in putting in place illegal surveillance; I don't see by-passing an intelligence court that has 3 times in 30+ years rejected a govt. requested warrant; I don't see a President slapped down 3 times by a Supreme Court on rights of the accused; I don't see a President that has declared someone an enemy combatant and claimed the right to hold them forever with no charges; I don't see a VP refusing to release who he has met with or claim that he is a branch of government unto himself.

Govt made a profit: I'm fairly certain they made a tidy profit on the Chrysler bailout in the 1970's.

Well let's see, Lonesome Dove is the guy who said that Obama is not his President, the simple logical conclusion is that he must be from some other country or wishes to leave the US and you are encouraging him to do so. As for me I was born in the US, if holding views that are vastly different than you mean to you that I should leave your country than you are the one who has misread most of the history of this country. You claim to value FREEDOM, well that fortunately includes the freedom to disagree. to have a different faith, etc., etc. It was my country when those you favored were in political power and it is still my country when those I favor are in political power. If that is not how you understand freedom then you probably should go find a tropical island and form your own country with a population of 1 where everyone will agree on everything.

Now about this thing called freedom, I don't recall seeing any memos during the current administration that justified what we all know is torture; I don't recall seeing an end-run around Congress in putting in place illegal surveillance; I don't see by-passing an intelligence court that has 3 times in 30+ years rejected a govt. requested warrant; I don't see a President slapped down 3 times by a Supreme Court on rights of the accused; I don't see a President that has declared someone an enemy combatant and claimed the right to hold them forever with no charges; I don't see a VP refusing to release who he has met with or claim that he is a branch of government unto himself.

Govt made a profit: I'm fairly certain they made a tidy profit on the Chrysler bailout in the 1970's. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Ahhh... the humanity of it all!

But don’t fret here is something to cheer you and WTF up. Just make sure you click on the video to see it once the page loads. http://ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html

----

In regards to what you don't see, you don't see much that is what you don't want to see. How about a President who is arrogant enough to think a Second Constitution should be written? Didn't see that did you? How about a President foolish enough to think he can Oprah the likes of Putin, the Iranian President and the Muslims’ who have an expressed desire to see our country in ruin while they have the whole world in the 11th century. Didn't see that either did you? Hmmm.... you don't see much DG.

PS: My point about yours and WTF reading abilities are clear to anyone who read your post that I quoted here. My handle is LonesomeDove, not Lonesome Dove.

The only BS is what you wrote TTH but you are far too liberal to see your major mistake and I am laughing at you because you have no idea what you are writing about. The Geneva Convention of 1949, in particular article III, was not violated by Bush and I challenge you to find specific examples where Bush violated the Convention as well as Article III. If you can and the UN has done nothing then we must have a right-wing nut job conspiracy of major proportions that has infected the EU as well as the UN while Russia has decided to go to the locker room and have a Vodka with the Chinese. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

The Supreme Court held that Common Article III applies to detainees in Hamdam. That was the principle holding of the case. Common Article III prohibits torture. We tortured detainees. Period. No doubt about it, and it was authorized by the President. Pick any part of that you want to dispute and I'll argue it with you all day long. Make sure you know whereof you speak before you argue the law with me.

The Supreme Court held that Common Article III applies to detainees in Hamdam. That was the principle holding of the case. Common Article III prohibits torture. We tortured detainees. Period. No doubt about it, and it was authorized by the President. Pick any part of that you want to dispute and I'll argue it with you all day long. Make sure you know whereof you speak before you argue the law with me. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I know all too well from where I would argue with you on that TTH even with what you provided. I am well aware of what the Supreme Court ruled in that matter but we both know that is a long and laborious legal debate that is currently ongoing. There are far too many points of law for it to be discussed here but I will grant you, in one instance, you are correct however...

While I don’t concede to you, I will acquiesce from this debate with you since that argument is far too lengthy, too detailed and involves a great many things that neither you nor I have access to the relevant citations to enable us to properly argue the point.

I assume you are referring to my reference to pre-existing. Well a group of 40 million wouldn't change the effect I noted, just the effect one person could have on rates for the other. Of course with 40 million in a group (i.e., roughly the size of all UnitedHealth Care's insureds) there would be LOTS of those free-riders showing up so the effect wouldn't be as diminished as you think. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an insurance expert.... I only pay like one!
The current klusterphuck of a system needs to be re-defined!!! If the Government can restrict & regulate the Health Care & Insurance industry into the current mess that is is.... they can also restrict & re-regulate it into something that resembles an efficient 350 Million person group.... allowing the private sector to manage it! If it can be imagined.... it can be done!

But before that can ever happen.... a much more important re-structuring needs to be done. The 535 useless Congressional employees of ours need to be slapped into place! That amendment, proposed earlier, is a fine starting point!

On another note.... How many of us... knowing what we know now... and given the choice to opt out of Social Security at an early age... would have? How does that question relate to the current Health Care & Insurance mess / options?

Giz

Okay a little humor and levity is needed here. That clip from the Hitler movie has so many incarnations. For the car geek:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XhXB8XDYYc"]YouTube- Hitler reacts to the Rotards[/ame]

Your welcome for the temporary thread hijack.

[quote=LonesomeDove;60281]But don’t fret here is something to cheer you and WTF up. Just make sure you click on the video to see it once the page loads. http://ktrh.com/pages/michael.html[/quote]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

PS: My point about yours and WTF reading abilities are clear to anyone who read your post that I quoted here. My handle is LonesomeDove, not Lonesome Dove. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I was not defending Bush, just stating the facts that under Bush after September 11, 2001, we were safe. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

I have no trouble reading between the lies...I mean lines.

Keep trying to paint yourself as some independent who cares about government spending. You appear to really care about govt spending that you do not agree with. Same as we all are in that regard. I know it sucs not to find yourself special.

What a joke!! One election is won and folks start talking about other’s wanting people to die.

Any idiot can come up with ideas to save lives. Let’s build walkways over every intersection so no one has to get in a cross walk. That will save lives. Let’s give free food to everyone. That will save lives. Let’s lower the speed limit to 25 mph on any road. That will save lives. Let’s provide free electricity to everyone. That will save lives. Let’s give free clothing to everyone. That will save lives.

Figuring out how to do these things in a fiscally responsible manner, where it saves the most lives? Well that is a tougher trick. But nevertheless, it sounds so much more noble to stand on a soapbox telling everyone you want to save lives…and imply that if another doesn’t agree with your methodology that they must be for killing people.

. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The same argument could be made about going to war to save lives. Or Nation building.

A year and a half ago?...I’m not sure why one was “the people speaking” and the other is not.
. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That one is easy to answer. One was a local election. The people of Mass do NOT speak for me. I assume the election you were speaking of was the national election. We have a gay mayor in Houston.....have the preople of Houston spoken for the rest of the country?

Huge difference. We all get another chance in 2012. Until then the people have spoken and it is Barrack, not some senator in Mass.

As long as the conversation starts with standing on a soapbox and implying some nobility?...then it will just be a case of “might makes right”. Last night?...the “might” was in the conservative camp. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

While I agree...I really do not see a huge difference in either party in that regard.

How about a President foolish enough to think he can Oprah the likes of Putin, the Iranian President and the Muslims’ who have an expressed desire to see our country in ruin while they have the whole world in the 11th century. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Leave Putin out of this, I think he is brilliant (and sexy). But, you are correct Obama would be stupid to think he can Oprah Putin. Putin would have Obama for lunch.

I like the new non-Communist Russia. I like the old Russia under Czar Nicholas too. Of course I get most of my new from RT (Russia Today)

http://rt.com/On_Air.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/russiato...&ob=4&rclk=cti

Putin would have Obama for lunch. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

I think you and LonesomeDove have forgotten just who was proud to have looked into Putin's eyes.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward
and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a
sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best
interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank
dialogue.

There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other
off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that's the
beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited
him to my ranch if I didn't trust him. (Laughter.) " - G.W. Bush

I think you and LonesomeDove have forgotten just who was proud to have looked into Putin's eyes.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward
and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a
sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best
interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank
dialogue.

There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other
off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that's the
beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited
him to my ranch if I didn't trust him. (Laughter.) " - G.W. Bush Originally Posted by WTF

That is such a great quote. I agree with G.W.B., Putin is very straightforward and trustworthy. He has a beautiful soul and is deeply committed to his country. Absolutely. But, Obama is not on Putin level intellectually and that is what I meant.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from Russia: "OUR CRITICS BEHAVE LIKE WOLVES, WAITING TO EAT THEIR SHEEP WHEN HUNGRY. BUT WE ARE NOT A SHEEP, WE ARE THE RUSSIAN BEAR."
Dmitry Rogozin
Russian Ambassador to NATO

How about a President foolish enough to think he can Oprah the likes of Putin, the Iranian President and the Muslims’ who have an expressed desire to see our country in ruin while they have the whole world in the 11th century. Didn't see that either did you? Hmmm.... you don't see much DG. [/COLOR]

PS: My point about yours and WTF reading abilities are clear to anyone who read your post that I quoted here. My handle is LonesomeDove, not Lonesome Dove. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

LonesomeDove (better?),

What I do see is a President (at least you acknowledged that ) who does not believe that diplomacy is going Rambo on the world. We shall see how that turns out, but the Bush/Cheney/Rambo approach sure as hell did not solve the problem with Iran or with Russia.

The same argument could be made about going to war to save lives. Or Nation building. Originally Posted by WTF

Okaaaay? And your point is? I find myself wanting to say "Well, then make the arguement, if that floats your boat."

That one is easy to answer. One was a local election. The people of Mass do NOT speak for me. I assume the election you were speaking of was the national election. We have a gay mayor in Houston.....have the preople of Houston spoken for the rest of the country?

Huge difference. We all get another chance in 2012. Until then the people have spoken and it is Barrack, not some senator in Mass. Originally Posted by WTF

Hell, nobody speaks for me...national election or not. Unfortunately, I am subjected to the whims of an electorate. So, even in 2012 the people won't have spoken for me. Somehow I think you can see the difference...but choose to portray it otherwise...for the sake of what?...I don't know.

Houston has a gay mayor? I didn't look at such an election and conclude that the people had spoken for WTF. I viewed he was subjected to the whims of the electorate. But maybe I am wrong, and you are now feeling some need to pat some guy on the butt because the Houston people have spoken. Geez, I hope not.

If you will read what I said, you will not see where I said the Mass population spoke for me either. I simply agree with how they chose...and ridiculed the notion that some folks say "the people spoke" when they agree with the outcome, and "not so much" when they don't. If you haven't said that?...then I wasn't ridiculing you. But since you felt the need to defend such a notion, it would appear that you take some ownership of the notion.

Okaaaay? And your point is? I find myself wanting to say "Well, then make the arguement, if that floats your boat." Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Why?, you made it for me. All I did was change the subject from heathcare to war.

Figuring out how to do these things in a fiscally responsible manner, where it saves the most lives? Well that is a tougher trick. But nevertheless, it sounds so much more noble to stand on a soapbox telling everyone you want to save lives…and imply that if another doesn’t agree with your methodology that they must be for killing people. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

My point is that there is half the nation that sat on their hands while we spent $ on a war to what? Save lives!

Now that same group is up in arms because we are spending money to.....SAVE LIVES!

You and I may both think that neither option either party has chosen is fiscally responsible or any combination thereof.

MY POINT is that both sides think spending other people's money is NOBLE if they believe in the cause and it is not their money!

Both sides stand on a SOAPBOX doing so. Including you and I. Though maybe our box's are not that tall nor do we think them noble. It is politics.

To think one can sit in the fence is Swiss like.

If you will read what I said, you will not see where I said the Mass population spoke for me either. I simply agree with how they chose...and ridiculed the notion that some folks say "the people spoke" when they agree with the outcome, and "not so much" when they don't. If you haven't said that?...then I wasn't ridiculing you. But since you felt the need to defend such a notion, it would appear that you take some ownership of the notion. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That is like saying that the answer is incorrect because one did not say "What is...." while playing Jeopardy.

Both sides do the very thing you are speaking of.

Nobody speaks for me, but I do realize the difference between being defeated in an election that I had the chance to vote in and one I did not.

While I may not have agreed with Bush, he was my President. I do not agree with Obama but he still is my President.

A senator from Mass. is not my senator.

You would have been a very welcome addition to the Dixie Chicks defenders when they said Bush did not speak for them.