1
   

Is Zell Miller Suffering from a Mental Disorder?

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:17 pm
Brand X wrote:
The John/John campaign and its agents in the partisan media have done their best to try to portray Miller as a mean old white man, but most of the public is having none of it.


zell convinced me of that all by himself. if i want to see a spittle projecting nimrod jump up and down forming his hands into claws dispensing pure hatred, i'll watch an old hitler speech.

pretty sure ol' zell's studied more than a few of those Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:17 pm
squinny

It becomes, for many people who follow issues only slightly or not at all, very tough to wend their way through all they see and hear because so much of it is deceitful. And because the level of partisanship and divisiveness has been cultivated in the way it has been.

The issues are huge and incredibly tough to get one's head around, even where one works hard to study them. That those issues are ignored, and further divisive red herrings put in their place to divert attention and to make it sound as if the problems are simple all does not help.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:28 pm
Perhaps you are right, blatham. I just have a hard time thinking that voters that have had four years of "believe what I say, not what you see" would continue to have any trust whatsoever in the current administration. "Clear Skies Initiative" alone should make everyone go, "HUH?"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:32 pm
Yes, more than anything else, this denial and gullibility frightens me.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:32 pm
Thanks, Squinney. The Rapture has bearing on our political process and how we view the world? Are we living in a country gone mad?

We waste our money by having a huge fighting force so that we can be as greedy as we want... then we don't have money in our own country for the average citizen to have affordable medical care. Don't any Republican partisans see that as craziness?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 02:44 pm
Piffka wrote:
...As for the disenfranchised -- you think one thing, I think another. I believe that the Muslim terrorism springs from young men not having enough to do. We utilize their oil and are known throughout the world for being wastrels with it. Our country and especially our wealthy fascist leaders don't give a damn about the rest of the world. It is a pig-headed me-me-me mentality of stealing and hoarding wealth. The Republicans have forced us into questionable religious-based views on sexuality, birth-control, and natural resource managment that are at odds with the rest of the world.


There are idle young men all over the world. The facts that those who confront us come only from some Moslem countries, and that many of them arose from relatively priviledged backgrounds there, strongly suggest there are other causes.

I believe it is, at best, a great distortion to label the Bush administration as fascists. Though it is clear they are willing to pursue a Foreign policy that SOME European countries don't like, it is hardly accurate to say, "... they don't give a damn about the rest of the world".

Though the U.S. does indeed consume more energy per capita than most countries ( Canadians consume a good deal more), we also deliver much higher economic productivity than any other country. We produce a higher fraction of the world's stuff than the fraction of energy we consume.

Public views on "sexuality, birth control, and natural resource management" have changed greatly over the past decades. While it is true that the Republicans are resisting and attempting to slow some of these changes, it is neither fair nor accurate to say they are forcing us into anytyhing new. On the contrary, they are trying to conserve long-established views.

Not all of those who advocate, litigate and demonstrate in the name of better conservation of natural resources do so with right understanding of the tradeoffs and consequences of what they advocate. The public debates about nuclear power and correct management of our forests provide ample demonstrations of this.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 02:50 pm
Piffka--

Re- your question about why Republicans don't see the craziness in the healthcare v military issue.

Its a good question--and for some reason, I don't think liberals either understand or believe the GOP's deep concern about alleviating health care woes, and our belief that a strong military is a basic public good that we must keep strong.

I'll try again. I hope you find some value in it.

A strong military is what stands between the US and occupation or loss of order. We feel this way because of WW1 and WW2. While you don't have to agree, please give us the benefit of the doubt that we were weak at the onset of WW1, and consider it priority #1 not to be caught with our pants down again.

Security and safety are prioritized over all else.

With healthcare--I am right there with you in that we need affordable healthcare. The Dems and GOP just differ on how this should be acheived.

The Dems want to provide it in a way that weakens the US economically. This method has FAR reaching consequences. The GOP, rather than just handing it out from the govt, wants to CREATE an environment, where healthcare is affordable. We need to force pharms and Drs to lower prices. Then, insurance prices come down in line. Malpractice suits are almost the single reason Drs charge such exhorbitant prices. So, we need to cap malpractice lawsuits. This combination of changes will make healthcare affordable.

Greedy people (lawyers and citizens) have caused the unaffordability of healthcare. Rather than the incredible costs on the govt in handing healthcare out--and enabling the greedy to screw our govt and in effect, our taxpayers--we want to cut the excesses which have perpetrated this debacle on our country.

Whether or not you agree with this--I hope you can at least understand where we are coming from.

It is not greedy to protect your country.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:01 pm
Sofia wrote:

A strong military is what stands between the US and occupation or loss of order. We feel this way because of WW1 and WW2.


hey sofia. how are ya?

could i just point out that this is not wwI or II. or even korea. somewhat like vietnam because of the guerilla tactics, but more so because the opposition is entirely a non-military (as in uniforms, marked gear,etc.) and fades in and out of the citizenry.

even bush has said, "this is a different kind of war". but to my consternation, he turned around and is trying to prosecute it as a conventional war. and we see the results are less than a smashing success.

this is gonna take a damn long time to clean up and i expect that the insuing "democracy" will have a lot more to do with sharia than jefferson.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:09 pm
Sofia wrote:
The Dems want to provide it in a way that weakens the US economically. This method has FAR reaching consequences. The GOP, rather than just handing it out from the govt, wants to CREATE an environment, where healthcare is affordable. We need to force pharms and Drs to lower prices. Then, insurance prices come down in line. Malpractice suits are almost the single reason Drs charge such exhorbitant prices. So, we need to cap malpractice lawsuits. This combination of changes will make healthcare affordable.

Greedy people (lawyers and citizens) have caused the unaffordability of healthcare. Rather than the incredible costs on the govt in handing healthcare out--and enabling the greedy to screw our govt and in effect, our taxpayers--we want to cut the excesses which have perpetrated this debacle on our country.


Sophia, I know this post wasn't to me but I wanted to talk about this point. I want to ask why it isn't just as easy to force insurance companies to lower their premiums than to force doctors to lower theirs. Insurance companies already cut doctors' fees in half or more. For this reason they often have to see more patients (less time for each) and charge those without insurance higher fees. Insurance companies are just middlemen, we should start with them. I'm not sure I know a solution to our healthcare problem, but I don't think this administration does either. And I don't trust them when they say they do.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:12 pm
Don't Tread--

Hi. Glad to meet your acquaintance.

Surely, this is not WW1. I refer to a "strong military", not to Iraq or the war on terrorism. I thought Piffka was referring to the money we spend on the military juxtaposed with our nation's healthcare crisis--so the point of my comment didn't address Bush's current use of our military, but the % of the GNP we spend on the military in general--and why we don't spend similar amounts on our nation's healthcare.

The only reason I brought up the spectre of WW1, is because we were not strong militarily then--and from that lesson, we (the GOP) vows never to be weak militarily again. The basic "know history, so we don't repeat it" adage.

However, the "use" of that military is open to debate.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:26 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I want to ask why it isn't just as easy to force insurance companies to lower their premiums than to force doctors to lower theirs. Insurance companies already cut doctors' fees in half or more. For this reason they often have to see more patients (less time for each) and charge those without insurance higher fees. Insurance companies are just middlemen, we should start with them. I'm not sure I know a solution to our healthcare problem, but I don't think this administration does either. And I don't trust them when they say they do.


I think you have already indicated the problem. It really isn't easy to force doctors to lower their fees. Insurance companies put ceilings on what they will pay for certain services and the doctors retaliate by multiplying the codes for services provided in each visit or transaction. They also cut the time they provide each patient, in effect reducing the value of the service they provide at the reduced rate. As you indicated Doctors and Hospitals also charge extremely high rates to the uninsured who don't have the luxury of a large insurance company negotiating the rate for them. (Ironic, but those without insurance are in effect forced to subsidize insurance companies and those covered by them.).

It wouldn't be any easier to force insurance companies to lower their rates. If they can't be profitable they will go out of business. If we authorize the government to regulate them we will get all the customer service and efficiency for which governments are so well known.

The laws of supply and demand still exist - even for health care.

For all its apparent defects, the U.S. health care system doesn't do all that badly. We are still the world's chief source for innovation and development of new drugs and new treatment modalities. Nations that operate public health systems, such as Canada face rationing of services, limitations on the freedom of both consumers and providers, and long delays for many treatments - a different set of problems, but problems nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:40 pm
George explained better than I could.

You have to travel down to the source of the problem. As you said, the insurance companies are not the source--they are in the middle.

Fix the source, and the solution will.....(dare I?)...trickle upwards.

We see what nationalized healthcare looks like. It hurts the nation--and ultimately, the people's healthcare.

If it weren't for the trial lawyer, pharm, physician, insurance lobbies--and their hirelings, this problem could have been solved.

I'm not throwing this in one gob at any single political party. Plenty of blame to go around--but this is Bush's and the GOP's plan for healthcare--and I agree completely with it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:40 pm
seque to Zell:
(Lester) Maddox on America:
Quote:
That's part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity…


Zell Miller on Lester Maddox, 2003:
Quote:
He sought public office three times before finally winning an election, but his first victory was for an office he cherished. It took the state constitution, the United States Supreme Court and the Georgia General Assembly to do it, but Lester Maddox finally made it. Georgia is a better state for it…

Perhaps he has just become overwhelmed by his (Jim Crow)roots.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:43 pm
Where was all this anti-Zell when he was delivering Clinton's keynote...?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:56 pm
Sofia wrote:
the money we spend on the military juxtaposed with our nation's healthcare crisis--so the point of my comment didn't address Bush's current use of our military, but the % of the GNP we spend on the military in general--and why we don't spend similar amounts on our nation's healthcare. The only reason I brought up the spectre of WW1, is because we were not strong militarily then--and from that lesson, we (the GOP) vows never to be weak militarily again. The basic "know history, so we don't repeat it" adage.

However, the "use" of that military is open to debate.


ok, i get ya.

i have no problem with a strong military. where i really have a problem with bush ( at least on fiscal) is that he wants to spend and spend and spend and doesn't want to address the issue of where the money comes from.

at least kerry recognizes that somebody has to pay for all of this.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:01 pm
Sofia wrote:
Where was all this anti-Zell when he was delivering Clinton's keynote...?

damn good question
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:06 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

There are idle young men all over the world. The facts that those who confront us come only from some Moslem countries, and that many of them arose from relatively priviledged backgrounds there, strongly suggest there are other causes.


I don't agree with you -- I think there are many more idle young men in the countries that are restless and I seriously question your belief that "many terrorists" arose from privilege. What do you think are the causes of their hatred of us? How do you believe it should be halted? By killing and maiming them and their families and by destroying their countries? What kind of world is that? If you want peace, work for justice.

Quote:
You said... I believe it is, at best, a great distortion to label the Bush administration as fascists.


<shrug> from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Fascism = any system of government ... that exalts nation above the individual, uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism. The State not only is an authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad....A key feature of fascism is that it uses its mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class - parties of the left and trade unions.


That sounds like the Republicans, to me. You hate the left... you hate trade unions, you have made your will prevail abroad, your Patriot Acts have made individuals less important than the state, you use violence, propaganda and censorship to suppress opposition and the flag-waving of the Republicans can only be described as rampant nationalism. The common citizen now has to walk a very narrow path of social conformity... don't take photos of certain objects, be careful what you say in public, stand like sheep as you get on and off public transportation, allow any orifice to be checked by government agents. Do I need to go on? Despite what should have been a move to the middle by this administration, it has engaged in an active shift from right-wing to the excessive right-wing attitudes which I believe I can correctly describe as fascist.

Quote:
You say...Though it is clear they are willing to pursue a Foreign policy that SOME European countries don't like, it is hardly accurate to say, "... they don't give a damn about the rest of the world".


I scoff at this. "Some" countries? Which countries, which people are pleased with us? The mid-east? The Asians? The South Americans? The Fascists in government have engendered hatred for the everyday citizen everywhere. Please, at least be as honest as my Republican brother in law who says "I don't give a damn how the rest of the world views us."


Quote:
You say: Though the U.S. does indeed consume more energy per capita than most countries (Canadians consume a good deal more), we also deliver much higher economic productivity than any other country. We produce a higher fraction of the world's stuff than the fraction of energy we consume.


I don't think so... We use a higher fraction of the world's stuff... we no longer make that much and we do, indeed, use a much higher amount of energy than we have. We are a user economy. The economic tide flows toward the United States, not away.


Quote:
You say: While it is true that the Republicans are resisting and attempting to slow some of these changes, it is neither fair nor accurate to say they are forcing us into anytyhing new. On the contrary, they are trying to conserve long-established views.


Wrong. The Republicans are trying to drag us back to a different time. They are trying to change established laws on a woman's right to choose. They insist that people should respond to AIDS, for example, by abstaining from sex. The appointments that this president has made show how he scoffs at the legal rights of women.


Quote:
You say: Not all of those who advocate, litigate and demonstrate in the name of better conservation of natural resources do so with right understanding of the tradeoffs and consequences of what they advocate. The public debates about nuclear power and correct management of our forests provide ample demonstrations of this.


This administration does not use real science for its decisions. This government wields its power based on the fascist needs of their "base of support" - the wealthy who have exploited and continue to exploit public resources and public needs to the fullest extent of the law, a law now hampered by foot-dragging appointees. The Republicans don't give a damn about the rights or the desires of the common citizen. Tell me about how this administration uses real science in restricting stem-cell research. You can't because they don't. Tell me how this administration uses real science in cleaning up the environment. You can't because it doesn't.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:22 pm
Sofia wrote:
A strong military is what stands between the US and occupation or loss of order. We feel this way because of WW1 and WW2. While you don't have to agree, please give us the benefit of the doubt that we were weak at the onset of WW1, and consider it priority #1 not to be caught with our pants down again.

Security and safety are prioritized over all else.


A safe person is one who is not at odds with his neighbor. Security is best provided when you are not attacking. I don't believe that this Republican government was worried about safety or security when it mattered... at the time that they took over from the Clinton adminstration, so I scoff at this Johnny-come-lately attitude. Your pants were down in 2001, you don't have to go back to WWI to find that.

If we really wanted to be defended, then why would our first line of defense, our national guard, be deployed far, far away?


Quote:
You said: With healthcare--I am right there with you in that we need affordable healthcare. The Dems and GOP just differ on how this should be acheived. The Dems want to provide it in a way that weakens the US economically.


What do you mean? How could we be much weaker economically than we are right now? We are on the skids, we've been on the skids and the people are hurting. This government has no idea what people need or want, nor do they care as long as their wealthy base and ideologically rigid religious right stays the course.


Quote:
This method has FAR reaching consequences. The GOP, rather than just handing it out from the govt, wants to CREATE an environment, where healthcare is affordable. We need to force pharms and Drs to lower prices. Then, insurance prices come down in line. Malpractice suits are almost the single reason Drs charge such exhorbitant prices. So, we need to cap malpractice lawsuits. This combination of changes will make healthcare affordable.


I say this is nonsense -- if a doctor is malpracticing, then he/she needs to be stopped. What we need is to provide health care for everyone, not just for those whose wealth or governmental job gives them the right to healthcare. If other countries can do this, why not America?

Quote:
You say: Greedy people (lawyers and citizens) have caused the unaffordability of healthcare. Rather than the incredible costs on the govt in handing healthcare out--and enabling the greedy to screw our govt and in effect, our taxpayers--we want to cut the excesses which have perpetrated this debacle on our country.

Whether or not you agree with this--I hope you can at least understand where we are coming from.


I don't agree with you. Getting rid of malpractice law is ridiculous. How is that going to improve health care? It is the watchdog that ensures proper care is maintained. Health costs are high because it takes many more trained individuals than it used to do to provide full service. The research needed to identify new cures and treat new illnesses costs money. If this administration valued individuals, then they would be working for universal healthcare.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:58 pm
Piffka wrote:
Sofia wrote:
A strong military is what stands between the US and occupation or loss of order. We feel this way because of WW1 and WW2. While you don't have to agree, please give us the benefit of the doubt that we were weak at the onset of WW1, and consider it priority #1 not to be caught with our pants down again.

Security and safety are prioritized over all else.


A safe person is one who is not at odds with his neighbor. Security is best provided when you are not attacking.
So, the logic of your statement here would be that no country has ever been attacked, who isn't already attacking some other country. No nation has ever been unfairly attacked? This is quite naive.

I don't believe that this Republican government was worried about safety or security when it mattered... at the time that they took over from the Clinton adminstration, so I scoff at this Johnny-come-lately attitude. Your pants were down in 2001, you don't have to go back to WWI to find that.
Who's pants were down? If Clinton could have kept his up, he may have dealt with Bin Laden--but this needn't be a partisan exercise in stupidity. Its not about Bush, Democrats, Clinton or Republicans. We could discuss it without all the partisan trappings--how about just national defense and healthcare--without all the fireworks?

If we really wanted to be defended, then why would our first line of defense, our national guard, be deployed far, far away?

We wouldn't have them to deploy anywhere, without a strong national defense.
Quote:
You said: With healthcare--I am right there with you in that we need affordable healthcare. The Dems and GOP just differ on how this should be acheived. The Dems want to provide it in a way that weakens the US economically.


What do you mean? How could we be much weaker economically than we are right now?
Incredible. Did you see the Russians trying to take care of that hostage crisis? Do you know the training for those men that Russia can afford? Ask any other country in the world if we are economically depressed, or if we are the richest country in the world. This kind of statement chills my bones. You forget how fortunate we are--how our poorest people have 2 TVs and a DVD and a cell. Yes, in short, we could be MUCH worse off.

We are on the skids, we've been on the skids and the people are hurting. This government has no idea what people need or want, nor do they care as long as their wealthy base and ideologically rigid religious right stays the course.
No sensible person can think this country is on the skids. Africa is on the skids. You're poor-mouthing about the richest country on earth.
Quote:
This method has FAR reaching consequences. The GOP, rather than just handing it out from the govt, wants to CREATE an environment, where healthcare is affordable. We need to force pharms and Drs to lower prices. Then, insurance prices come down in line. Malpractice suits are almost the single reason Drs charge such exhorbitant prices. So, we need to cap malpractice lawsuits. This combination of changes will make healthcare affordable.


I say this is nonsense -- if a doctor is malpracticing, then he/she needs to be stopped. What we need is to provide health care for everyone, not just for those whose wealth or governmental job gives them the right to healthcare. If other countries can do this, why not America?
A malpracticing doctor should and will be stopped. Awarding someone 50 million dollars is why we are in such a fix with healthcare. Sue him--but put a sane cap on it. The other countries that provide healthcare are in deep economic trouble. It is a drain on a country's resources that cannot be borne for long. There is a smarter, better way.
Quote:
You say: Greedy people (lawyers and citizens) have caused the unaffordability of healthcare. Rather than the incredible costs on the govt in handing healthcare out--and enabling the greedy to screw our govt and in effect, our taxpayers--we want to cut the excesses which have perpetrated this debacle on our country.

Whether or not you agree with this--I hope you can at least understand where we are coming from.


I don't agree with you. Getting rid of malpractice law is ridiculous. How is that going to improve health care? It is the watchdog that ensures proper care is maintained. Health costs are high because it takes many more trained individuals than it used to do to provide full service. The research needed to identify new cures and treat new illnesses costs money. If this administration valued individuals, then they would be working for universal healthcare.

I never advocated getting rid of malpractice law. I advocated putting some reasonable cap on how much lawyers and their clients can get. It DOES NOT take more trained people to provide adequate care. Research does cost money--but my lab work shouldn't cost $400., my doctor (for the same visit $50, in office and $$500 at the emergency room, and a few slides of my chest $1000. This is wrong. These are not legitimate costs--they've been inflated.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 05:43 pm
Piffka,

The intensity of your expressions of unsupportable opinions and conclusions convinces me that you are not amenable to persuasion to any degree at all. Further, the many errors of fact and illogical conclusions that so liberally populate your screeds persuade me that the attempt would be neither interesting nor enlightening.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/30/2025 at 06:23:36