There's no radical left in America.

Yes, theres a few politicians around that I like. None are perfect. Nobody is. Do you agree with everything that any certain politician does? Its a world of give and take. I like George Bush as a person. I think he is doing what he believes is best, and I agree with at least some of his policies and proposals. I like his court nominees. As far as the next election, I will take a look at the filtering process through the primarys and vote for the best candidate in the general election. I doubt if my first choices come through, and I'm not even sure who my first choices are for president. Brownback and Allen look decent, but I have no clue whether they have a chance. There may be others. I don't see anybody in the Democratic Party that I would dream of voting for. They are way out in left field in my opinion. Looking back in fairly recent history, Eisenhower was a pretty good guy, with the same type of philosophy that I have. Eisenhower was very well liked and I think won fairly easily. If a similar candidate came along now, I don't think he would win. I hope I'm wrong.

Bottom line, I favor anybody that has confidence in free enterprise over government, that favors individual rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES, and that doesn't want to expand the power of the federal government, and that believes in the traditional family and private property rights as basic cornerstones of a free society.

0 Replies

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/27/135642.shtml

So theres no radical left around today, huh? Since Horowitz's own parents were communists, seems like he should know one when he sees one, and apparently he sees plenty in the Democratic Party. Hmmmmm.....

Heres a quote that caught my eye:
In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Horowitz spoke about his new book and the Marxist domination of today's Democratic party.

In his book, Horowitz writes about his views on life and death, and explains his belief in the destructive nature of Utopia-driven ideologies, noting: "The desire for more than is possible is the cause of greater human misery than any other."

"The desire for more than is possible" is a very apt description of the liberal mindset. Here we sit in a society that lives with more luxury than ever in the history of mankind, yet leftists do nothing but complain about how horrible things are. Apparently they believe there is such a thing as utopia on earth. Since they often don't believe in the hereafter, then the earth apparently becomes the place that must offer them hope for it. Such explains lots of things about why the left behaves in the ways that it does these days, one of which is the extreme environmentalism, which is a religion to many extreme leftists today.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

"The desire for more than is possible" is a very apt description of the liberal mindset. Here we sit in a society that lives with more luxury than ever in the history of mankind, yet leftists do nothing but complain about how horrible things are. Apparently they believe there is such a thing as utopia on earth.

okie, this is such a sweeping generalization that it can easily be applied to whatever group of people you want to apply it to. I'll use you sentence, of you don't mind, to describe the other end of the spectrum.

Let's go: "The neo-cons were nothing but complaining how dangerous Iraq was, how the UN sanctions were not working and how something should be done. They wanted to invade Iraq, thinking it would be an easy task democratize the country and then just wait for the dominos falling in order to see a democratization of the whole Middle East. "The desire for more than is possible" is a very apt description of the neo-con mindset. Here we sit in a society that lives with more luxury than ever in the history of mankind, yet rightwingers do nothing but complain about how horrible things are. Apparently they believe there is such a thing as utopia on earth."

okie, I'm afraid you have to be a wee bit more specific when talking about a group of people. Or back your claims up with evidence. I generally appreciate reading your posts, but "common sense" usually seems to be your only source. Problem is, "common sense" is something entirely different for everybody here, depending on where you are coming from.

Cheers.

0 Replies

You may be right. It depends on the Iraqis themselves as to what kind of world they wish to live in. If they wish to return to the backward, dictatorial type of society there, nobody can help them. Same in Iran. Are there enough people there that want to change it bad enough? We will just have to see how events play out. I hope the war succeeds, and I think the world is rid of a bad dictator, but I see no guarantee that things will end up better or worse off. I think the chances for success would be much higher if Europe would unite behind the effort, which would be for the good of themselves and mankind.

This terrorist problem is much more serious than some realize, and the only way to really solve it is to try to bring about positive change in the governments and cultures currently ruling the Middle East. I give Bush credit for that understanding of the problem and a vision for doing something positive at the same time of removing a major threat in the region. Just because a culture has been a certain way for hundreds or thousands of years does not necessarily mean it has to always be that way. Once in a while in history, somebody with vision dares to challenge the acceptance of failure, and they are the ones that sometimes succeed in accomplishing great things, so yes, I would like to see Bush's policy succeed and some of the people in the Middle East start realizing there is a better way to live. I don't understand why all freedom loving people would not see it the same way.

0 Replies

And just how did we all know, okie, that your reading diet included Newsmax and Horowitz?

It wasn't just his parents, Horowitz himself was a Marxist back when there actually were Marxists, in serious numbers and within serious organizations, kicking about on the American and European left. Nothing like that exists now, particularly here.

But Horowitz's Marxist past is quite evident in his rhetoric, his propaganda techniques, and in his organizational stragegies. The Marxist extremism remains, as does the rather paranoid "I'm a victim of the oppressor" mentality (particularly the ubiquitous rejection of his writing by the university communities for their lack of anything like proper scholarship). His books, like his columns, are stuffed to the gunnels with the a truly pathetic mix of self-inflating grandiosity along with that "I've been horribly set upon" victimhood. I've provided many quotes from his work on various threads here that show him to be the extremist mediocrity that he is.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Because ignorant people are a bane on civilization.

'Nuff said.

0 Replies

"Paris Hilton" Spoof TV Ad Wins Boston Globe Award
A UFE-sponsored ad featuring a fictional heiress named "London" won an award from the Globe.

View ad video at,

http://www.faireconomy.org/

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Than define the radical Left. A fair and livable wage for a hard days work. A safe work environment. Financial security for a lifetime of labor. Clean cities and a clean environment. Access to good health care. Personal freedoms and dignity.

Those issues are not the radical left because they are things that most Americans want. They are centrist issues, so what is left?

Forgive me if this has already been responded to.

Fair and livable wage?
OK,that sounds good.
Now,what is that wage?
The minimum wage is for those starting out in the workforce.
What should the minimum wage be? Should we raise it to $20/hr?
How about $30,or $50/hr?
Would that be fair?

Also,I make $14/hr where I work,and it pays my bills,keeps food in the house,a roof over my head,and money in my pocket.
Would that be a "fair and livable" wage in the NE part of the country?
If its not,does that mean I should get a raise,or the people of the NE get a pay cut?
Who decides what "fair and livable" is?

"A safe work environment"
You have the right and responsibility to report to OSHA if you think your work area isnt safe.
If you bypass or ignore safety devices,whose fault is that?

"Financial security for a lifetime of labor."
Are you saying its the govt's responsibility to make sure you save your money and plan for retirement?

"Access to good health care."
There is medical care available for anyone that needs it.
ER's are not allowed to turn anyone away that needs medical care.
If you need it,whats wrong with paying for it yourself?
Are you saying that I (a taxpayer) should pay for your medical care,just because you cant or wont?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Because ignorant people are a bane on civilization.

'Nuff said.

Yea, I saw that too!

Anon

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
"The desire for more than is possible" is a very apt description of the liberal mindset. Here we sit in a society that lives with more luxury than ever in the history of mankind, yet leftists do nothing but complain about how horrible things are. Apparently they believe there is such a thing as utopia on earth.

okie, this is such a sweeping generalization that it can easily be applied to whatever group of people you want to apply it to. I'll use you sentence, of you don't mind, to describe the other end of the spectrum.

Let's go: "The neo-cons were nothing but complaining how dangerous Iraq was, how the UN sanctions were not working and how something should be done. They wanted to invade Iraq, thinking it would be an easy task democratize the country and then just wait for the dominos falling in order to see a democratization of the whole Middle East. "The desire for more than is possible" is a very apt description of the neo-con mindset. Here we sit in a society that lives with more luxury than ever in the history of mankind, yet rightwingers do nothing but complain about how horrible things are. Apparently they believe there is such a thing as utopia on earth."

okie, I'm afraid you have to be a wee bit more specific when talking about a group of people. Or back your claims up with evidence. I generally appreciate reading your posts, but "common sense" usually seems to be your only source. Problem is, "common sense" is something entirely different for everybody here, depending on where you are coming from.

Cheers.

No, I think the left wingers are the malcontents and have been for a long time. Simply go back to the 60's pot smoker days. Conservatives are more happy with traditional values, individual responsibility, individual rights, and minding their own business. The leftists are always discontented about something, banding together in some group to right some wrong. At least thats true here in this country, the U.S. Leftists must think utopia is possible. After all, what am I to conclude from all their whining and desire to have the government fix some problem for them?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Don't ever, ever, ever pay an unitemized hospital bill. Ever. Tell 'em to f*ck off if they don't want to give ya an unitemized bill; they must, by law, before you are required to pay.

Cycloptichorn

You've got that right. I had an ER visit a few month ago with severe muscle spasms in my back and leg. It took two months to get my itemized bill which was as follows:

Pharmacy $91.00 (muscle relaxer, pain reliever, & a shot to prevent the nausea that the other two might cause)

Lab Chemistry 98.00
Lab Hematology 44.00
Lab Urology 42.00
Radiology/Diagnostic 298.00
Emergency Room 510.00 (I assume that was for occupying space in the ER for 3- 4 hours)

and finally the whopper......

IV therapy 1194.00 - - The only problem is that I did not have any IV therapy. I had three shots, had to sit there 30 minutes after the shots to see that I would not have a reaction.

At no time did I see anything that looked like IV anything. My son and daughter were with me & can confirm that no IV ever entered that room, but they are still billing me for that 1194.00

The best I can figure from their argument is that this is the charge for giving the shots and that argument came after they discovered that my limited insurance would not pay for it.

Wouldn't you think that $91.00 for three shots would cover administering them? OR that Emergency Room charge of 510.00?

As expected I got a separate bill from the Radiologist even tho' it appears that the diagnostic was included in the $298.00.

Hospitals are almost as big a rip off as the pharmaceutical business.

0 Replies

"Grotesque social programs" is definitely out there -- in outer space, that is. The Frankenstein monster of the Bush budget is the only thing which is presently taking the honors for most grotesque.

Iraq: a hole in the desert surrounded by more desert in which America pours money into -- never to be seen again.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't ever, ever, ever pay an unitemized hospital bill. Ever. Tell 'em to f*ck off if they don't want to give ya an unitemized bill; they must, by law, before you are required to pay.

Cycloptichorn

You've got that right. I had an ER visit a few month ago with severe muscle spasms in my back and leg. It took two months to get my itemized bill which was as follows:

Pharmacy $91.00 (muscle relaxer, pain reliever, & a shot to prevent the nausea that the other two might cause)

Lab Chemistry 98.00
Lab Hematology 44.00
Lab Urology 42.00
Radiology/Diagnostic 298.00
Emergency Room 510.00 (I assume that was for occupying space in the ER for 3- 4 hours)

and finally the whopper......

IV therapy 1194.00 - - The only problem is that I did not have any IV therapy. I had three shots, had to sit there 30 minutes after the shots to see that I would not have a reaction.

At no time did I see anything that looked like IV anything. My son and daughter were with me & can confirm that no IV ever entered that room, but they are still billing me for that 1194.00

The best I can figure from their argument is that this is the charge for giving the shots and that argument came after they discovered that my limited insurance would not pay for it.

Wouldn't you think that $91.00 for three shots would cover administering them? OR that Emergency Room charge of 510.00?

As expected I got a separate bill from the Radiologist even tho' it appears that the diagnostic was included in the $298.00.

Hospitals are almost as big a rip off as the pharmaceutical business.

Magginkat, your choice of the quote by Cycloptichorn is interesting to illustrate your point. If my memory serves me correctly, I was the one to suggest that you should never pay a bill without them telling you what its for, and that many charges were usually tacked on that were never done. When I made that statement, I was jumped on big time and made fun of, and Cycloptichorn was I think being sarcastic of me in the quote you used. The ridicule did not bother me at the time because I knew I was obviously correct and anybody that had any common sense would know it. Of course, you have stumbled into the same obvious conclusion on your own because of your own experience. If everyone that receives medical services reviewed the bills instead of insurance companies or government paying the bills, fraud and inefficiency would be reduced significantly. All of this illustrates the fact that fraud and inefficiency will only grow exponentially if the entire health care industry is federalized.

0 Replies

A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

Not too hot in my opinion. 70% of medical costs? Please run that by us again just to clarify that you actually said that. And who told you this?

0 Replies

A huge proportion of medical costs are in the administrative sector and not just in paying the medical entities. HMO's have exasperated the problem instead of curing it so it seems once again that a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure. Whether the federal government through state and county agencies could clean up the problem is doubtful to me. Republicans and conservatives, contrary to what they say, are just as bad about complicating the bureaucracy as the Democrats. They are the same bird -- politicians and nearly all Chicken Littles. I happen to belong to one of the better HMO's as far as ratings go and have had but minor problems with it. I've had probably just as many problems in the past seeing a doctor on a PPO and having the office administrators screw things up. A lot of the health care problem is right in the offices of the doctors.

0 Replies

A good HMO? That seems like a contradiction in terms!

Anon

0 Replies

I know, it seems like an oxymoron but as far as HMO's go and I have really no choice since EPO's and PPO's are too expensive, I have not been unsatisfied with my HMO. Well, especially after all the tests that were ordered for me (quite extensive), there was nothing particularly wrong with me healthwise. Okay, a little problem with allergies (Nettle works great as well as Gufaisen) and running to the bathroom if I have to fart (unlike some of my co-workers who seem to believe it's a great joke to announce they've just done it less than a yard from someone).

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

Not too hot in my opinion. 70% of medical costs? Please run that by us again just to clarify that you actually said that. And who told you this?

Us???????????????????????

OK 70% might be a high estimate, ho much do YOU think it is?

0 Replies

If I am understanding your premise here, the theory is that if the federal government pays all the bills, as a single payer, they will be able to make it more efficient and control costs. Of course, those advocating federalizing anything always have arguments that may even sound good on paper. We must remember that this never works as outlined on paper. It has been proven over and over again that people themselves, the people that actually purchase or receive the services themselves, are by far the best and most efficient arbitors of efficiency. It is unfortunate that people do not seem to learn this undeniable truth, and are therefore destined to make the same mistake over and over again.

If there was a single payer for housing, that is if all of our houses were purchased by the government, would the cost be reduced for housing. My answer would be no, it would very likely increase the cost of housing. Same principle for medical costs. I do not think costs will be reduced in the long run at all. Under the government, costs will increase and quality of care may well decrease. I think we've already seen a reduction in quality of care because of government meddling into health care.

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know