daThomas

You really seem to like your new word.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

clemgrad85

That line makes absolutely no sense, LOL. In other words, you can't explain why you made the comment about me and creationism. Good grief.

So....your point? It's okay to have your point of view but not other's point of view? That's quite typical of liberals. Heavy sigh....same ole BS.


Again....as said above....your view is fine, but God forbid (oops, sorry, didn't mean to bring God into this) a religious view be heard. Just because a religious view is expressed does not mean it is being forced upon you. Wow, are you afraid that you will be changed if another view is expressed? Good grief. LOL

__________________
PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Micael

Please reread your statement. It may not have been your intent.
I don't recall that charge, but if you say so...
You're so sneaky: "from some perspectives?". I guess I'd have to agree since you wrote it that way. "Some perspectives" think aliens are stealing their luggage too.
Well, we could either do that, or maybe go hang out at the mall? I think there's a bit more to it than that, don't you?

The day that someone can sit behind a protected wall and take pot shots at us at will and with impunity is the day we might as well close up shop.
I'm still with you on the your main point... I just hate the word Imperialism when applied to US foreign policy. I think it's based on "some perspectives" that are (IMHO) uninformed.
Well I get the subversion bit, but for imperialistic goals? Can I have an example? Iraq is NOT an example, if that's where you were going.
"wielding"? "as weapons to get our will"? LOL! You really have a way with words! Who would ever want to trade in those conditions?! Damn those evil capitalists leveraging goods and services for profit!

Anyone can choose not to trade with us, and go somewhere else. If they can't leave or say no, it's not trade... it's probably military force.

And like we're the only ones negotiating to get what we want. I don't agree with that statement at all. Our trade is nowhere near as coercive and subordinating as military force. It's not even in the same universe. If anything, we need higher tariffs on the stuff coming in from places like China. Can you say bye-bye manufacturing jobs?

This is how trade is done. I see them as "incentives"... but charity is on that list? That wouldn't be charity, but simply trade for goods or services. Charity is given freely and usually for humanitarian reasons. This country provides more charity to other countries than any other. Go ahead and fact check it.

Man, you sure are argumentative with someone who usually agrees with you.

__________________
The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

daThomas

You posted:
You did a classic by interpreting my original statement with your own translation and hyperbole then characterizing it as an extreme view.
Whether or not you intended that is irrelevant. I am forced to point it out.


Your LOLs do not hide the fact that you're avoiding the linked to subject as example of christianity imposing itself on others, and the many points made regarding my differentiation between expression and institutional religion.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Toby

I already reread it. Not even keeping in mind that I wrote it.
It wasn't my intent or implication. It is only an implication if you are thinking in a purely binary mode.
The context was my saying that we should bring all the troops home and put that money towards infrastructure projects back home allowing for improving internal infrastructure as well as providing insurance for those working on the projects. You advanced that this was an isolationist perspective implying that having our military abroad was the only way that we could deal with other countries.
You're being insulting.
You're now being _really_ insulting. This is not a conspiracy theory. Do you really think it's necessary that we continue to have military bases in countries where we have not been at war for decades? And to think that this is coming from the same person who started a thread about Democrat plans to 'destroy healthcare'.
I never said there wasn't more to it that that. Do you really think that we're _not_ bordering on imperialism with some of these things?
Who said anyone was promoting that?
And why are you projecting that view onto me?
So, what am I uninformed about?
Who said anything about goals? The point of something being 'effective' is that it was not necessarily the goal, but winds up having a similar 'effect'.
What example is going to be acceptable to you? You obviously don't consider it possible for the effect of US policies to wind up at imperialism.
What capitalists? I'm talking about the US government taking money from the citizens of the US and using it to buy influence and control of other countries making them almost tantamount to colonies. I've no problem with corporations or charities doing their own thing.
I'm not talking about trade from a corporate perspective, and you know that. The US government is not a corporation.
Isn't that the purpose of a good colony? To provide us with cheaper resources in exchange for other means of support?
The US government is not in the business of providing charity, or at least it's not supposed to be from a libertarian perspective. Isn't that the job of ...well... charities?
Nobody's perfect. I'm being intellectually honest. If one believes that the government is only allowed certain limited powers, then one must try to be consistent within the bounds of those beliefs, not just when they're convenient and non-confrontational.

__________________
“I'm not saying that race never matters ... in any of these public debates that we have. What I'm saying is this debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate” - President Barack Obama
"Talk, talk, it's only talk. Debates, discussions. These are words with a D this time.
Dialog, duologue, diatribe, Dissention, declamation, Double talk, double talk" - Adrian Belew

davidra

Glad to see you people are spending so much time talking about health care and the people who are hurt by not having it.

Yeah, Christians are above all that. Except for the Reformation. And those Christians that kill abortion doctors. I have to admit, Christians are not any more hypocritical than other religions, including Islam. They provide a manufactured list of mores and ethics which some of you claim democrats and progressives lack. I'd like to think that we don't need some absurd creation to behave or to care about others, that it is innate if nurtured. Radicals don't, regardless of their religion, and that includes Christians just as much as any other religion; there's nothing special about Christianity. It's just as flawed and hypocritical as Judaism or Islam. You don't need religion or mystical thinking to care about people and to want people to be healthy and happy. You just have to be not so damned selfish and greedy. Try ethical humanism. Hasn't killed anyone yet. If you ever get back to talking about the realities of health care and what lack of it means to real people, maybe this thread will become useful again and not a showpiece for blabbering semantics. Nah. I take that back. It's never really been useful. Not one person's opinion or perspective has been changed in spite of all the bandwidth and angst that has been wasted. Just don't see the point, really.

mclldavidson

You can't turn on the tv without a radical Muslim killing in the name of Allah, the number of abortions doctors killed can't even compare

groovy

Yet you're still here. And rather than take the opportunity to get it back on topic you choose to take cheap pop shots. So, please, get off your high horse.

clemgrad85

The dude lives on a high horse....LOL....after all....he's a "doctor", LOL.

__________________
PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

daThomas

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

We'll know soon enough Bill. Watch it Live!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

groovy

Thanks for posting that daThomas. I would encourage everyone to read it. Especially section 59B on page 297.

groovy

House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican: PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

daThomas

Costs cannot be reduced if everyone is not required to carry coverage.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

groovy

I'm sure it will be quite a consolation for people who are suddenly strapped with a brand new monthly bill that costs are actually reducing. I guess it all depends on your perspective.

daThomas

You can bet if your job or the insurance pool is too expensive for you, the gov't option will be affordable.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

groovy

A lot of people can't afford one more "affordable" bill. I wonder what the long term effects will be on entrepreneurship in this country. Since people will have to get insurance will they be less likely to venture off on their own to follow their dreams and more likely to get a cubicle job that comes with benefits? Only time will tell, as it increasingly appears that Americans prefer security over freedom.

daThomas

Actually, this will take the burden of insurance OFF of employers thus making it easier for business to start.

If you're not watching C-Span right now you're missing not only history but also quite a show!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

groovy

A) How do you figure? B) The person starting the business still needs coverage. It seems to me, a young guy who never gets sick and devotes every last cent to building his new business will not fair very well under this plan.

daThomas

218 YES!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

groovy

Those last few weasels cut deals so they could vote no and save face with their constituency.

I'm glad you're happy but I think this is a very bad day for the country.