tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post7709966611911313688..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: Political Update for August, 2009Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-1251407966412384132009-12-03T15:29:06.344-08:002009-12-03T15:29:06.344-08:00Hi !.
You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to...Hi !.<br />You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income . <br />There is no initial capital needed You may commense to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars. <br /><br />AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich<br />AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas. <br /><br />It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.<br />Do you want to become really rich in short time? <br />That`s your chance That`s what you really need!<br /><br />I feel good, I began to get income with the help of this company, <br />and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a proper partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s it!.<br />I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only! <br />It`s easy to join , just click this link http://elycixazo.s-enterprize.com/pejaly.html<br /> and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real moneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-35763571100661540412009-08-21T17:10:05.635-07:002009-08-21T17:10:05.635-07:00As I've said before (maybe in here - so many c...As I've said before (maybe in here - so many comments I can't remember) I have no problem with safety nets and they do not compete with private firms. However, the way we do them they are not financially stable as everyone acknowledges. Moreover, I've never heard people bragging that they are so lucky they have medicare instead of private insurance. The whole point of the public option is to have it much cheaper, and private companies cannot compete against a public company which can print money. As I also said, we do have a big insurance problem, but there are better ways to take care of it. All the countries that have public options are struggling with their systems too, but all countries are not the same. I don't see it co-existing with insurance in this country. When it becomes a monopoly, their will be death panels of a sort and then there will not be options. I always forget the name of the Canadian who operates as a broker for Canadians who can't get life saving treatment in Canada so they have to come here, but everyone should listen to what he has to say, at least. What we need is a system where people who don't have employee benefit policies can share in low prices and people can't be excluded because of prior illness (much like the system we have in all states so that even the worst drivers can get auto insurance). I disagree with conservatives who think we shouldn't even have safety nets but also with liberal thought that more government is always the solution. <br /><br />You haven't answered the question - which big government program is financially stable? We know not it's not the post office.<br /><br />I still like my suggestion from a few months ago. Charitable donations to pay premiums and other necessary care for people who can't should be made a tax credit. That way it stays private, is not anti-competitive, works because the profit motive drives it, and would include almost all people - you might barely need medicare and medicaid.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-19882798198053903712009-08-21T00:57:07.556-07:002009-08-21T00:57:07.556-07:00Actually David, I know quite a few people who are ...Actually David, I know quite a few people who are surviving only because of medicaid and medicare. (I was the wrong one to ask that question to.) That they cover or don't cover is not the whole issue. If you can't afford the insurance, it doesn't matter what they cover. So, in effect, we already have "death panels," not a la Palin, but a la insurance companies. You don't have money; you die. No, the gov't is not perfect - far from it - and I don't think that everyone will go running to a gov't option - but that's the point; it's an option - and that option, if it is cheaper, will hold down costs. Right now, it's also costing tons - through the hospital ER's, etc. We pay for it in our taxes, and then of course are the people who get worse, or who die (and then cost nothing). I am not advocating that we have only one system or insurance company - but that the 43 million people who have no insurance can get it somewhere. I already experienced all this - when I lived in Israel (but at least I had insurance). The number one reason there that people went to the medical clinic (instead of work) was to see their friends. But if I went an hour early, I discovered I could get what I needed and leave (sad tho about not seeing my friends).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786844901122929448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-69496141502291146802009-08-20T13:18:54.092-07:002009-08-20T13:18:54.092-07:00Aye yay yay (is that how you spell that?). Okay, o...Aye yay yay (is that how you spell that?). Okay, one more time but immensely shorter. <br /><br />Again, you are having a knee jerk reaction to arguing global warming which I never argued about in my blog or comment. I could care less what anyone's theory is about it. I am saying that some areas get hotter/colder over the year on average and some the opposite. Period. However, go to the website from NSIDC from which you sent me the picture supporting your belief that the ice is growing and you will see that THEY THEMSELVES say that it has been shrinking for thirty years and that although 2009 did not set a new record low, it is considerably worse than 1979-2000 data. I don't know how you are arguing this. Pick a new fight. You are having a severe anti-liberal partisan flu. I won't deny you are an independent minded conservative, but you are off your meds on this one. The ice is shrinking.<br /><br />We must be going in circles on this conservative thing because I'm not even sure what we are arguing about. If it makes you happier - I happen to like the things Schiff and Flake said that I quoted, but I might like them in general a lot less if they turn out to be too conservative OR liberal, although the chances of them being too liberal are pretty slim given that they are conservatives (wouldn't you say).<br /><br />Thank God next week's blog is historical in nature. My blood pressure is rising.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-18259824808937952282009-08-20T07:47:28.747-07:002009-08-20T07:47:28.747-07:00Once again you are wrong...but I repeat myself. i ...Once again you are wrong...but I repeat myself. i agree that in a complex system like the earth there is natural variability to weather/climate which would allow for a variety of weathe revents. But, the AGW theory is that manmade emissions are dramaticall and catastrophically warming the entire earth. If such is the case the entire world should be experiencing warming on a continuing, predictable level. As you admit, it is not. As to icecaps at the pole- go look at some satellite pics from NASA fercrissakes. You can see them superimposed over previous years----not shrinking but growing.<br />You missed my entire point about conservatism. Not that you praised 2 conservatives but that you seemed embarassed or apologetic about so doing. And that if you REALLY knew their general political positions you probably wouldn't vote for them . that is the issue I was raising. What is that about???<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-2543176674346805952009-08-20T04:43:02.640-07:002009-08-20T04:43:02.640-07:00Those companies wouldn't talk to you if you we...Those companies wouldn't talk to you if you were unhealthy because we have an insurance problem in this country. And we should try and fix it, but not by destroying the companies or doctors. <br /><br />You didn't say which big government programs you thought were feasible models? You probably can't (no one can - the value of the military is measured in other ways), but still think we should have the government take over? Why? So they can be a monopoly. You know what monopolies do. Or just be unfeasible the way of social security is? You know what monopolies do. As much fun as every one made about "death panels" that actually could be a reality through government bureaucracy, not evil. <br /><br />We have government care already. I don't mind government safety nets. They are terrific to have there if you need them. But, they are not self sustaining and we see what happens with them. Do you ever here anyone bragging about their medicare/medicaid?<br /><br />I dislike insurance companies (having worked for three) but I'd rather have private agreements (policies) than government care. We'd all like something for free or cheaper (and maybe for someone else to pay for it). As I said, if the government option is cheaper than my own insurance, of course I'd do it. Almost everyone else would too. But, it is better to legislate that insurance companies cover certain things and don't exclude for certain others than to make them compete with the government.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-75236221977195443442009-08-19T21:59:01.499-07:002009-08-19T21:59:01.499-07:00A quick comment on the public health insurance opt...A quick comment on the public health insurance option: If there is none, then the only winners here are the insurance companies, who must be salivating. I just changed plans to reduce my monthly charge, but they are insisting on billing me on the 28th of the month and I want to be billed on the 6th (and they are billing me twice in one month because of this). They keep giving me stupid reasons. I am now looking at a third plan which may be cheaper and better (and hopefully they will not bill me on the 28th). And I'm just lucky I'm healthy or no one would talk with me at all!<br />JanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786844901122929448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-69262075754125074062009-08-19T17:52:45.815-07:002009-08-19T17:52:45.815-07:00That was some comment. I wrote an answer and then ...That was some comment. I wrote an answer and then must have gone to another webpage before I saved it, so this is take two. I could just write a) I think you are wrong – overall the ice sheets are melting and b) you are complaining I am being unfair to conservatives in a post where I praise two conservatives and no liberals - huh? But, since you were so passionate, I will write practically another whole post to explain myself. I’ll try not to miss anything.<br /><br />I agree that there is a difference between ideology and partisanship, just as there is a difference between jurisprudence and partisanship, but almost always, partisans are ideological. And many people are partisan. So, the two often run together. <br /><br />Let me see if I can take your comment and show you what I mean by partisan reactions. I have two examples. The first is the ice issue: <br /><br />Your comment indicates you made a jump that I often find people who are conservative (and yourself identify as conservative for the most part) make if you say anything, ANYTHING other than – “there is no global warning and any fact, idea or thought to the contrary is complete idiocy.” <br /><br />I am agnostic about global warming. I have seen very little, if any, solid evidence that the globe is warming on the average. Certainly the last ten years there is no evidence of it, and the last 100 so little that it can’t be considered substantial. Yet, because I am not willing to decide what I think about the weather based on politics, I can listen to both sides and, if I don’t think there’s enough evidence, NOT come to a conclusion. I can also take individual facts on each side that seem convincing to me without feeling I have to disparage it because my pro or con global warming position requires it. I can believe there is no convincing evidence of global warming AND believe that the ice sheets are melting (I didn’t even say why – I don’t know). Satellite photos show that the sheets at there edges are melting far faster than the increasing thickness in the middle of the sheets.<br /><br />You will notice that I actually said in my post that I WASN’T discussing whether there is global warming, but just whether the ice sheets are melting. Ask yourself why you automatically reacted as if I was attacking a cherished conservative belief. <br /><br />Personally, I believe that no one who is not a professional in this field can even take much of stab at it. Simply keeping up with the debate is not enough. My reading laymen’s physics because it interests me, does not qualify me to have a serious opinion about string theory or dark matter. Experts don’t know much. Also, because the debate has been poisoned by partisanship, it is no longer easy to know what sources to even trust. Conservatives trust those who agree with them and liberals the same. I feel that you can probably trust very few sources and I sure don’t know which ones.<br /><br />By the way, your assertion that you can’t have warming in one part of the earth without it warming everywhere cannot be correct in a complex weather system like Earth. Think about it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-34133592683308641452009-08-19T10:56:25.155-07:002009-08-19T10:56:25.155-07:00I was waiting for a few comments before posting bu...I was waiting for a few comments before posting but it's been a few days and only a few comments so here goes. BTW Bear must be busy...his comment was really short.<br />Another BTW Hey Bear update your blog.<br /><br />I'm sorry to hear that the internet hasn't reached Buchanan yet...or you would know from empirical studies that the antarctic ice sheet (where 80% of the world's fresh water is stored) has been growing rapidly and is above the avg of the last 30 yrs. I'm wondering how that can be if the earth is warming. If one puts a chunk of ice in an oven it melts evrywhere. part doesn't melt and part doesn't expand. Also, as to another of the almost infinite areas in which I can educate you try checking into solar cycle 24 and the current lack of sunspots (approaching modern records) and that correlation with the Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum.<br /><br />That said, I agree that a true, rational debate about a specific bill can not be had without a bill being extant. Further, any representative, in the face of an extant bill who hasn't read it in its entirety is betraying his oath of office and should be thrown out of office. And, there was a raeson our teachers told us "no Cliff's notes" for literary works. Same applies to sweeping legislation.Thst, however, is a political consideration.<br /><br />But, I think you frequently blur the line (I'm not sure if it's intentional or inadvertent ) between "partisan" and "idealogical". I can promote (or dipsute) a policy on idealogical grounds without it being necessarily partisan. I am opposed to govt run health care no matter who promotes it on philosophical grounds. It doesn't matter what the particulars are: I'm against it. Partisan implies that you want your SIDE to win not our IDEA to win. If that's what you mean I would agree more with your observations. However, you can't call one who stands for or against an idea (if he stays consistent) partisan. I would call that principled.<br /><br />Another thing I notice. You seem reluctant to espouse support for politicians who you think are "consrvative" You go out of your way twice in this post to say that even if you agree with someone you don't want to find out that they are conservative and you might not vote for them if you did.<br />Why is that?? What is it about conservatism that you find so frightening??<br /><br />Many of the problems you address I agree with in priciple and could be eradicated by term limits and an overhaul of congressional rules. (Aint gonna happen).<br /><br />Going back to your lists of myths:<br />Some of these things on both sides are opinions of a qualitative nature- not empircal right or wrong facts. You are right that they are more held by "lefties'or "righties" depending on which but most (unlike ice extent and aids) can't be proven or disproven to a scientific certainty. You and I both believe OJ was guilty but neither one of us can prove it for certain.<br /><br />So, Do you see a difference between partisanship and ideology?<br /><br />And, Why do you seem afraid of conservatism??<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-42210040790429064812009-08-19T07:38:21.452-07:002009-08-19T07:38:21.452-07:00We will see when the right takes power again somed...We will see when the right takes power again someday if Flake will still be complaining about leaders dominating earmarks. That would impress me even more.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-33933039690716618042009-08-19T07:19:58.212-07:002009-08-19T07:19:58.212-07:00Like the Jeff Flake tidbits. He sounds too honest ...Like the Jeff Flake tidbits. He sounds too honest to have a long career in congress. To get a graduate degree in counseling psychology one has to take a course that involves uncovering and coming to terms with your personal biases. Seeing as how it is practically impossible to provide therapy without being aware of them. It's too bad this course isn't required in high school. I agree with you that most folks aren't even aware they have them, let alone that they color almost all their opinions.Bearnoreply@blogger.com