Obamacare Poll II
Poll
 | 13 votes (48.14%) | ||
| | 14 votes (51.85%) |
27 members have voted
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's a silly take on my statement, but I'll play along. ;)
Tell me: How many African countries have legalized gay marriage, and how many have banned it?
I don't know, I'm 1/2 Tawainese. I follow the news in my home country. I guess you just ignore that part of the world.
What percentage of gays in Taiwan would you consider white?
Quote: terapinedhow can that be when most gays are white according to beethoven9th
Huh? Geez, bro, you really need to read my posts. Never said that. lol...
Quote: thecesspitThere is a link between the Lost Cause and the Tea Party support as well, based on issues of States Rights. These are often conflated with the racism, for historical reasons, but the Democrats are to blame for all of that. (only half smiley face). And for many of the problems in the rebuilding of the south. But the Civil War was fought because of States Rights to cede from the Union, with the reason being slave ownership that states wanted to keep.
How much control the Federal level was a key question, and some of the Tea Party charters I have seen wish to limit or being to opt out of some Federal control items.
Just musing...
I remember Ron Paul raised some eyebrows when he said that secession is a "deeply American principle". Hate to say it, but the way the country is going, we could eventually see a movement similar to the type we experienced 150 years ago.
Quote: Beethoven9thHuh? Geez, bro, you really need to read my posts. Never said that. lol...
You are right and I am wrong in this small regard. You actually complained the media does not describe the gay movement as white. Well, the media is correct, its not. I follow international news and its an issue in Taiwan. So the media is correct. Gays in Taiwan are not white, they are mostly Taiwanese.
This is an international movement. Gays in Taiwan have been marching for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Pride
65k at the last march, get this, mostly Tawainese, amazing, very few whites. amazing. media correct, not even close to being a white movement
Quote: Beethoven9thI remember Ron Paul raised some eyebrows when he said that secession is a "deeply American principle". Hate to say it, but the way the country is going, we could eventually see a movement similar to the type we experienced 150 years ago.
I think Ron Paul is wrong, as the Civil War resulted in secession NOT being a American Principle, and the Republic was held intact (by the Republicans :)). It also ignores one of the problems the CSA would have had had peace erupted from a more successful Gettysburg campaign... by stating states had a right to cede, the CSA itself may have started to splinter.
I'd not be surprised by a separatist movement gaining some ground in a few states to the point it makes the serious news. I don't think you'll seen any secession actually occur without some sort of major upheaval in the US.
Quote: thecesspitI think Ron Paul is wrong, as the Civil War resulted in secession NOT being a American Principle, and the Republic was held intact (by the Republicans :)). It also ignores one of the problems the CSA would have had had peace erupted from a more successful Gettysburg campaign... by stating states had a right to cede, the CSA itself may have started to splinter.
I'd not be surprised by a separatist movement gaining some ground in a few states to the point it makes the serious news. I don't think you'll seen any secession actually occur without some sort of major upheaval in the US.
I agree with you. I think what Ron Paul meant to say was that people today who talk about secession (such as, some of the Tea Party groups out there) are similar in spirit to the Founding Fathers, but the "deeply American principle" line was incorrect.
Quote: terapinedGays in Taiwan are not white, they are mostly Taiwanese.
This is an international movement. Gays in Taiwan have been marching for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Pride
65k at the last march, get this, mostly Tawainese, amazing, very few whites. amazing. media correct, not even close to being a white movement
Since when did gays in America become Taiwanese?
Quote: thecesspitIt also ignores one of the problems the CSA would have had had peace erupted from a more successful Gettysburg campaign... by stating states had a right to cede, the CSA itself may have started to splinter.
Had the South been successful in The War of Northern Aggression I think they would have been forced to be held together by the Brits. Some conclusions can be drawn.
Had Lee succeeded at Gettysburg the Brits would have seen the South had a chance. They would have offered major support, but probably at the cost of a lease for naval bases at New Orleans for sure and maybe Houston and Fort Sumter. Three bases would allow for control of the CSA after the war. If this did happen the Brits would want the CSA to be like India, loosely integrated and controlled.
Quote:I'd not be surprised by a separatist movement gaining some ground in a few states to the point it makes the serious news. I don't think you'll seen any secession actually occur without some sort of major upheaval in the US.
Major upheaval is due. I see it happening about 2030. In what form we do not yet know.
Quote: AZDuffmanHad the South been successful in The War of Northern Aggression I think they would have been forced to be held together by the Brits. Some conclusions can be drawn.
Interesting naming for the American Civil War there...
Quote:Had Lee succeeded at Gettysburg the Brits would have seen the South had a chance. They would have offered major support, but probably at the cost of a lease for naval bases at New Orleans for sure and maybe Houston and Fort Sumter. Three bases would allow for control of the CSA after the war. If this did happen the Brits would want the CSA to be like India, loosely integrated and controlled.
I think Antietam was the last time the British really cared to get involved. Success at Antietam would have held of the emancipation proclaimation, and the British couldn't support the CSA much without a response to that (see British foreign policy on the slave trade, for example).
The Gettysburg campaign would have been successful if the Confederates had managed to sack/raid the Northern cities like Baltimore and Washington. If my timeline is right, the election was around the corner, and enough Democrats elected and peace might have broken out.
Lee however, for some reason, got dragged into a fight at Gettysburg, and worse... went on the offensive. The plan before had been to fight a defensive campaign and draw the Union forces on to his forces in a well defended position. And with good cause... it had been a very successful strategy many times before. With the addition of Pickett's Charge (poor old Pickett getting tagged with that infamous slaughter) the south was pretty much broken... the rest was just the clean up job.
I doubt the Gettysburg campaign would have been successful anyways, as the North could have fallen back if the CSA didn't offer up a fight in Gettysburg anyways, and gone back to the line of defence in front of Washington that Meade had planned for.
I'm not sure I see a British role to force the CSA to stay together in that scenario, but yes, earlier on, with some quick successes, I do agree that access to the Gulf Ports would have been a huge prize for the British (as we discussed about 1812, the Brits taking New Orleans would have been interesting, despite it being after the Treaty of Ghent). I think part of the CSA would drift north. The core, I think would have held together, but be extremely dependent on cotton sales to Europe... and not in a great position afterwards.
Hohum, I like playing whatifs...
Quote:Major upheaval is due. I see it happening about 2030. In what form we do not yet know.
I'll keep an eye out round then.
Not gonna happen. Generally, the red states are takers and the blue states are the makers. Those parasites wouldn't dream of removing themselves from the teat of the federal government but they sure love to complain about it.Quote: thecesspitI'd not be surprised by a separatist movement gaining some ground in a few states to the point it makes the serious news. I don't think you'll seen any secession actually occur without some sort of major upheaval in the US.
Quote: thecesspitI'll keep an eye out round then.
Be sure to look for these people
Not these people (if demographic trends continue)
Quote: AZDuffman
Major upheaval is due. I see it happening about 2030. In what form we do not yet know.
Wow, Who would have thought you would have had that kind of prediction. If someone offered a bet on when AZ thought major upheval is due in this country, I'd bet a hell of alot sooner then 2030. I would have predicted you had 2024 tagged as when major upheval is due, thats after 8 years of Hillary as the prez. With Obamacare and possible immigration reform and a demo House 2014, its cool to hear that you think we will be ok till 2030.
Go USA. Greatest country in the history of mankind
LOL!Quote: s2dbakerNot gonna happen. Generally, the red states are takers and the blue states are the makers. Those parasites wouldn't dream of removing themselves from the teat of the federal government but they sure love to complain about it.
We may be polar opposites politically, but I must say that I like your style, bro. Your sense of humor cracks me up. :D
Quote: thecesspit
The Gettysburg campaign would have been successful if the Confederates had managed to sack/raid the Northern cities like Baltimore and Washington. If my timeline is right, the election was around the corner, and enough Democrats elected and peace might have broken out.
Week of July 4, 1863 had the election over a year off.
Quote:Lee however, for some reason, got dragged into a fight at Gettysburg, and worse... went on the offensive. The plan before had been to fight a defensive campaign and draw the Union forces on to his forces in a well defended position. And with good cause... it had been a very successful strategy many times before. With the addition of Pickett's Charge (poor old Pickett getting tagged with that infamous slaughter) the south was pretty much broken... the rest was just the clean up job.
I doubt the Gettysburg campaign would have been successful anyways, as the North could have fallen back if the CSA didn't offer up a fight in Gettysburg anyways, and gone back to the line of defence in front of Washington that Meade had planned for.
I'm not sure I see a British role to force the CSA to stay together in that scenario, but yes, earlier on, with some quick successes, I do agree that access to the Gulf Ports would have been a huge prize for the British (as we discussed about 1812, the Brits taking New Orleans would have been interesting, despite it being after the Treaty of Ghent). I think part of the CSA would drift north. The core, I think would have held together, but be extremely dependent on cotton sales to Europe... and not in a great position afterwards.
Hohum, I like playing whatifs...
Cotton is what the Brits wanted, their textile industry still was far larger than the Northern mills at the time. The Brits might well have forced some kind of emancipation, but they had no problem dealing with India and their caste system as well as Africa and lots of nominal slavery. The Brits were pragmatists, which is what held their empire together.
For the price of a few naval bases, the Brits would have had all the cotton they could use. They would not have had to go as heavy into Africa, and Egypt would have ended up even more poor than it did. Looking further along, Spain would not have been ejected from Cuba except by the Brits. And the Brits surely would have allowed them in the Philippine Islands. The USA would not have gotten control of Hawaii and probably not Alaska. Hawaii might well have fallen to Japan sooner or later. And around and around we can go.
So many people who say, "What if the South Won" focus that they think slavery would have never ended. It would have by 1900. But they miss what really would have changed. Perhaps we need a new thread.....
Quote: terapinedWow, Who would have thought you would have had that kind of prediction. If someone offered a bet on when AZ thought major upheval is due in this country, I'd bet a hell of alot sooner then 2030. I would have predicted you had 2024 tagged as when major upheval is due, thats after 8 years of Hillary as the prez. With Obamacare and possible immigration reform and a demo House 2014, its cool to hear that you think we will be ok till 2030.
Go USA. Greatest country in the history of mankind
Yeah, just like Hillary was going to walk away with it in 2008. But I will say if the Democrat front-runner is a woman who's only accomplishment was who she was married to then the USA is in trouble sooner than I predicted.
Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, just like Hillary was going to walk away with it in 2008. But I will say if the Democrat front-runner is a woman who's only accomplishment was who she was married to then the USA is in trouble sooner than I predicted.
Hilary isn't a lock, simply the favorite according to gamblers 5 to 2
Next closest is Rubio at 8 to 1
Christie 12 to 1
Don't have to accomplish a lot to become Prez, just ask Obama lol
I think that Butch Otter will end up with the Republican nomination. Governor Otter will be the Republican's Bill Clinton. On the Democratic side, I'm still not convinced Hillary will win the nomination. She still has a lot of that DLC stench all over her. Al Franken has been keeping his powder dry. He may want a promotion and he may get it.Quote: terapinedHilary isn't a lock, simply the favorite according to gamblers 5 to 2
Next closest is Rubio at 8 to 1
Christie 12 to 1
Don't have to accomplish a lot to become Prez, just ask Obama lol
Quote: Face
I'm not ignoring it. But like many things in many areas, not capitalizing on potential irks me. The TP needs a silver tongue, someone who could talk the devil into setting himself on fire. Get loud? Sure. Get mad? I am. But all I hear being spoken is blunt common sense...and how many times does that ever work? ;)
Tea Party values are gaining even if the movement is still only about 1/3 of the population. I'll take that for now, the ideas are what is most important. We can find our own telepromoter reader later.
Quote: AZDuffmanTea Party values are gaining even if the movement is still only about 1/3 of the population. I'll take that for now, the ideas are what is most important. We can find our own telepromoter reader later.
Quick question for you that occurred to me on my way to work... who funds ER rooms on the US, and how would the Tea Party like ERs to be run in the future?
It's not a trick question or even cos I want to debate it, I just want to understand because I suspect I don't.
Quote: thecesspitQuote: AZDuffmanTea Party values are gaining even if the movement is still only about 1/3 of the population. I'll take that for now, the ideas are what is most important. We can find our own telepromoter reader later.
Quick question for you that occurred to me on my way to work... who funds ER rooms on the US, and how would the Tea Party like ERs to be run in the future?
It's not a trick question or even cos I want to debate it, I just want to understand because I suspect I don't.
Emergency Rooms are run by the hospital or entity who runs them and are paid for by collecting fees. This is how it should be done, let an entity decide it is a good place for an ER and try to make a profit from running one.
Quote: AZDuffmanEmergency Rooms are run by the hospital or entity who runs them and are paid for by collecting fees. This is how it should be done, let an entity decide it is a good place for an ER and try to make a profit from running one.
Oh, okay... I wasn't as wrong as I thought.
Quote: AZDuffman
Emergency Rooms are run by the hospital or entity who runs them and are paid for by collecting fees. This is how it should be done, let an entity decide it is a good place for an ER and try to make a profit from running one.
Are you pro-profit but not pro-life? How would you collect a fee for a heart attack if the person can't pay for the cost of the care?
These are problems that don't occur at Walmart. You can't pay for steak, you eat rice cakes. Doesn't work that way for healthcare.
Quote: rxwineAre you pro-profit but not pro-life? How would you collect a fee for a heart attack if the person can't pay for the cost of the care?
These are problems that don't occur at Walmart. You can't pay for steak, you eat rice cakes. Doesn't work that way for healthcare.
Most health care is not acute, ER visits. Most health care can easily be shopped for.
Quote: AZDuffmanMost health care is not acute, ER visits. Most health care can easily be shopped for.
It's only the acute stuff I was wondering about really in this instance. I assume it's free at point of use... as in payment is a problem resolved after the acute care has been given.
Quote: thecesspitIt's only the acute stuff I was wondering about really in this instance. I assume it's free at point of use... as in payment is a problem resolved after the acute care has been given.
The ER is required to take all comers and to get you stable. You can easily pay by credit card and most hospitals will put you on some kind of plan. It isn't "free" same as nothing in life is free. Free cheese is usually found in a mouse trap.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe ER is required to take all comers and to get you stable. You can easily pay by credit card and most hospitals will put you on some kind of plan. It isn't "free" same as nothing in life is free. Free cheese is usually found in a mouse trap.
Free at the POINT of use very clear in my statement.
E.g. I don't need to have a plan in place when I turn up bleeding and unconcious from a head wound I got from a piece of garbage blown of the roof of a building during a wind storm. No-one turns me away because I don't have a plan in place. Of course, I get a bill when I recover, and pay back afterwards. Or there's a huge disaster in the city, all victims are taken care off, and charged later according to their usage. Etc. You get the point, I'm sure. Or I pay back via my insurance plan. Or via a plan put in place to cover victims of the disaster. Etc. Etc.
Not free overall... but free at point of consumption and to some users works as a business model for many things. I am not claiming healthcare is one of those.
Have a read of Free: The Future of a Radical Price (http://www.amazon.ca/Free-The-Future-Radical-Price/dp/B00342VEP6 or free as a download in various places) is an interesting read on why free can exist and not necessarily in a mouse trap.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, not "free at the point of use." It is "credit to all customers." Pay in advance, time of service, or later you still must pay.
Thank you for answering my question.
Sorry for the rant.
Quote: steeldcoTo all who voted in this poll, I thank you. I was just curious how many could be absolutely certain of their position when this is such a complex plan with many items still to be sorted out. I could be wrong, but I believe that the half who are open minded and unsure are the more intelligent of the bunch. For those who voted that they were certain, I'm sorry but that's just my personal opinion. Close mindedness is the bane of our existence. The root cause of most conflicts. Thinking that you know what is best for everyone. Just ask any terrorist whether he believes what he is doing is the right thing and whether he may be wrong...........
Sorry for the rant.
"Open mindedness" <> "Intelligence."
I do not know how to say this without upsetting you, but people generally do not take a position unless they are sure of themselves. Great leaders are always sure of themselves and their positions. Abraham Lincoln didn't say, "I am sure we need to preserve the Union, but I am open to other opinions because I could be wrong."
Please find me the book entitled, "Great Moderates in History."
Quote: AZDuffman"Open mindedness" <> "Intelligence."
I do not know how to say this without upsetting you, but people generally do not take a position unless they are unsure of themselves.
Please clarify. You are saying that only a person who is unsure would take a position? Huh?
Judging by your response, I guess you didn't understand my (opposing) view regarding your statement. So much for open-mindedness...Quote: steeldcoJudging by your response, even though you didn't vote, I can safely assume that you feel whatever your position is on health care is the right one. Too bad. Give some thought as to whether your passion may be misplaced.
+1Quote: AZDuffmanI do not know how to say this without upsetting you, but people generally do not take a position unless they are unsure of themselves. Great leaders are always sure of themselves and their positions. Abraham Lincoln didn't say, "I am sure we need to preserve the Union, but I am open to other opinions because I could be wrong."
So, that makes them right?
Quote: rxwineEh, many dictators talk like they're sure of themselves.
So, that makes them right?
*facepalm*
Yea.....some people are just devoid of common sense.
Quote: steeldcoPlease clarify. You are saying that only a person who is unsure would take a position? Huh?
Typo. Edited.
Quote: Beethoven9th*facepalm*
No it does not make them right. That's the point I was making.
I have no idea why you are facepalming.
Quote: steeldcoSo apparently, someone like Adolf Hitler was right because he was sure of his position..........
Yea.....some people are just devoid of common sense.
You're not making a very sincere effort to understand my (opposing) viewpoint, are you? Very ironic.
Quote: rxwineEh, many dictators talk like they're sure of themselves.
Our current Presidont always talks like he is sure of himself and has no room for any position other than his own. I don't see the call for "open-mindedness" as to him anywhere.
Quote: rxwineNo it does not make them right. That's the point I was making.
I have no idea why you are facepalming.
The *facepalm* is because no one ever said anything to the contrary. Duh! You're just going off on another tangent again...lol
Quote: AZDuffmanOur current Presidont always talks like he is sure of himself and has no room for any position other than his own. I don't see the call for "open-mindedness" as to him anywhere.
It's ironic how these guys praise open-mindedness, yet they think they're 100% right!
Quote: Beethoven9thThe *facepalm* is because no one ever said anything to the contrary. Duh! You're just going off on another tangent again...lol
You don't even know what you're talking about. Stop making ignorant comments
Quote: steeldcoI believe that I understand your view point. Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems that you are saying that your having formulated an opinion therefore makes your opinion the correct one.
OK, I will correct you since you are wrong. Here's the question I had asked you (the one you never answered): If a person is unsure whether or not 2 + 2 = 4, then is that person more open-minded than somebody who's sure about the answer?
Please answer the question this time.
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, I will correct you since you are wrong..
Face palm!
LOLQuote: rxwineYou don't even know what you're talking about. Stop making ignorant comments
It's funny how you can take a simple, straightforward statement and come up with these bizarre responses. Dictators??? *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thLOL
It's funny how you can take a simple, straightforward statement and come up with these bizarre responses. Dictators??? *facepalm*
Actually Steelco posted it before me.
Quote: rxwineFace palm!
So you didn't even make it past the first part of the first sentence?!? LOL!
Hint: I asked a question afterwards (which you didn't bothering answering, BTW).
