Beachman, I didnt agree with Ted Kennedy, but to say what you said? Not cool. You have the right to say what ever you want on here just like the guys on the left, but you lose a lot of credibility when you post shit like that.

Dont take this the wrong way, but are you sure this is the site you want to be on? maybe a political site would be better.

I didn't mean Teddy Kennedy in my last post, certainly Republicans never claim him. I meant Teddy Roosevelt.

Nixon was a mean bastard, and certainly played rough, and he was definitely far from progressive. But compared to Goldwater, then Reagan and the Bush disasters, he was pretty moderate in judicial appointments, legislation, etc.

Reagan disaster?

Reagan did some good stuff, a lot of bad (giant deficits, environmental policy, death squad support, Iran/Contra, that kind of thing). His biggest disaster was spawning a couple of decades of dumbass tin-ear Republicans who are all trying to show that they're more Reagan than Reagan.

I also did not care for his support for and love of anything anti-communist, irrespective of whether they were named Osama Bin Laden or were Taliban material. There is a point of view, difficult to prove however, that had there been no Ronald Reagan, there would have been no Osama Bin Laden (although there is also the Charlie Wilson factor to contend with).

Also . . . http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Myth.html brings back the rather hideous memories.

Here is what Reagan had to say about " Obama Care"

He points out why doctors like Khun Mor probably don't support it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynmLRVUzbw

Hey Beachman:

Haven't you heard? Reagan died a few years before Obama became President. But he was very good at reading lines provided to him by corporate sponsors (as was the case with the youtube video you linked to).

But I like your "closing argument" the best (with no offense at all intended against Khun Mor): Someone who MAY lose some money as a result of healthcare reform, MAY be opposed to it.

Is this the best you can do?

Obviously so.

Somehow I doubt that Khun Mor, whatever his views on health care reform, really appreciates Beachman's efforts to cast him as an ally.

Beachman,

If Kuhn Mor wanted to talk about health care reform here, on a board devoted to sport fucking, he probably would have. Note, however, that he's most likely out getting laid while you're jerking off at your keyboard.

Your pal,
Bwana

What health plan did Reagan have from 1981 until he died? Uh oh, A GOVERNMENT ONE

Cat, Reagan's government health plan goes back further than that. He was covered by the State of California as a governor/retired governor before he went over to the Fed plan. So you can date such coverage to 1967.

Before 1967, was he covered under the Screen Actor's Guild health plan? My god, a UNION HEALTH PLAN

Like all demigods, Ronald Reagan does not hold up well to close or critical inspection.

While he and W are equally stupid, he was less evil. Now I wish that I was more aware of what was up during the Nixon years, but I'm afraid that I was a too young and under the sway of my good Christian parents.

So what you guys are saying, is Reagan's health care cost us many times what it should have?

No, what we are saying is that if IAS's local public STD clinic switched to for-profit status and began charging IAS appropriately for its services, we could fully subsidize health care for everyone else in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Beachman, since you can't get STDs from jerking off.

Direct quote from the just published REAGAN DIARIES Concerning George W Bush.

The entry is dated May 17, 1986.

'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'

Snopes.com link
So Mr. Uncle. Did you check out Snopes?

---

quote:

Claim: A 1986 diary entry by President Ronald Reagan described George W. Bush as a "shiftless ne'er-do-well."
Status: False.

---

DAMN YOU SNOPES!!

Economy getting better? No matter how it is spun, as long as unemployment keeps going up, the economy is fucked;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Except that jobless claims were down, to ~216,000, which means that about 400,000 people re-entered the workforce last month and are now looking. That is actually a positive sign.

As the stock market rally today showed, the unemployment and jobs reports - very different reports - are very much trailing indicators. Of course Republicans will scream about the number, then again, if it had dropped 3/10s of a point they would have screamed about that as well.

Weren't there a bunch of prognosticators on this board about 6 months ago predicting that we'd hit 12% unemployment by Sept.? At this point, the rate seems to be flattening.

So where we? Oh yes, I just remembered.

So Obama is going to give a speech in which he tells the schoolchildren of our country that they owe it to themselves and to the future of our country to work hard in school, not drop out, and so forth. A lesson plan prepared by the Department of Education suggested teachers then ask their pupils what they could do to help Obama, the obvious answer coming after hearing his talk would be "[w]ork hard and stay in school." I should add that this obvious answer seems to have totally or near totally escaped the fine minds of the pundit class since even the liberal commentators (or, at least, most of them) are saying the Department of Education made some sort of mistake by suggesting students answer this question.

I'm with those extreme right wingers who see this as a plot to indoctrinate the children of this nation in socialism or worse. If Obama convinces schoolchildren to stay in school and work hard where is the future vassal class that we would otherwise be able to exploit going to come from? Do we really want a nation full of smartypants, all with IQ's higher than 90, and enough education to be able to tell fact from fiction? I didn't think so, and I'm grateful that notable right wingers like Glenn Beck are doing everything possible to make sure this doesn't happen, highlighting this with their mantra: "Don't become too educated or smart or I'll be out of a job."

(Message edited by LAguy on September 06, 2009)

>>12% unemployment by Sept

I wasn't one of those prognosticators, but I would point out that the "official" U-3 unemployment rate so often cited is a political BS figure, as it does not include "discouraged workers", part time workers who really need full time employment, etc.

More realistic unemployment rates are the U-4 through U-6 figures, which you'll not see any politician quoting: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

For Sept 2009 those figures range from 10.1% to 16.8%

Here is Obama's ACORN at work....be sure to scroll down and watch the you tube video....

http://www.biggovernment.com/

Beachman,

You are, without a doubt, Club Hombre's biggest

This is why National Health Care( Obama Care) will either bankrupt the country or the will have to ration Health Care. 90% of the adult population are unhealthy and the youth population is rapidly catching up. The liberals are more worried about global warming than global fattening and both the Democrats and the republicans are in denial that it is even a problem to be dealt with......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090914/hl_nm/us_heart_usa

This study was completed in 2000 before Bush took office. Since it analyzes, cost of health care and also uninsured, the US's position has only got worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

BM-

Are you proposing that there's a governmental role for addressing obesity?

Once again, though, your statements prove what an ignorant nitwit you are. No one's in denial about the obesity problem. Check out the USDA, CDC, and HHS websites and you'll find tons of info related to obesity. The problem is that while part of the government works to fight obesity (CDC, HHS), another part is supporting policies that encourage consumption of unhealthy foods (USDA).

BM, you might try getting your news from sources other than the internet. There have been some very good analyses of the problem published in books and journals. CDC has some good resources (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html). If you want to appear less like a whining retard, try checking out the material on Medline (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/obesity.html). From the National Academy of Sciences, check out:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12674
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11015
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11722

There are initiatives against obesity being run by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, etc.

It appears that some folks in government realize there's a problem.

Doing something about it is tougher. What do you propose, since this seems to be your issue? You bitch and moan but NEVER offer constructive options.

In other words, you are still Club Hombre's biggest

Sheeeesh - it always ends up being about size !!

Branquinho-

I will surprise you by saying I would support ading a 5-15% tax on junk foods and junk soft drinks and other drinks that are advertised to be healthy but are not. Use the 5-15% to cover the gap of insuring the 20-50 million uninsured instead of going to a single payer system! That and other solutions like tort reform, fraud, etc.

Just like taxing cigarettes the use will go down or at the very least at least there will be a source of revenue that is directly being paid by the people who don't care as much about their health.

And don't buy the arguement that the poor people will be hurt the most by the add tax on junk food and soft drinks.

Beachman,

I actually like your idea!

I propose the taxation of churches. I see no particularly reason why churches are tax-exempt when any other club isn't.

Beachman,

There you go. Thanks for posting a suggestion, and a constructive one at that. Unfortunately, efforts to get traction on things like a "sugar tax" or a "junk food tax" have been undone by a combination of anti-tax Republicans, Dems and Repubs from sugar/sweetener producing states, and lobbyists from the junk food and fast food industries (there is actually a Snack Food Association that has a ton of lobbyists in DC and the states). There's been more success doing things like banning vending machines in schools and such, but that makes a pretty small dent in the problem.

The tax approach worked for tobacco because tobacco growing is limited to a handful of states (in a major way, at least)--thus less political opposition from the grower industry--and because there is no safe level of tobacco consumption (unlike sugar/sweetener consumption). The sweetened drinks/candy/junk food industries dwarf the tobacco industry. The tax option has been raised several times, and each time was immediately crushed by the triad of growers, producers/distributors/sellers, and anti-tax simpletons and their representatives in the federal and state legislatures.

Branquinho-

You are right...the lobbyist for the junk and fast food industries will fight it tooth and nail but it could be done. Here in Florida when you go to the grocery store if you buy unprepared food there is no sales tax...if you buy prepared food at the deli in the same store you are charged state sales tax. So there is a precedent of a system of how it might be done. Again you are right that the sweetened drinks/candy/junk food industries dwarf the tobacco industry. Imagine how much money could be put into the Heath Care system ( a percentage going to education as does the tobacco money does) if you could tax those products 5-15%. How much money is spent every day on the products in fast food (Mc Donalds, etc)restaurants and convenience stores (7/11's etc.) alone.

In addition, they could encourage people to take more responsibility in their own health by insurance plan giving discounts...real discounts to those live healthier lifestyles. Just as with life insurance. And auto insurance is cheaper if you have a higher credit score.....why not be reward for being healthier instead of lowering the standards since the majority are overweight or obese.


By the way Catocony....churches should not be exempt after a certain point.

So Beachman, you stud, a veritable greek god of body and mind. If you are in perfect physical shape yet fall down your stairs and break a leg, how does that impact the health care system? Or you get old? Get cancer, or any other disease? You are arguing about healthier lifestyles, have you ever thought that a lot of healthy people do have accidents and have diseases that require a lot of medical treatment? You're plan, which basically is "don't get sick" isn't much of a health care proposal.

How about just a fat chick surcharge? It's about time the government did something to protect it's citizens from this scourge of fat chicks now afflicting this once great nation. Get rid of the old chicks too while you're at it. I bet if you got rid of all the fat old chicks in this nation you would cut health care costs by 60%. Deport them all to Afghanistan or somewhere like that so they can make the Taliban's life miserable. To balance any gender imbalance this policy may cause in the population, open the immigration flood gates to healthy young skinny foreign chicks who have minimal health care requirements.

(Message edited by copperfieldkid on September 15, 2009)

I agree with CFK.

Catocony-

First of all there is a difference between Medical Care and Health Care. Breaking a leg, being in a car accident, etc.....requires Medical Car. Health Care has to first start with a healthy life style. Until doctors are held accountable to changed lifestyles instead prescribe drugs (that mostly just gets rid of symptoms) and set up endless follow up visits to to produce a stead revenue of income. Doctors don't want people to be healthy.....if people are healthy...they make no money.

That is why the majority of continuing education is provide by the pharmaceutical companies....doctors are educated subliminally to keep patients dependent on drugs.

Second.....I am in great shape for being 51 years old. I have 5 brothers and sisters and 4 of them fall in category of the 70+ percent of overweight and obese...they don't exercise.......eat mostly junk food and drink more soft drinks than they do water. My one brother and I and his wife exercise, keep ourselves hydrated with water and eat lots of fruits and vegetables. We have never have Health Care issues like our 4 other siblings. That holds true for most of our cousins also.

When I went to my 30 year class reunion more than 70 % were overweight and obese...and probably half of my classmates looked like they were in their 60's. It was sad as many of them complained about there health issues like they were in a nursing home instead a 30 year class reunion.

Sure I may get cancer or some other disease....but I am greatly reducing my chances by living a healthy lifestyle. Why shouldn't I get a discount for reducing the chances of me using more of the Health care system than someone who continues indulge in a lifestyle that has been proven to dramatically increase Health care cost.
I can't understand..the libs want to punish and tax out of business companies the libs feel are ruining the health of our planet with global warming. But to make individuals show some responsibility to live healthier or they will be charged higher premiums and the junk they put in their bodies will be tax at a higher rate so some of those cost to treat them will be paid directly by them the libs and conservatives ignore the obvious.

You seem to have the mentality of the person that doesn't wear their seat belt who thinks they can defy the percentages that they would be safer than not wearing their seat belt.


My plan shows a way to raise money to help insure the 20-40 million who are not insured by not dramatically changing the system.

If you want to ignore the fact that 70 percent plus of the adult population is overweight or obese and really don't put much effort into trying to live a healthy health style consistently and you don't think that is the number one reason why Health Care cost will continue to rise no matter what else we try....well you just keep you head buried in you bowl of Doritos..................

That's the first post by CFK that I don't think is pretty stupid

Well maybe, but I think he was just plagiarizing one of Xenono's previous posts (or was it someone else's?).

Hey, it's only a forum, not a fucking Thesis

Well CFK, I can certainly agree your penultimate post was not a thesis!

Maybe an antithesis (aka an anti-thesis).

Damn, BEACH-CREEP is still lurking around here. He should move to Alaska, I understand that his true love will be dumping Todd soon and she would really like to hook up with somebody even nuttier than herself!

There was a time when I thought Todd WAS nuttier than Sarah, but over the past few months she's proven conclusively that she's the chief family whacko.

An amazingly pathetic escape from reality video starring Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/snubbed-by-obama-fox-news_n_292254.html

It is rather amusing (if it weren't so sad) to see Wallace doing some extreme crybabying about how Obama won't come on his show while claiming the Obama administration is a bunch of crybabies.

Worse yet is the thought that some unthinking people might actually eat this shit up. The image of Divine eating dog shit comes to mind.

Wow...Laguy....the very thing you libs accused the Bush Administration of doing is now OK to do since Obama is President.

Watch out for the mid term election....the Dems may lose both houses. The black vote won't come out in big numbers and the under 30 vote don't have a rock star celebrity to support in the mid term election.

Jon Stewart has a guest who knows what he is talking about.......

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-9-2009/peter-schiff

You think Dems will lose a net 11 seats in the Senate? You are an idiot if you believe that's even close to being possible, much less happening.

The Dems will pick up 1 seat in the Senate and lose from 5-12 seats in the House.

Beach and Cat both equally delusional. Dem's suffer major losses in both the House and Senate in '10 but almost certainly maintain control by much reduced margins. Bad news for Obama in '12 since loss of congress in '10 would cinch his reelection in '12 al la Clinton '98 but having Dem's bear the full brunt of the blame for the Stagflation and second dip of the recession caused by the devaluation of the dollar and associated run away interest rates will bode poorly for '12.