Lucky...

If it's a not for profit competitor it's not a conflict. Probably fund it since it would be serving largely customers who couldn't buy HMO insurance anyway, so they wouldn't be taking away many paying customers from the HMO's, hence no conflict anyway. But enough about the grossly over-funded military that you have no issues with. And if costs become breater than profits, they must change the way they do business or go out of business; that's the idea behindd the public option. I don't know, but I do know that money is FAR more important than the health of a nation. Also, there is no connect between taxation and spending other than a very indirect connect at the deficit/debt, and of course bond or specifically taxed items (SS, Medicare, etc). The rules will be changed, but not based upon need, based upon the sitting politician. Get a GW Bush in there and we can become a nasty, indifferent at best country once again. It would likely be less efficient so people who could afford HMO ins might be prone to go that way, right? I mean, we all know the gov can't do anything right, right? So don't worry, it will dry up and go away. We are the least compassionate country on earth I venture to say. There are worse countries, but they don't have the means, so we can't compare us to them. Compare us to countries with similar means and we are the lest compassionate country on earth in that context. I'm sorry, but we are about to become more compassionate.

When the gov taxes less, the country goes to shit. I have shown this, you are more concerned with a rich guy's gold, yet claim to be the true patriot. Hoover in 1929, Reagan in 1981 and GWB in 2001 cutting taxes harshly, esp the latter in a time of war. These are the major taxe cuts that have led to disaster, can you dispute those or are you more concerned with rich people's money than you are the health of a nation? But enough about the pledge of allegiance. Binary. How does this eleiminate competition between children? This is a crayon travesty. Apparently you didn't get yours and you're still pissed. We didn't have that trophy no-kid-left-behind program, so I know not of what you say, but as an esteem builder maybe it's a good idea. Kids should all know they're important and when you have a disparity in praise that can lead to issues/complesxes. So apparently you are against giving every kid praise if say they have a race and the winning kid gets a trophy, but the other kids get a sportsmanship award as well for being good competitors? I'm not a teacher and don't have kids, so I'm just trying to think of how it could work where everyone walked away feeling good about themselves. Feeling of accomplishment. Why not, we all need to feel as tho we are worthy and this develops young.

Without posting what I wrote it's impossible to answeer. But I guess you don't have a point.

And that is pretty sad. It's sad that I would call the cops if someone burned my flag, esp a flag with that sentimental value? So putting the shotgun in rack in the back window and gettin' the fellers from the club to lynch the SOB we *think* was responsible and threatening violence is the right thing? And if he was found guilty I would ask for restitution, if not found guilty and enough evidence existed I would then sue. That's what civilized people do; animals would just act on impulse.

Nope, the country work well when taxes are raised for the rich, you can't establish otherwise and I can establish it does. You are fighting an ideology of tax cuts my friends, I am trying to create a better-running country. Because otherwise we end up with monopolies and massive influence rather than a country of equality and opportunity. Don't worry, Obaam's tax incr won't affect you, I just can't figure why guys like you are fighting for far richer people. How has children's competition been eliminated and how did the liberals do what you claim? Pleae, not ideologically, tangibly. That's classic and explains conservative mentalities. So I guess your favorite movie was Mad Max. The idea behind out laws are to become less like the animals in nature, ficghting for territory, etc.

If man X is beating his wife, the neighbors call, the cops come out and the wife, obviously beaten says not to worry about it, she's ok with it. The cops can and will, based upon their evidence charge and arrest. Crimes are against the state, not the individual.

Then if the revenues were so great, why did the debt triple in 8 years? Why did unemp hit 10.8%? Saying revenues hit records, which you haven't shown but it could be true is like saying you just got a job for 3 times what you were making, but you are more in debt. It really isn't a bragging point. The same could be said of GWB, who was very much the same president that Reagan was. GWB has huge tax revenues too, but look at the mess: doubled teh 5.5T debt, left unemp a mess, crashed the market, ruined the housing market, etc.... BIG PICTURE. Could there be a more direct PA than that?

G Damnit, that's twice I agree with you. WTF

Probably because it is getting more and more fast food in its process. Perhaps because of competition and more people performing the process. Finally, that's a microcosm of the HC system, let's talk aboutteh larger issues.

But if you gave him 3 options where at least 1 was violence against him, all bets are off and this had no mutual agreement.

Right, as you like the outcome. But you have no legal understanding, you aren't a prosecutor so you just use old school lynch mob practice. The acts easily fall under a few criminal codes/statute. What you're talking about is a resolution / stipulated resolution. But the problem with that is that that is for civil matters, this was a series of criminal acts and all criminal acts are against the state, so a private individual cannot make a deal, so there was no settlement or resolution. You should learn what you can about the system. Cicil ones, yes, but when it involves a crime that is off the table. Soda theft = kidnapping, threats & intimidation, endangerment, criminal negligence, disorderly conduct. NOW I GET IT

The vid I watched didn't have the tapee say a thing, post a site if you have one. Even if he did admit to it, the actions of approaching him and offering him an asskicking or a ride to the pole is criminal.

Just as much info as you're using to crucify the VFW commander. State your resolution to the situation and explain how it's better that the end result achieved. All we know, based upon what I saw and read is that the VFW individual and his posse taped a guy to the pole after offering him chocies where 2 of which included criminal conduct. Beyond that we have no info, feel free to post. And if someone came by and bashed the taped you wouldn't care, would you? My resolution before thratening the suspecct would have been to call the cops and sue.

Of all the things, I could not agree with you more, ever. The problem is we have 75% Capitalism and 25% Socialism. More of a 50-50 quasi would be effective. Canada has it nailed pretty well.

Agreed, their spending outreaches their taxation, so they must spend less and/or tax more.

And that was my point to him, he used an abstract that was further out there than was the case in the Great Depression. Abstarcts are fine in that context, but then you have to adjust it for reality and he failed to do so.

What you've described is a version of FDR's tax plan, I think over 50K everything was taxed at 91%. Again, 50k in the 30's/40's was probably at least 250k now, but his major tax rates pulled us out of the great Depression. As well, your extreme example is abstract, you can't post a reasonable scenario so you shoot for ridiculous. But to play along, that peson would bust ass for 6 months and then go on vacation; istaht so bad? Then someone else would absorb the business and they would prosper.

That's because those who would be industrious, of their own will, can't seem to reach the golden ring, when the govt. is taking the largest portion of it, so that everything is equal, they simply see no reason, to keep striving for excellence. Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple. There are billionaires in Socialist countries, how do you explain that? Ooopps, ya can't, ya stepped in it. According to this: http://financialranks.com/?p=33 Capitalism is inneffective and Communism is the most effective. Also, we have one of the lowest tax rates here, yet the biggest crybabbies over taxation. Capitalism breeds greed and debt.

You know, it's too bad taht ACORN is going to bite teh dust. You could have gone to teh Obama School for Community Organizing, and done some real good, in tihs world... You know, starting community gardens,[Michelle, Ma Belle, will teach you how] or maybe rehabbing tenement houses. Awwww, are you so out of gas that you have to resort to grammatical errors? Too bad, the last sign of a defeated neo-con. I like the issues over grammar. And are you saddened that your lovely party and their ideology must sit and watch...... I feel your pain.

careful, there, Lucky - I'm assuming you are also pro-union, so the pecking order must be supported in your answer even though it conflicts with your other philosophies..... You can have unionization and allow for seniority while reducing class disparity. Union seniorty can be realized within while reducing class disparity without.

ALL? There's that binary again. That's ridiculous, class has its progression within itself, you're trying to take people from the same class, but in earlier stages of occupational progression and call it class disparity. Class disparity simply means you have people than span for really low to really high. Yes, and it's all or nothing. Why not close the classes a bit and still be able to achieve, but not have the spread somuch?

Let's take the last 28 years, it's a good referencce point - feel free to expand it if you wish. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Unemp rates actually point toward tax increases being better for lower rates. It rose under Reagans tax cuts, then fell and started to rise before GHWB raised taxes in 1990. Then it maintained and when Clinton raised taxes it really dropped off. It fell to 3.9 in 2000, then GWB came in and cut taxes and it rose again, then fell until his term's end and then it rose sharply. It's not totally determinable, but I think the data shows taxing favors lower unemp rates. We have to look at other factors too, recessions, wars, gross spending on other things as a stimulus, etc. But I don't think you can make the argument that taxation leads to unemployment.

I don't trust the government. I certainly don't trust them with the power of life and death. I'm not sure why you're trying to stereotype people. He didn't name you, he just addressed general data. I'm liberal and pro-gun, would I get mad if people stated that most liberals are anti-gun rts, hence since I'm liberal I must be? No way. I think it's refreshing that there are conservatives that are anti-DP.

Great point.

And if that's not enough, how about the cost? 2-3 times. Look at Terry Nichols, it cost OK 4 mill to get more life sentences.... I wonder how else OK could have used that money? Death penalty advocates are simply venge fanatics.