Howard Dean rules!

Wadula · Aug 11, 2003

brahtw8 said:

unfortunately that system has a very big weak point. age....that is what my country suffers from. the health system is run by a government fund. this fund is filled by the young and working of a nation. now the problem is that we have less and less working compared to the number of aged who don't work but take money out of the fund. result is that the money you have to pay to the fund stay or even increases but the benefits get smaller and smaller. with the right demographic setup it is almost flawless. with us, it goes down the drain. not that anybody now starts to think i want the eldely to go away or make them responsible for what is happening, no way, it is the generation that is now 45-55 as they did not have enough children, and it is my generation as a lot of them think that having children is far too expensive. all hell it is....

furthermore we have the additional unbalance in that system that some million of people entered that system but never paid a buck for the usage....that is a heavy load.

but it is the right idea. you just have to keep it healthy (the system AND yourself [thumb]

)

brahtw8 · Aug 11, 2003

Wadula said:

We have the same problem here. The Social Security system was running huge deficits in the foreseeable future, and that was before the economy went in the toilet and GW decided to cut taxes. It would take a massive change in the way this country operates, and the elimination of a large part of the insurance industry. (You don't think those folks will give up without a fight, or should I say massive campaign contribution?)

We are going to see a return to the deficit spending of old, which is pretty amusing given the anti-big-government rhetoric the Republicans love to spout. They are as guilty as anyone to contributing to big government. The Homeland Security Agency? What a joke. Does anybody think creating a new agency is going to eliminate the problems posed by having too little communication between other large agencies, particularly when the two most responsible for the problem, the FBI and CIA, don't fall under their control? We need to stop calling things the opposite of what they are. Apparently the general public is so apathetic or ignorant that if you do it long enough and loud enough, they believe you.

A prime example: Texas' Leave No Child Behind Policy. Remember how GW was the 'education' president, and we heard about how well Texas was doing with its schools?

Can you say fuzzy math? The 1% drop out rate they bragged about was actually the result of shifting the 40% of students who actually dropped out to non-existent categories, such as "GED Candidate" or "Transfer". They have since issued a correction. Funny, I didn't hear about it on Fox News.

Wadula · Aug 11, 2003

this social security is, with respect, almost a joke. i mean, it is better than nothing but that's already it. how long is the support for unemployed? not 3 years, is it? are you allowed to go and see a doctor as many times as you want/might need without paying? can you have surgery without surcharge? oh and i am not talking about the rich ones who might not feel that they pay something as it does not hurt. (those are honest questions)

the system on the other side of the ocean used to furnish each and every citizen with those benefits. of course only as long as the population was in balance. now we have to participate in costs for medicine. doctors are still free and surgery in general too. points where humanity is lazy by nature, such as dentists and replacement teeth, we get hit big time. bif amounts of money we have to pay in case of a replacement for example. that was different in the past...

so what are we going to do against it? tax cut is exactly what germany needs and i truely think thatm in case the situation is similar over here, it might work as well. the US is suffering from a alltime high unemployment rate. what can you do against it? build jobs and help the medium sized companies to get on their feet. it is not the 45 companies in a country that have 10000 employees on average but the mediums. they have millions. get them going and the rest will rise itself. why do the small ones die or have to reduce capacity and employment? work and labor are too expensive and in the same time the consumers are afraid of the overall situation and save money. the turnover goes down and the companies sell less.... that is anice circle we are in.
cutting taxes is the way to go in my eyes, sorry to say. at least the government should freeze prices and salaries/wages for a certain time. that will help as well. it costs money but on the long run nothing is more expensive than an almost bankrupt and ill country.

sweden did it just recently and germany did it after the war (in a far more sophisticated way indeed, but the system was similar). it is a solution taht can work.

would you think it could not work here as well?

brahtw8 · Aug 11, 2003

I would say the most important issue is campaign finance reform. Until you have publicly funded elections and a ban on soft-money contributions, you will never see the kind of large-scale reform that this country needs. Only then will you see the kind of people elected that have the courage and force of will to make the tough decisions. Today it is just a popularity contest and wholesale auction of political favor, on both sides.

Wadula · Aug 11, 2003

brahtw8 said:

Amen!!!

the last elections in germany were decided because of something we tried for the first time. battle of words as a media spectacle with psychologists who try to read the intention of someone by the way he wears his tie. argumentation was set aside. funny thing is that the people was dumb enough to vote acc. to their impression from that battle. the one with the most sympathies has won, and now he ruins the land. finally a majority understands that...finally...

brahtw8 · Aug 11, 2003

One more little morsel for the uninformed, and it brings together a number of thoughts on this thread.

I would guess there are a lot of people out in forum-land who are not aware the current administration gave the Taliban $40 Million in April of 2001 for suppressing the cultivation of opium in Afghanistan (Don't get me wrong, Clinton probably would have done the same thing at the time, but that doesn't excuse it.)

Fundamentalist muslims do not look kindly on drug use, although they will take money from illegal drug sales if they have to, which is another reason why the black market is a bad idea. Contrast that with the recent wave of public service ads that insinuate casual drug use supports terrorism, and you have hypocrisy at its finest.

MidWestThom · Aug 12, 2003

brahtw8 said:

Ohh ohh! I knew, I knew! [:D]

The US backed the Taliban for years, especially during the whole Ruso-Afghani shootout. Hurray for proxy wars! But yeah, guess which type of plant is once again sprouting for the fields in Afghanistan? Not that they need the money, we'll give them that relief aid we promised right after a dozen or so rival factions just throw away their differences and accept democracy with open arms. [rolleyes]

MidWestThom · Aug 12, 2003

brahtw8 said:

Well said, you're not buying a bullet for terrorists everytime you hit the bong. You wouldn't believe the amount of herb that is cultivated in the US, especially in Oklahoma, it might actually be our largest GDP. The thing about the black market is that, the more that's wrong with a country, the more it's needed. I don't mean to highlight drug use too much, but there is a very broad line between use and abuse. The revenue generated from such a market could do so much for the economy and drug rehabilitation/education programs, and pretty much nullify the negative products of legalization multiple times over, as some others were saying earlier. I'm not just talking about weed either, but it's a start, all our peers seem to be getting the right idea, so why aren't we?

BTW: Bear, you really don't have to tell me about other peoples right to voice their opinion. I'm a lefty, the ones who are for that whole first amendment jargon. I also don't think your anal to the point where you need to make contradicting posts about typos directed solely at myself. I'm sure you also realize that along with the ability to state your opinion comes the inherent responsibility to defend it. I'm also not going to point fingers, but when I get called an unintelligent, gung-ho, unoriginal liberal, gosh-darnit I can and will call whoever I care to a rat bastard in my own defence, or offence, whether you like it or not. But you said what you wanted to say, and I agree with the gist of it, so let's leave it at that. Besides, what gets said on this thread should say on this thread politics wise. I didn't make any personal insults to anyone that weren't based on something they said, and if your view happens to differ from someone else's, you can tell them off and still respect them, and we can all still be friends, as crup and I talked about the other day.

EPJ: I was cool with you until you started criticizing me for defending my post, please don't tell me what the topic is because we can all read where it says Howard Dean rules, so if you look at it in that light we've been off topic since post 6 or 7 (with a few exceptions). You're pissing on my leg now for no reason and I don't appreciate it.

And to all you haters, I would be more than happy to see Hillary in the white house again, if she did half the job her husband did we would be twice as better of than we are now. [thumb]

MidWestThom · Aug 12, 2003

AwCrap said:

Dude I thought it was hilarious! I laugh everytime someone uses a term for homosexuality to imply negative connotation. It says alot about the people who use it that way, mainly that they're stupid and deserve to be laughed at. [rofl]

epj3 · Aug 12, 2003

MidWestThom said:

I think homosexuality is very very wrong. Not just because most of society looks down upon it -- its just simply weird and gross. As long as the person does not come out and try to tell everyone that he/she is a homosexual -- then whatever.

Wadula · Aug 12, 2003

ho ho ho...now we have touched another hot niche ....

My 0.02: I admit that i do not support homosexuality. I think it is not right, too. But not for a legal or clerical reason, but personal view. But what i do, I accept if someone chosses it as his way. The only thing i don not accept is when a homo couple is making a lifetime job and passion out of their nature and try to show it off where ever possible and to whom possible. I mean, let them have their fun, but do i kiss my girl every 5 minutes everywhere in the street and have a parade for loving her? and i don't grab her butt at lunch or stuff. Please, believe me, that has all happened to me. maybe that is the exact reason why i would appreciate more restraint from a lot of people. As epj3 said, as long as they behave like everybody else, it's fine with me.

brahtw8 · Aug 12, 2003

Following the Supreme Court's invalidation of a Texas sodomy law, the administration decided to launch an offensive against gay marriage/civil union. A rather misguided effort IMHO, but apparently successful at getting his supporters riled up.

I could give two sh!ts what people do in privacy, and I don't really care if they display it in public. To me it is no more or less offensive than straight public displays of affection.

The interesting thing about the anti-gay marriage movement is that homosexuals are trying to embrace traditional morality and stability, i.e. marriage, not destroy it. The idea that marriage is undermined is simply absurd. The gay movement is not trying to separate itself from society, but rather be integrated into it. When you ask these people how gay marriage impacts them personally, they have no response at all, and neither will anyone on this board. It has no impact on you, period.

I would also guess that EPJ3 and others are very pro-lesbian, to the point of appreciating visual depictions of female on female action on a regular basis? There is nothing wrong with that, but it smacks of hypocrisy, no?

As for the morality of homosexuality, better read your bible a little more closely. Lots of things were outlawed, and the biblical definition of marriage includes polygamy, which most people find rather offensive these days. You cannot legislate morality, and the attempt to do so is an affront to the bedrock principles of this nation.

crupdawg · Aug 12, 2003

brahtw8 said:

doesn't the all-gay school in NYC go against that idea of integration? it is one of the worst ideas i've probably ever heard. also, speaking of the Bible, i think that that Episcopalian priest who is also openly gay is a disgrace. it is the Episcopals who follow the Bible the closest, and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned. i dont understand it [confused]

brahtw8 · Aug 12, 2003

crupdawg said:

I am certainly no spokesperson for the gay movement, if such a thing exists in any sort of coherent form. Certainly there are individuals and groups that desire to separate themselves from the societal mainstream. My point was only with respect to the desire for gay marriage or civil union.

I also didn't say that the bible condones homosexuality, only that its definition of marriage is not in keeping with those who raise the 'defense of the sacred/biblical tradition of marriage' argument.

You will note that I have kept my own sexual orientation out of the discussion thus far. I am straight. The point however, is that it doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you, because it has no impact on your life.

Wadula · Aug 12, 2003

First of all I do not at all consider the bible or any legal aspect as a reason for my statement. this is very important for me as it might make my opinion very different to the one of others in terms of motivation. It is question of taste as far as i am conserned and at the end of the day of behaviour.

I mean, there are hundreds of parades for the gay movement, many many members of that movement use their sexual alignment as a defensive, offensive and sanctifying thing. Some does not get a job. Explanation of the gay, "it's because i am gay". Or i like "hey i am gay, treat me with respect or i will call you a social blackguard"...so what? do straight people do it? there are probably hundreds of thousands out there who live their live and no one gets a clue if straight or gay. that's fine. I don't go out in the streets and shout out that i am straight.

That's all i am saying. this public thing makes it pathetic sometimes and that is what i don't like.

brahtw8 · Aug 12, 2003

Wadula said:

I appreciate where you are coming from.

The equal rights/special treatment issue remains a very hot topic.

Take housing for example. Is it okay to refuse to rent an apartment to someone who is homosexual for no other reason than their sexual orientation? I would say no and that a law prohibiting such discrimination does not amount to special treatment. Others would disagree.

Certainly, some have used a more confrontational approach. The thing you have to remember is that most people who are homosexual are not ashamed to be homosexual. They may not want to shout it on the streetcorner, but they don't want to hide it either. Tolerance is a start, but most people want respect, not tolerance.

epj3 · Aug 12, 2003

I agree with wadula.

All these movements for equality are always full of hypocrites. I would give examples but people would get pissed (even though they are all true)

Wadula · Aug 12, 2003

so we kind of agreed with howard dean, the war and the gzy movement. what's next? [hihi]

Timmeh · Aug 12, 2003

Next?

Nobody wants to touch imigratation-- lefties or righties. What are the views of the board on that? Troops, sealed boarders, amnesty--tons o' fun to be had. Personally, I think it would be next to impossible to boot all the illegals at this point, but for all the immigrants who went thru the process to become legal, they would be pissed. I would be infuriated, and Mexican (legal) immigrants deserve better than straight amnesty.
I don't want the process to be made into a joke. Much at stake there. Being in San Diego we have seen huge impacts on So Cal--hell, nation wide. No qiero hablar espaniol todo para primero lingua( I don't want to speak spanish for a first language.). MidwestThom -quit humping Al Franken's leg and state your points without threatening the rest of the board if some of them dont agree with you. The Left, and the Dems lose credibility every time they rant like you did. Do not make the mistake of making me out to be some O'Reilly/Fox wannabe just because I might dissagree with you. Did you ever consider someone who has conservative bends that wants legalization of drugs to have been 20 years ago? Stranger things than that I have been in favor with as well as liking many of the things GW has done currently. He screwed everyone when it came to insurance of 9/11. He let them off the hook when the insurance Co's had BILLIONS is emergency funds. Inexcuseable. You have brought good points to the discussion only to make yourself lose credibility with your platitudes and ponderocities(not mine). You get people with the "meat" of your story but lose them with the "mashed potatoes" dude. In spite of the gritty bits, I thoroughly enjoyed the thread, guys. Timmeh

Wadula · Aug 12, 2003

timmeh, nice topic and sure enough hot enough to fit to the last recent ones. I have no idea how it works in the US. absolutely. I have no idea what history behind it is.

I just saw a movie, long time ago, about the wall that seperates the two states and how both sides try to enforce it or override it...that was looking all very unrealistic....kind of mad max style....that's all i can say.

Howard Dean rules!

1

2

1

2

1

2

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

1

2

Guest

2

1

2

Senior Member

1

New Member

1