Hi everyone...I think this will work out much better if the libs will use this forum instead of the RA forum...Thanks Lovie!!
I think there seems to be enough interest in seperating the two that the idea should take off given a little time.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Curious what you guys think about Rosie O'Donald getting her own show in MSNBC. Have you seen that?
I'll be honest; I like her before she was on The View. After that I really can't stand the sound of her voice.
I think she has lost her mind. She acted like a loony on the view.I knew we had different views on many subjects; but I always thought she was cute and kind hearted. I always liked her movies and thought her show when I saw it was often funny and entertaining. (Not that I watched it often)
She just seems angry and ugly to me now.
She'll be going up against Larry King and Hannity & Combs. Do you really think Rosie is the best they could come up with to compete with them? It's got to be a joke.
She is a very disturbed person, seems to me. She seems like she has a lot of anger that she needs to work through. I mean, like this book she just wrote, she's bashed everyone who she's worked with and refuses to do interviews to explain herself. She bashes the President, Fox News, Republicans yet refuses to explain herself. She reminds me of a kid in the schoolyard who HAS to have the last word in an argument, no matter what. Some kid who will say something horrible, and hurtful and then cover their ears and scream so you can't respond.NBC turned her down....Smart move on their part! I can't stand her either...and I don't care what her sexual preferance is...she's like got this huge chip on her shoulder because she's gay and is an "in your face type". Who cares? I just don't think she is a very nice person.She's a prime example of a left-wing nut - the club that includes Michael Moore, Sean Penn, even (sadly) George Clooney. They are all so laughable.
I can't call myself conservative, but I don't fit in with the Liberal Bloggers as I will never again vote democrat as long as I shall live. Can I be part of your group, even though I want Rudy to win?
I have been trying to stay out of the political mess on this board, because it seems counter-productive to get angry at people you would like to be able to help when the disease gets them down. That being said, I simply cannot be quiet about something I read on the liberal thread:
Gimpy-a-Gogo said
"I think if people are going to start posting about things like alleged
and unsubstantiated sexual assualts by prominent Democrats they
should really do it on the Conservative Corner thread, where the thread is
dedicated to conservative views. I haven't noticed any liberals going over
to the Conservative Corner and bashing Republicans there, (even though
most of their sex scandals are proven and substantiated---and much
more creepy!). We have confined such activity to the Liberal Blog.
Considering all the trouble the liberals have gone through to keep their
partisan posts on this dedicated liberal thread and thereby maintain the
harmony of the forum it only seems polite. That's my take on it anyway.
I'm not saying conservatives shouldn't come here and engage in
discussion. I'm saying they shouldn't come here and smear and bash
liberal people they don't like.
We do seem to get a LOT of conservative visitors on this thread. I guess
they find it fascinating and compelling reading. I thank them for staying
polite."
JSNM wrote:
"And GoGo, you are tilting at windmills, they will try to ruin this thread, they cannot help themselves - ignore is the only weapon you have."
I cannot believe what has happened to my former party (yes, folks, I switched soon after the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech." I worked on both of Clinton's campaigns and taught my kids to be great "liberals". They think their mother has gone over to the dark side...hahaha. But I do have great respect for them since they try not to generalize and speak about people that believe differently that they in derogatory terms. Anyway, it is not someone's beliefs that make me so incensed, it is the language and the use of THEY that I find so deplorable.
My friends and I back in the day, did not talk about people as if they were stupid, ignorant non-educated idiots. We may have spoken about certain individuals in that manner
But to me, it is even more deplorable to go on a support board and talk about the people who have supported you and tried their best to be your friend when you needed one in this manner. I would ask that in this thread (and if any liberals read this, in your thread as well) we would try to be bigger than that. Disagree with policy and wrong headed thinking all you want, but please don't refer to people with political differences as the all encompassing THEY. When I hear it used in this context it looks like an acronym for "The Horrible Evil Yahoos. It seems that the driving factor in liberalism is hate for conservatism and an emotional response to what is wrong in society, rather then seeking a logical way to remedy those wrongs. When my son was in college he tried really hard to be a liberal, but in the end he said his sense of logic and moral conviction just wouldn't allow him to fully commit. In the end he abondoned ( I know that's spelled incorrectly) it as an immature attempt to "go with the flow". Lisa, PLease try to control your language. What you said is exactly what I was asking the folks on the liberal thread not to do. I don't think that sort of name calling and generalization gets either of us anywhere. I only put the quotes here to demonstrate how using THEY as the evil ones never works. My attempt at trying to get people to speak to each other respectfully totally failed. Not going post on this thread again. I don't like it when folks that believe as I do, behave badly anymore than I like it when others do it. The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market. Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had
to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested
Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively,
unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all
fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin
treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she
received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim
for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed
care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again.
Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the
United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada. When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario
government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had
gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved
Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent
Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in
Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a
dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the
treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian
bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab. But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they
need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a
viable health-care model. There’s no question that American health
care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess.
Over the last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than
doubled, leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy.
Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one
of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005
(despite a rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged
past 16 percent of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen,
and even the insured seem dissatisfied. So it’s not surprising that
some Americans think that solving the nation’s health-care woes may
require adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the
government finances and provides the care. Canadians, the seductive
single-payer tune goes, not only spend less on health care; their
health outcomes are better, too—life expectancy is longer, infant
mortality lower. Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “Does this mean
that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a
Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes.” Politicians like
Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko
celebrates the virtues of Canada’s socialized health care; the National
Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T,
recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a
government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of
employer-sponsored health insurance.
Some are tempted. Not me. I was once a believer in socialized
medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I
didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I
wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on
MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a
Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of
ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head;
and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate.
What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses
and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I
remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right. My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the
way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the
hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.
Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed
with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it
turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and
urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I
knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems
went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically
any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain
from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a
three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose
what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman
with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation
therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks. I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and
visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately,
statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by,
and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult,
such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend,
diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving
chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight.
Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit
later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his
town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too. My book’s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run
health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus,
at a time when Canada’s population was aging and needed more care, not
less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school
classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in
hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients
who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only
solution, I concluded, was to move away from government
command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented
system. To capture Canadian health care’s growing crisis, I called my
book Code Blue, the term used when a patient’s heart stops and
hospital staff must leap into action to save him. Though I had a hard
time finding a Canadian publisher, the book eventually came out in 1999
from a small imprint; it struck a nerve, going through five printings. Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada—they
characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the
recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an
appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More
than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in
line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public
hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the
Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans
observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In
France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003
heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were
stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe,
state-of-the-art drugs aren’t available. And so on. But single-payer systems—confronting dirty
hospitals, long waiting lists, and substandard treatment—are starting
to crack. Today my book wouldn’t seem so provocative to Canadians,
whose views on public health care are much less rosy than they were
even a few years ago. Canadian newspapers are now filled with stories
of people frustrated by long delays for care: As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care
system’s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government
researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting,
for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of
that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. Health
officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery
to determine who’d get a doctor’s appointment. Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health-care
scene. Standing at about five and a half feet and soft-spoken, he
doesn’t seem imposing. But this accidental revolutionary has turned
Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the growing
crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec
practice—patients called him, he made house calls, and then he directly
billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining
him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but
billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal,
and so was private insurance. Chaoulli gave up his private practice but not the fight for private
medicine. Trying to draw attention to Canada’s need for an alternative
to government care, he began a hunger strike but quit after a month,
famished but not famous. He wrote a couple of books on the topic, which
sold dismally. He then came up with the idea of challenging the
government in court. Because the lawyers whom he consulted dismissed
the idea, he decided to make the legal case himself and enrolled in law
school. He flunked out after a term. Undeterred, he found a sponsor for
his legal fight (his father-in-law, who lives in Japan) and a patient
to represent. Chaoulli went to court and lost. He appealed and lost
again. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And
there—amazingly—he won. Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer
forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in
agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the
patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and
get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent
of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The
court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that
Quebec’s charter did implicitly recognize such a right. It’s hard to overstate the shock of the ruling. It caught the
government completely off guard—officials had considered Chaoulli’s
case so weak that they hadn’t bothered to prepare briefing notes for
the prime minister in the event of his victory. The ruling wasn’t just
shocking, moreover; it was potentially monumental, opening the way to
more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private
insurance holds in the rest of the country for now, at least two people
outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli’s case as precedent, are taking
their demand for private insurance to court. Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even
saves lives. He describes a man who had a seizure and received a
diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinion—he had no family
history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea,
which aren’t usually seen in the disorder—the man requested an MRI. The
government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So
he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and
who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a
few weeks. Baker isn’t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He’s a medical broker,
one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the
inadequacies of Canada’s government care. Canadians pay him to set up
surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations,
privately and quickly. “I don’t have a medical background. I just have
some common sense,” he explains. “I don’t need to be a doctor for what
I do. I’m just expediting care.” He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based
company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the
elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her
abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior
bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told
her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in
a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the
eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her
deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her
parents called Timely. She’s now back at school, her hearing partly
restored. “The father said, ‘Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement
that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,’ ” Baker recalls. “I
told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn’t
f**king care less.” Not everyone has kind words for Baker. A woman from a
union-sponsored health coalition, writing in a local paper, denounced
him for “profiting from people’s misery.” When I bring up the comment,
he snaps: “I’m profiting from relieving misery.” Some of the
services that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law,
but governments are loath to stop him. “What I am doing could be
construed as civil disobedience,” he says. “There comes a time when
people need to lead the government.” Baker isn’t alone: other private-sector
health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is
increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often
uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about
one a week. Companies like MedCan now offer “corporate medicals” that
include an array of diagnostic tests and a referral to Johns Hopkins,
if necessary. Insurance firms sell critical-illness insurance, giving
policyholders a lump-sum payment in the event of a major diagnosis;
since such policyholders could, in theory, spend the money on anything
they wanted, medical or not, the system doesn’t count as health
insurance and is therefore legal. Testifying to the changing nature of
Canadian health care, Baker observes that securing prompt care used to
mean a trip south. These days, he says, he’s able to get 80 percent of
his clients care in Canada, via the private sector. Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the
health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August,
they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former
socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has
nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public
health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy
for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him
down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in
under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.” And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector
to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles
workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private
corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80
percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where
fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government
recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency
room. This privatizing trend is reaching Europe,
too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet
the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service
and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing
it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William
Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big
trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive
inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private
sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures;
Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government
also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice
of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the
government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to
American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente. Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of
privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s
primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one
of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia
has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments
and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany:
increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state
enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a
minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s
important to note that change in these countries is slow and
gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States
was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health
care as essential, it is so no longer. Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are
percolating with the ideas of Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent
Americans are arguing that socialized health care still provides better
results for less money. “Americans tend to believe that we have the
best health care system in the world,” writes Krugman in the New York Times.
“But it isn’t true. We spend far more per person on health care . . .
yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from
life expectancy to infant mortality.” One often hears variations on Krugman’s argument—that America lags
behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes
reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and
cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care
is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average,
fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any
Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life
expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall,
or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the
United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times
higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health,
Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and
unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that
Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country. And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its
sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival
rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost
50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma:
12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate
for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France
and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation. Like many critics of American health care,
though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: “In 2002 . . .
the United States spent ,267 on health care for each man, woman, and
child.” Health-care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a
small fraction of that. Again, the picture isn’t quite as clear as he
suggests; because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries,
it isn’t unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take
America’s high spending on research and development. M. D. Anderson in
Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada
does. That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren’t
always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses
spiraling up, it will be easy for some—like the zealous legislators in
California—to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In
Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that
like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off, and
promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering
all children in Medicaid. But such initiatives would push the United States further down the
path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True,
government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs—but only by shrinking
access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style
nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for
treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering good health
care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close
to home—in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From
telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have
driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long
overdue for the same prescription. Blessed, blessed you have tired me out with your last post, I am glad I am at that age where I'm happy to be going OUT of this world and not just coming into it. Now I won't be able to sleep worrying about our health care system, could Gimpy-a-gogo be a Canadian per chance?? However you are full of information I must say Rose
Rose, I was talking about population California/Canada. I agree Drug Companies make a lot of money. Buy Stock it works !
And I repeat, I think there can be some crossover posts as long as they're polite and respectful
Obviously, you missed the point, Gimpy-a-gogo. Or you puposely choose to be obtuse. The point is it would make for better discourse if neither you nor us would use the EVIL they to address each other and our beliefs.
Well, I'm sure not being purposely obtuse, but I sure do miss your point.
And it seemed to me that you missed my point, or were purposely obtuse.
So there you have it. Same planet. Same problems. Different world.
You and JSNM paint all non-liberals with the same brush
Gee, JasmineRain, that seems more like a personal attack than a con/lib debate.
Edited to take out the humourous part...humour tends to be lost on these threads!
And you proved my point again with "You conservatives are always doing that".
And I did not come over to the "liberal" thread to bring this up.
Jasmine, that was my point exactly, you nasty evil conservative!
Gimpy I don't believe anyone AGREED to the splitting of the political thread, Lorster took it upon herself to create a "Debbie Downer" thread for those of you to piss and moan about everything and anything.
It kills me how what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. You say we can post on your "Blog" as long as it does not offend you. But you can do whatever, right? I have one better! Just mind your own rat killing. I don't remember anybody sending you an invite to join our discussion. I can't see what the positive would be in that.
So just go back to your "anything goes" thread. No one wants your 2 cents here. Only in the RA threads...Bye-bye nice lady.
talking about me again. When you mention my name, I have a right to come
here and defend myself. The lib thread is not a debbie downer thread. It is
current news and liberal discussion. It does not make it wrong, just worth
discussing. I think if you would come up with some of your own
conservative talk and not bring gimpys quotes from the lib blog, we would
all get along better. Can't you be original? Can't you be creative? There
must be something you people can talk about. When you have to take
liberal blog, and make it the subject of your conservative corner, you people
are really hurting. Maybe you don't know enough about the current events
to hold an intelligent discussion with one another. Oh well, back to my
corner. JasmineRain, that "you conservatives are always doing that" was the joke I
edited out ( BEFORE you commented on it) because perhaps it wouldn't be
perceived as funny on this particular thread, and I thought if I wanted you
to show respect on the liberal thread, which is what satred this particular
exchnage, that I should do the same on yours.
You said I paint all conservatives with the same brush and then I said
"You conservatives are always doing that"? Get it? I thought it was kind of
obviously a joke, but these threads have such a hostile air sometimes
these kinds of jokes don't go over well. Anyway, sorry I didn't delete it
faster for you. No disrespect intended!
[QUOTE=lorster]Lisa, I heard my name ring out on the board, and low and behold, you are
talking about me again. When you mention my name, I have a right to come
here and defend myself. The lib thread is not a debbie downer thread. It is
current news and liberal discussion. It does not make it wrong, just worth
discussing. I think if you would come up with some of your own
conservative talk and not bring gimpys quotes from the lib blog, we would
all get along better. Can't you be original? Can't you be creative? There
must be something you people can talk about. When you have to take
liberal blog, and make it the subject of your conservative corner, you people
are really hurting. Maybe you don't know enough about the current events
to hold an intelligent discussion with one another. Oh well, back to my
corner. [/QUOTE]
I'm sorry princess, you must have me confused with someone else. It wasn't I who quoted your precious Gimpy. I rarely peruse your "Debbie Downer" thread, as there is not much there of interest to a rational minded person. Quit "Bogarting" the joint, I think you've had enough!
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]JasmineRain, that "you conservatives are always doing that" was the joke I
edited out ( BEFORE you commented on it) because perhaps it wouldn't be
perceived as funny on this particular thread, and I thought if I wanted you
to show respect on the liberal thread, which is what satred this particular
exchnage, that I should do the same on yours.
You said I paint all conservatives with the same brush and then I said
"You conservatives are always doing that"? Get it? I thought it was kind of
obviously a joke, but these threads have such a hostile air sometimes
these kinds of jokes don't go over well. Anyway, sorry I didn't delete it
faster for you. No disrespect intended!
[/QUOTE]
My bad. [QUOTE=Blessed]
[QUOTE=lorster]Lisa, I heard my name ring out on the board, and low and
behold, you are
talking about me again. When you mention my name, I have a right to
come
here and defend myself. The lib thread is not a debbie downer thread. It
is
current news and liberal discussion. It does not make it wrong, just
worth
discussing. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">I think
if you would come up with some of your own
</span><br style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span
style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">conservative talk and not
bring gimpys quotes from the lib blog, we would
</span><br style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span
style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">all get along better.</
span> Can't you be original? Can't you be creative? There
must be something you people can talk about. When you have to take
liberal blog, and make it the subject of your conservative corner, you
people
are really hurting. Maybe you don't know enough about the current
events
to hold an intelligent discussion with one another. Oh well, back to my
corner. [/QUOTE]<font style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 51);"
size="3"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'm sorry
princess, you must have me confused with someone else. It wasn't I who
quoted your precious Gimpy. I rarely peruse your "Debbie Downer"
thread, as there is not much there of interest to a rational minded person.
Quit "Bogarting" the joint, I think you've had enough! </span>[/
FONT][/QUOTE]
Lisa, I'm not going to critisize your thread. I'm taking the high road.
Lisa, you need to go and read ALL of your posts directed at other people.
You manage to call someone a name in most of your posts. Just go back
and read and see for yourself. You are upset at me because I do not
share your beliefs. It is ok that you believe as you do. It should also be
ok that I believe as I do. I am not anti american. I believe in checks and
balances and a country that does not think it is above its own laws and
international law. I am proud to be an American, always will be but I'm
not proud to be a member of a country who thinks that they are ALWAYS
right and NEVER wrong. We are quickly becoming the most unpopular
nation on the earth. It does not matter how rich we are, it should matter
how we represent ourself to the rest of the world. You don't trample into
someones country and destroy it. But because we are macho America, it
is ok. We don't take into account how it affects the rest of the worlds
population. As long as we can still shop, it seems ok. You have people
from many different countries on this forum and they hear what others in
their own country say about what America is doing and the way we are
doing it. When you have a president who does not listen to his own party,
and many of them abandon him, that is a clear message that he is not
representing the country who pseudo elected him. Please stop your name
calling and quit bashing me and calling me names. I don't appreciate it.DING DING DING!!!! Back to your corners, girls. Round three will not officially begin until page 7. LOL Linncn
[QUOTE=Linncn]DING DING DING!!!! Back to your corners, girls. Round three will not officially begin until page 7.
[QUOTE=lorster]Lisa, you need to go and read ALL of your posts directed at other people.
You manage to call someone a name in most of your posts. Just go back
and read and see for yourself. You are upset at me because I do not
share your beliefs. It is ok that you believe as you do. It should also be
ok that I believe as I do. I am not anti american. I believe in checks and
balances and a country that does not think it is above its own laws and
international law. I am proud to be an American, always will be but I'm
not proud to be a member of a country who thinks that they are ALWAYS
right and NEVER wrong. We are quickly becoming the most unpopular
nation on the earth. It does not matter how rich we are, it should matter
how we represent ourself to the rest of the world. You don't trample into
someones country and destroy it. But because we are macho America, it
is ok. We don't take into account how it affects the rest of the worlds
population. As long as we can still shop, it seems ok. You have people
from many different countries on this forum and they hear what others in
their own country say about what America is doing and the way we are
doing it. When you have a president who does not listen to his own party,
and many of them abandon him, that is a clear message that he is not
representing the country who pseudo elected him. Please stop your name
calling and quit bashing me and calling me names. I don't appreciate it.[/QUOTE]
Same old song and dance. I think you just enjoy hearing yourself talk. It's people like you that make the terrorists think what they're doing is okay because of your negativity of our country. I don't recall ever hearing you speak positive about our country. And if you have it is obviously few and far between. Why don't you look back through YOUR post's about our country and check yourself. I don't appreciate YOU speaking down about OUR country. You say you are proud to be an American?..I'd sure hate to see how you'd act if you weren't!!!!
Go back to your thread...You will know them by the company they keep!!!! "You don't trample into
someones country and destroy it. But because we are macho America, it
is ok" is
the very type of statement that gets back to our troops and lowers
their moral. That is what most conservatives speak of when saying,
"they do not support our troops."
I'm not saying what it does to our troops. I think it does lower their morale. I'm saying that it doesn't matter either way to terrorists. They hate us because we support Isreal and as a nation, we reject the muslim "god". They don't care what we think about politics or our military strength.
[QUOTE=Linncn]I'm not saying what it does to our troops. I think it does lower their morale. I'm saying that it doesn't matter either way to terrorists. They hate us because we support Isreal and as a nation, we reject the muslim "god". They don't care what we think about politics or our military strength.[/QUOTE]
Yes Linncn...I get what you're saying...that is so true. Harry S Truman:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of
increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all
its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
"Mama always said, "stupid is as stupid does"
Forest Gump
GOODNESS.
stop all this and since to-day is your THANKSGIVING, the above attacks
belong on a battle field somewhere.....God bless all those away fighting
in foreign lands for peace for all of us.....you all should be ashamed.
Stop and think what you are doing to each other....whatever will happen
to us all on these forum (whatever thread) when Christmas is upon us.
God must just shake his head...rose
I dunno, rose, I was with you until I looked on the previous page where
Lorster quoted Harry S. Truman, and then Blessed countered with a quote
from Forrest Gump with "forrest" spelled wrong. Man, these threads
just don't get any better than that!oh well g-a-gogo,,,,,,I'll just go back and watch all the US reruns today while the hubby enjoys the FOOTBALL, at least the Macy's parade was very good,,,,,,,,,nice to see all the smiling children...rose
Man...I am so glad there is someone here to check for spelling errors. How ever did we make it without them.
Is called EDUCATION Loiter...I mean Lorster, I guess I could just cut and paste everything like you and then, Lord forbid, I wouldn't spell someone's name wrong.
The trouble with her is that she lacks the power of conversation
nicks? It is disrespectful. Especially when you call people GAG, Al Bore,
Loiter. This says a lot about your character and how you must treat people
outside the WWW.
My point was Lorster quoted a profound and temporaly relevant thought from a past world
leader, and Blessed countered with a piece of feel good fluff from a
popular Hollywood movie. The fact that she spelled the name of the movie wrong
just added funny to the absurdity. Let's face it....Blessed is hardly a
deep thinker.
Apparently you know no difference between deep thinking and over-thinking. Because you do quite a bit of the later.
A lot of people can quote you any scripture in the Bible and still they don't know the Lord. So I am not impressed with your knowledge, I don't give much credence to what you have to say at this point.
Must be pretty bored over in "Debbie Downerville" to be in this thread grading papers. What? No new hog-wash from CNN (Clinton News Network) to piss and moan about.
Some of us are thinkers and some are doers, guess we know which one you are....
God, Blessed, you crack me up! It's so easy to get you going. And then
I love how you always say your behaviour isn't your fault, because you
were "provoked". Hours of entertainment for no money!
And now ignorance is the new Christian virtue.
You're a gem!
I have to admit I'm curious to hear your answer to Lorster's last
post---I'm anticipating a doozy of half-baked convoluted "logic" with a
dash of support from your bestest friend Jesus! Please don't disappoint
me.
Where'd your post go? I was in the middle of replying to it and it disappeared? Why didn't you just leave it and post this one as well?
Guess I'll wait awhile to respond, seeing how this one may disappear as well.
[QUOTE=Gimpy-a-gogo]God, Blessed, you crack me up! It's so easy to get you going. And then
I love how you always say your behaviour isn't your fault, because you
were "provoked". Hours of entertainment for no money!
And now ignorance is the new Christian virtue.
You're a gem!
I have to admit I'm curious to hear your answer to Lorster's last
post---I'm anticipating a doozy of half-baked convoluted "logic" with a
dash of support from your bestest friend Jesus! Please don't disappoint
me.
[/QUOTE]
Tell me Gimpy...was it the Ra that mad you a miserable and spiteful person or your upbringing? Did you have a loving, naturing family growing up or were you abandoned on a door step of an orphanage as a baby? There has to be some reason why you have such a poisonous tongue.
Yes...knowledge is power Gimpy. And you have a lot of it. You should be so proud. But... what have you used your power for...good or evil? You just have more ways of telling me off, putting me down, or correcting me. Whatever makes your boat float!! Didn't you say you were just going to ignore me? What happened to that? Got bored? Don't hold back Gimpy...tell me how you really feel.
Hmm...Very interesting reading.
David Gratzer vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail to meet ottawa’s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.ht ml
Free Market Cure
The Black Kettle
Illinois Review
Moonbattery
The Discerning Texan
QandO
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com