Are you loyal or a traitor?
larry
"That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
four
years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
in
their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
you
think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
40
percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -Mark Steyn"
----------------------------------------------------
Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
American history.
Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
Larry
bungalo...@yahoo.com
On Jan 29, 6:47 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
They want America to leave the
> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> American history.
>
Curious your logic is based on purely on simple emotional pride,
rather then facts, is that how we base decisions of this scale? If so,
I have to say it sure simplifies the decision making process, you
don't have to know anything about anything.
glfnaz
"larry" <la...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
news:mp1tr2t9qmqg2t825...@4ax.com...
> I would be ashamed to post here more than very very occasionally-- and
> then as you said, I post simply to bait you morons and watch the
> frenzy to "get" me. Pathetic. You guys apparently don't even know
> that you don't know how sick this forum has become.
>
> See ya. I may be reading the posts-- or I may not... you'll never
> know.
>
> Larry
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>"That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
>questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
>not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
>President Bush announced last week to succeed?'
Succeed at doing what? I'm not sure I have seen what the president's
measurable objectives are.
Otto
boys, I am a traitor.
I recently shredded my 18 year old boy's registration card. It doesn't
matter. He is still registered by default.
I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
military service at all costs.
Bush is lost and so is his administration.
I don't care for the idea of some raghead slitting my throat in my cockpit
as they fly my 300 pax into a tall building, but I am fed up with the Iraq
situation.
Bin laden and Zwahiri run loose while we grind our military(active, reserve,
and guard) to a pulp in Iraq to eliminate a guy who threatened Georgie
junior's daddy. Let us not forget--Hussein was our ally in the 1980s. We had
an ambassador that told him it was no biggy if he crossed into Kuwait in
1990.
Bush jr. is an idiot.
The men and women of our armed forces are heroes. They won. They are and
have been victorius since may 2003.
Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all of their civilian henchman have lost.
They are idiots. They are lousy policymakers.
The amazing thing is:
They have yet to be fired.
Shame.
Otto
larry
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three teenage
>boys, I am a traitor.
>
>I recently shredded my 18 year old boy's registration card. It doesn't
>matter. He is still registered by default.
>
>I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
>military service at all costs.
>
>Bush is lost and so is his administration.
>
>I don't care for the idea of some raghead slitting my throat in my cockpit
>as they fly my 300 pax into a tall building, but I am fed up with the Iraq
>situation.
>
>Bin laden and Zwahiri run loose while we grind our military(active, reserve,
>and guard) to a pulp in Iraq to eliminate a guy who threatened Georgie
>junior's daddy. Let us not forget--Hussein was our ally in the 1980s. We had
>an ambassador that told him it was no biggy if he crossed into Kuwait in
>1990.
>
>Bush jr. is an idiot.
>
>The men and women of our armed forces are heroes. They won. They are and
>have been victorius since may 2003.
That is just moronic. The President requires all the various
advisers, State, Pentagon, CIA, NSA and a dozen others to submit their
best plan-- and then he and his top staff choose among their
recommended choices. He NEVER just makes something up. What the US
has done has always been the best course from the best minds
available. If it was wrong it was only because a mortal man did not
have a time machine to look into the future.
And it is "wrong" now only because the partisan media has decided to
ruin the popularity of this president. When Clinton made MUCH more
egregious decisions during Somalia, Kosovo, etc. NOTHING was said as
he sent troops to be killed in an undeclared war without UN
permission. If you hate the president you have been duped-- you are
their fish. Stupid and "easily led."
And at every juncture since 2002 NOBODY has offered a better choice--
they all were silent and now we hear from them (you).
Everyone is a Monday morning quarterback.
Larry
greg
Miss Anne Thrope
Damn peace lovers.
Head Shot
> As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three
> teenage boys, I am a traitor.
12 year reservist here.
> I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
> military service at all costs.
I am the father of five children, and agree with you 100%.
> Bush is lost and so is his administration.
I would take it further - the Republicans and Democrats are completely
lost. They are all a bunch of tyrants.
> Bush jr. is an idiot.
The apple did not fall far from the tree.
> The amazing thing is:
>
> They have yet to be fired.
They deserve to hang and stand before a firing squad after being tried for
crimes against the State.
John van der Pflum
wrote:
>
>
Buuuuuuuzzz!
Plonka-o-rama. Thanks for playing,
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
Otto
"Head Shot" <Head...@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
news:xSyvh.11695$Cg1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Otto wrote:
> > As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three
> > teenage boys, I am a traitor.
>
> 12 year reservist here.
Active duty here. ;>)
> > I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
> > military service at all costs.
>
> I am the father of five children, and agree with you 100%.
As a multi generational offspring of men who have fought back past the civil
war, it is very discomforting for me to to take this position.
This once great country has been hijacked by business interests and clergy.
It breaks my heart.
> > Bush is lost and so is his administration.
>
> I would take it further - the Republicans and Democrats are completely
> lost. They are all a bunch of tyrants.
I agree.
> > Bush jr. is an idiot.
>
> The apple did not fall far from the tree.
No it did not. But George senior had a brain.
As a Commander in Chief, I think George Jr. has been a failure. Afghanistan
was a wonderful idea. Iraq was a personal vendetta and a very bad idea. My
tears flow for the 30 thousand mend and women killed and wounded in Iraq.
I am also disappointed in the legislative branch(both sides of the isle).
> > The amazing thing is:
> >
> > They have yet to be fired.
>
> They deserve to hang and stand before a firing squad after being tried for
> crimes against the State.
I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the fact
that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to remove these
people from office via the ballot box.
otto
larry
Whew! Naive, and a simplistic rationalization.
Read "John Adams" or "Lincoln" and learn that politics in America now
is actually cleaner and more honest than it has ever been.
We are watching the Democrats with the liberal media destroy the
President of the US for partisan gain. Very simply he has power and
they want it for themselves. They are apparently willing to
sacrifice whatever is necessary to ensure Bush does not get a victory
in Iraq which would recover his popularity. They have invested
EVERYTHING in our loss in Iraq. An ignominious loss must happen--
and they will distort the truth as necessary to ensure the American
people do not learn of any good news--and hear only the steady
drumbeat of bad news, deaths, etc. The recent fantastic victory--
500 of theirs killed and 2 of ours -- is being downplayed everywhere
except Fox News.
If you don't seek the truth elsewhere than the liberal TV channels and
newspapers, you are being duped. Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
Journal and Weekly Standard and other similar serious news outlets.
These media are actually "fair and balanced" and not only parisan
conservative as many think. But you won't know that until you
listen, read, and watch for several days. Then objectively compare
their news to CNN, et. al. and learn that you have been systematically
fed the "party line." Millions think what they want you to think.
Larry
>
>
>
Otto
> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
> Journal and Weekly Standard
Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
furthest from it.
It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell you
the truth....."
When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
ignored or twisted.
Much like a golf game. If someone has to tell you how good they are--they
probably suck.
Otto
larry
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"larry" <la...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn3...@4ax.com...
>> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
>> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
>> Journal and Weekly Standard
>
>
>Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
>furthest from it.
AS YOU KNOW, before Fox News and talk radio came along, the liberal
media had an absolute manopoly on information to America--40+ years.
Whatever Walter Cronkite said was "IT." And he had a bias that was
FAR from fair and balanced; he was as liberal as Dan Rather. At
least FNC ALWAYS has an equally informed and vociferous liberal on
every discussion with conservatives. NO OTHER media outlet even
pretends to be objective and balanced. Often MSNBC will have a
"forum" discussion with ALL FOUR wildly liberal commentators. Which
explains why essentially nobody watches MSNBC--and fewer every day.
O'Reilly has slam-dunked Larry King in that time zone-- Fair and
balanced always trumps liberal bias.
>
>It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell you
>the truth....."
>
>When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
>ignored or twisted.
Nope, not this time. The reason FNC has come from no place to blow
MSNBC and CNN out of the water and is gaining on the "Big 3" is that
it really is fair and balanced. Please watch FNC and judge for
yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
Larry
Otto
>Please watch FNC and judge for
> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
the radio.
It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
you or I or the truth.
Otto
larry
Maybe. But the alternative is???
Larry
Head Shot
> I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the
> fact that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to
> remove these people from office via the ballot box.
I don't want to come off as too much of a pessimist; but it seems like no
matter who the voters pick; it keeps going from bad to worse.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
Otto
> Maybe. But the alternative is???
Ignore it all and do the ostrich walk.
Play golf.
Otto
Carbon
Total agreement. They're just trolls whoring for attention, for ratings,
for book sales, etc. They're like Larry, only successful.
Otto
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.31....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> Total agreement. They're just trolls whoring for attention, for ratings,
> for book sales, etc. They're like Larry, only successful.
I am guessing the definition of "only successful" is that the media has
found a way to monetize the propaganda.
In other words, let's make millions off the idiots' gullibility.
Otto
glfnaz
> AS YOU KNOW, before Fox News and talk radio came along, the liberal
> media had an absolute manopoly on information to America--40+ years.
> Whatever Walter Cronkite said was "IT." And he had a bias that was
> FAR from fair and balanced; he was as liberal as Dan Rather. At
> least FNC ALWAYS has an equally informed and vociferous liberal on
> every discussion with conservatives. NO OTHER media outlet even
> pretends to be objective and balanced. Often MSNBC will have a
> "forum" discussion with ALL FOUR wildly liberal commentators. Which
> explains why essentially nobody watches MSNBC--and fewer every day.
> O'Reilly has slam-dunked Larry King in that time zone-- Fair and
> balanced always trumps liberal bias.
>>
>>It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell
>>you
>>the truth....."
>>
>>When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
>>ignored or twisted.
>
> Nope, not this time. The reason FNC has come from no place to blow
> MSNBC and CNN out of the water and is gaining on the "Big 3" is that
> it really is fair and balanced. Please watch FNC and judge for
> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
> Larry
glfnaz
> Whew! Naive, and a simplistic rationalization.
>
> Read "John Adams" or "Lincoln" and learn that politics in America now
> is actually cleaner and more honest than it has ever been.
>
> We are watching the Democrats with the liberal media destroy the
> President of the US for partisan gain. Very simply he has power and
> they want it for themselves. They are apparently willing to
> sacrifice whatever is necessary to ensure Bush does not get a victory
> in Iraq which would recover his popularity. They have invested
> EVERYTHING in our loss in Iraq. An ignominious loss must happen--
> and they will distort the truth as necessary to ensure the American
> people do not learn of any good news--and hear only the steady
> drumbeat of bad news, deaths, etc. The recent fantastic victory--
> 500 of theirs killed and 2 of ours -- is being downplayed everywhere
> except Fox News.
>
> If you don't seek the truth elsewhere than the liberal TV channels and
> newspapers, you are being duped. Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
> Journal and Weekly Standard and other similar serious news outlets.
> These media are actually "fair and balanced" and not only parisan
> conservative as many think. But you won't know that until you
> listen, read, and watch for several days. Then objectively compare
> their news to CNN, et. al. and learn that you have been systematically
> fed the "party line." Millions think what they want you to think.
>
> Larry
Carbon
That is all they care about.
the Moderator
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mHRvh.27073$uW....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
This is true for all media. It is just as likely for the media to create
news as it is to report it.
John B.
wrote:
> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mHRvh.27073$uW....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> >news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d...@4ax.com...
> > >Please watch FNC and judge for
> > > yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
> > I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
> > the radio.
>
> > It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
> > you or I or the truth.
>
> > Otto
>
> This is true for all media. It is just as likely for the media to create
> news as it is to report it.
And this is what we call a conspiracy theory.
larry
<Head...@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>Otto wrote:
>> I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the
>> fact that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to
>> remove these people from office via the ballot box.
>
>
>I don't want to come off as too much of a pessimist; but it seems like no
>matter who the voters pick; it keeps going from bad to worse.
We have never faced an enemy like Radical Islam-- who hate the US (and
the remainder of the non-Muslim world) because they have been
brainwashed that they are in a life-and-death struggle, a "1000 year
war." They think they cannot exist in the same world with Infidels.
And they are not afraid to die.
We are very very lucky that GW Bush learned about their project after
9/11 and basically turned the entire government resources over to
preventing another attack on his watch. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon
Iran and maybe Syria will be part of that effort. I hate it, but I
prefer seeing those wars happen to watching NYC and Chicago, etc.
start looking like Baghdad.
Larry
Otto
> We have never faced an enemy like Radical Islam
You give them waaaay too much credit.
Stop being such a chicken.
>-- who hate the US (and
> the remainder of the non-Muslim world) because they have been
> brainwashed that they are in a life-and-death struggle, a "1000 year
> war." They think they cannot exist in the same world with Infidels.
> And they are not afraid to die.
Neither am I and I'll take 10 of them with me.
Stop being such a chicken.
> We are very very lucky that GW Bush learned about their project after
> 9/11 and basically turned the entire government resources over to
> preventing another attack on his watch. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon
> Iran and maybe Syria will be part of that effort. I hate it, but I
> prefer seeing those wars happen to watching NYC and Chicago, etc.
> start looking like Baghdad.
You give them waaaay too much credit.
Stop being such a chicken.
ter·ror·ist /'t?r?r?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates
terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Stop being such a chicken.
Otto
Carbon
> "larry" <la...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
> news:d0f2s2pdc365u77mu...@4ax.com...
>> We have never faced an enemy like Radical Islam
>
> You give them waaaay too much credit.
>
> Stop being such a chicken.
That's our Larry.
Otto
It's also symptomatic of the "sky is falling" tactic.
Otto
the Moderator
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170270971.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
What is it when the media fabricates a conspiracy theory, ala voter fraud?
larry
We have never faced a totally fearless enemy-- who is also very
intelligent and possibly with unlimited assets (oil money)
To underestimate an enemy like Iran today is to allow them the
opportunty to acquire nuclear weapons-- and then be able to hold us
hostage because we are NOT willing to take a loss of a major city.
Only a fool would sit back and let that happen. Bush is NOT a fool.
Larry
Otto
> We have never faced a totally fearless enemy-- who is also very
> intelligent and possibly with unlimited assets (oil money)
The holders of power in Iran are not interested in homocide bombing their
entire society. They are not interested in losing power any more than our
politicians. They are no more fearless than Japanese kamikazes.
> To underestimate an enemy like Iran today is to allow them the
> opportunty to acquire nuclear weapons-- and then be able to hold us
> hostage because we are NOT willing to take a loss of a major city.
Why the fear mongering? You make it very clear to them, in face to face
discussions and through our actions, that if they light one off they have
guaranteed their total destruction. Were you alive in the 50's, 60's, 70's,
and 80's?
As far as letting them have a nuke;
You may not have a choice. I hate to tell you but the US is not on a war
footing. 99% of our society is uninvolved with the war. We already have 2
unfinished projects and the desert is grinding our equipment down.
> Only a fool would sit back and let that happen.
May not have a choice.
> Bush is NOT a fool.
Are you sure?
Otto
Carbon
Carbon
As it stands, hardly anyone trusts insecure voting machines that leave no
paper trail. They spit out an answer and there is no way to verify the
outcome. Not what you want in a democracy.
Of course Bush's handlers would never lie about an election. Or a war.
the Moderator
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.01....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
The reason hardly anyone trusts voting machines is not because there was any
tampering with the voting machines. People don't trust voting machines,
because the press cooked up a story that did not exist. As it stands none
of the charges leveled by the press have produced a single charge in court.
There were many charges of voter fraud during the last election, but they
stopped when the precincts started reporting. After the vote came in the
story evaporated. Had the Republicans won it would still be front page
news.
sfb
used in New York State never left a paper trail. The only difference between
lever voting machines and the modern touch screens is the technology not the
function - press a button and counters are incremented to cast a votes.
The Democrats lost 2004 and they and their friends in the MSM alleged voter
machine irregularities.
The Democrats won 2006 on the exact same machines and they and their friends
in the MSM never said a peep.
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.01....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>
Carbon
That does not mean the voting machines weren't hacked. At any rate
there is no evidence because these things do not emit a paper trail. They
are very easy to tamper with. A standard hotel minibar key will open the
lock. There have already been demonstrations of security researchers
hacking these machines and changing the totals. It is even possible to do
so remotely and then delete all traces of the offending code. Just the
thing to sway the vote in a couple of battleground states.
The charges of vote tampering will not go away until these machines are
required by law to produce a paper trail. That way there is the
possibility of doing legitimate recounts in contested elections. You want
elections to be accurate, right? You want people to trust the process too,
right? Well, this is how you do it.
larry
He (and every president) is advised by the best and brightest, at
least 3000 very bright military officers, the entire State Department,
the National Security Counsel, CIA, etc. et.c and like Ronald Reagan
and Harry Truman before him, he listens. The president simply
selects among recommended actions.
FYI, the presidents who have made bonehead mistakes either ignored
their staff's advice and went on their own (Lyndon Johnson, JF
Kennedy), or most often they simply chose to do nothing-- Jimmy
Carter, Clinton. For instance, when the CIA had the opportunity to
take Osama Bin Ladin out after the USS Cole, 20 American sailors
killled, Clinton simply refused to answer his phone, the coward
abdicated!
Bush has repeatedly said that Iran WILL NOT be allowed to have a
nuclear weapon-period!!! He is likely repeating the consensus of a
dozen friendly governments-- and especially of Israel, which would
almost certainly be bombed by Radical Islam.
If Iran gets nukes, they would undoubtedly give them to Radical
Islam-- The world cannot rely on that country acting responsibly.
Everyone knows that Israel WILL strike first when facing imminent
danger That will start a conflagration of the entire Middle East.
The world has only one shot at this, we had better get it right. I
think you should be happy that we have a president with the courage of
his convictions. Regardless of popularity, etc. GW Bush will act
when cowardice would put the entire world in danger.
Larry
A Brick in the Wall
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:34:29 -0500, "Otto"
> <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"larry" <la...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>>news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn3...@4ax.com...
>>> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
>>> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
>>> Journal and Weekly Standard
>>
>>
>>Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
>>furthest from it.
>
> AS YOU KNOW,
People who start there screed by saying "AS YOU KNOW," --- rarely know what
they claim they know -- thank you for verifying that.
A Brick in the Wall
Please do not confuse the confused -- it only makes them irritable.
A Brick in the Wall
I doubt that one person is shocked that your list of bonehead mistakes ONLY
included Dems -- I guess it seems to you that Repugs never make a mistake.
the Moderator
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.01....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:33:33 -0600, the Moderator wrote:
>
> That does not mean the voting machines weren't hacked. At any rate
> there is no evidence because these things do not emit a paper trail. They
> are very easy to tamper with. A standard hotel minibar key will open the
> lock. There have already been demonstrations of security researchers
> hacking these machines and changing the totals. It is even possible to do
> so remotely and then delete all traces of the offending code. Just the
> thing to sway the vote in a couple of battleground states.
Don't you mean there was no evidence that the voting machines were hacked?
the Moderator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 17, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an
economy in decline in an effort to keep President Bush's approval numbers
low, according to a study released Monday by a group dedicated to
challenging misconceptions in the media about free enterprise.
The Business and Media Institute (BMI) report "Bad News Bears: How Networks
Distort a Good Economy and Batter President Bush" is the result of an
analysis of all stories referring to the "economy" or "economic" news on the
evening news shows of all three broadcast networks between Aug. 1, 2005, and
July 31, 2006.
Reporters on ABC, CBS and NBC "treated gas prices as a metaphor for the
economy -- only when they were high," said Dan Gainor, director of the BMI,
which is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of
Cybercast News Service.
"And a slowing housing market coming off two record years was just another
club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press," Gainor
added.
"But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States continues
to enjoy solid job growth," the BMI director noted. "In the last year, 1.7
million new jobs were added, and nearly 6 million have been created since
August 2003 -- a streak of more than three years of positive growth.
"Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again --
more than 75 cents from their recent highs," Gainor stated. "And though the
economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, that
followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter -- revised upward to 5.6
percent."
Nevertheless, "polls have repeatedly shown a public that is dissatisfied
with the economy under President Bush," he said.
"A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those
questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor -- and that wasn't
even Bush's low point," the BMI director stated. "The May New York Times/CBS
poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy."
The BMI study resulted in several significant findings, including:
-- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
-- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often
as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
-- Man-on-the-street interviews spin stories: Reporters used ordinary people
to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive.
Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows
particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accounts
six times as often as positive ones.
-- Worst network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the
"CBS Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy -- easily the
worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news of
jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS's brief
stories were positive.
-- Best network: ABC was hardly the "best" anything for its economic
coverage. It simply wasn't as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56
percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36
percent positive.
To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks carefully select a
range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting and cover
stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter's opinion.
The network news should "educate the public about what the economic data
really mean," Gainor added. "Don't just report changing numbers like sports
scores.""
John B.
wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if BMI says it, it must be true.
Carbon
Can you not read?
Michael Anselmo
Anyone with an IRA and can read their statement or anyone who is aware of
the traffic and the masses out shopping in high-end and low-end stores knows
the economy is doing just great.
I'm 65 and I have a great memory. Trust me, we're doing just fine. Now, I
understand, that that statement holds as much truth as any network
man-in -the-street interview of some sobbing neer-do-well telling you he
hasn't work in 4 years.
I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
view or short view, the economy is doing great.
Just my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation.
Mike
Oh, by the way, try to get your news from various sources and make up your
own mind. Don't just watch the networks and take their word for it.
Due diligence is not just for stocks and mutual funds.
Did you know that Vanguard S&P 500 was up over 14% last year?
Howard Brazee
<mans...@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
same time. And the deficit is a tax.
Howard Brazee
Fathers or are you a traitor to the freedoms that define our country?
Otto
"Michael Anselmo" <mans...@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:3cednZPXlM-CGVnY...@adelphia.com...
> I'm 65 and I have a great memory. Trust me, we're doing just fine.
At least you are not one of the 48 million uninsured with no medical
coverage.
Otto
Not me
larry <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
I see, so Democratic presidents have the same advisors, but somehow
*they* are able to not follow that advice, but Republican presidents are
too weak-willed?
>
> Bush has repeatedly said that Iran WILL NOT be allowed to have a
> nuclear weapon-period!!! He is likely repeating the consensus of a
> dozen friendly governments-- and especially of Israel, which would
> almost certainly be bombed by Radical Islam.
>
> If Iran gets nukes, they would undoubtedly give them to Radical
> Islam-- The world cannot rely on that country acting responsibly.
> Everyone knows that Israel WILL strike first when facing imminent
> danger That will start a conflagration of the entire Middle East.
>
> The world has only one shot at this, we had better get it right. I
> think you should be happy that we have a president with the courage of
> his convictions. Regardless of popularity, etc. GW Bush will act
> when cowardice would put the entire world in danger.
GW Bush will act so he can pretend he's half the man his father was...
Not me
larry <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> "That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
> questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
> not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
> President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
> American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
> percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
> four
> years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
> almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
> always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
> in
> their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
> the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
> troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
> you
> think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
> 40
> percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
> failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -Mark Steyn"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
> military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
> they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
> what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> American history.
>
> Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
> to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
> success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
> harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
>
> Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
>
> Larry
I'm glad your world is so simple that one can't disagree with the policy
of a bunch of politicians without being labeled a traitor...
Simon
wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>
> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often
> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>
"Negative stories given more air time". Why is this put forward as an
attack on Bush? This is true of the media in every country whatever
the flavour of government.
>From an outsider's point of view, I doubt if you'd find the media in
any other country supporting Bush either. Whether this is because the
rest of the world is against his policies or their media is turning
them that way, well, make your own mind up...
larry
Hey, I make the kind of "mistake" GW Bush made about Iraq--every time
I go to Las Vegas. I weigh all the factors, then put all my money on
Red on the Roulette game--It seems to be a good risk, I want to double
my money!
But when the little ball lands on Black, I realize I made a mistake!!
She agreed with the original gamble, but now my wife says I made a
mistake! I didn't have a time machine or crystal ball-- thus I
failed miserably to be able to look into the future. Presumably a
better man WOULD have had that ability.
My point is that when GW Bush was deciding what to do with 17 UN
Resolutions making an Invasion of Iraq "legal," the best and brightest
agreed with his decision. MOST of the democrat congressmen agreed
with him. They ALL made speeches strongly endoring the action against
Iraq. Most countries in the free world agreed. Why is his action
now a "mistake" any more than mine to choose red? WHO could have done
better in his place? It isn't really fair to blame the guy who had
the responsibility-- unless you can truthfully say you knew better
when he made the gamble....
Larry
larry
It is absolutely true. Everyone knows it-- at least those who read
newspapers and watch the Big Three TV news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Their
relentless pounding of negatives and complete skipping of positives
becomes extremely obvious even if you don't do a stastical analysis
like the article above. Flip the channels and compare the coverage,
listen to talk radio-- read more fair and balanced newspapers and news
letters such as Stratfor.
The liberal media has very obviously shaped your opinion-- you think
what they want you to think. When they do a popularity poll, you
reguritate the pap you have been fed. When there is an election, you
behave exactly like you were programmed. If you hate Bush, believe
all the negative stuff about the war, etc. you are a complete dunce,
"easily led." You are free, but not really unless you take positive
action to inform yourself.
Larry
larry
wrote:
The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
created by tax cuts paid it off!!
Larry
larry
A full half or maybe more of those are kids and young people who
really don't need health insurance. They don't get sick. Insurance
on such a population is accordingly dirt cheap.
Larry
larry
You can disagree-- but everyone who speaks out should bear in mind
that the enemy in wartime is listening-- and taking encouragement from
disarray in America. Accordingly, dissenters have a responsibility
to shut up and sit down once the majority makes the decision. That
is exactly what they did during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam except
the last-- when their dissent caused the death of 3 MILLION people
when funding was cut and America abandoned its promises.
In times past, Rome for instance, after the decision to go to war was
made, dissenters were considered traitors-- and killed.
Larry
larry
wrote:
The BBC is leading the pack of baying liberals tarring our country and
our president.
Larry
Not me
larry <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
Utter nonsense. For a start, the U.S. is *not* at war, for one thing.
Bush didn't have the balls to declare war back when the Republicans held
both houses. Why is that?
America is engaged in a propaganda exercise designed to make GW look as
good as his daddy.
>
> In times past, Rome for instance, after the decision to go to war was
> made, dissenters were considered traitors-- and killed.
And we know how much you'd like to be able to do that to your political
antagonists...
Alan Baker
larry <la...@delmardata.com> wrote:
Sorry, but your president doesn't equate to your country.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
Not me
Sorry, but your president doesn't equate to your country.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
>>>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
>>>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
>>
>>It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
>>same time. And the deficit is a tax.
>
>The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
>can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
>third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
>Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
>created by tax cuts paid it off!!
So is this a counter to my statement?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>A full half or maybe more of those are kids and young people who
>really don't need health insurance. They don't get sick. Insurance
>on such a population is accordingly dirt cheap.
My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.
If it is so cheap, why not include them?
Carbon
> Hey, I make the kind of "mistake" GW Bush made about Iraq--every time I
> go to Las Vegas. I weigh all the factors, then put all my money on Red
> on the Roulette game--It seems to be a good risk, I want to double my
> money!
Iraq couldn't have been a gamble on the part of Bush's handlers because
their neocon ideology dictated that the whole sorry adventure would
succeed. There was no propaganda around risk until it became obvious even
to them that things were going drastically wrong in Iraq.
John B.
You are wrong on every count. How unlike you. The Bush adminstration
every year projects higher deficits than what they really expect so
that when the deficit comes in lower than the projection, they can
take credit for it. Duhhh yourself, dumbass.
Head Shot
Show some respect - Larry's neighbor is Rush Limbaugh's personal advisor.
Otto
> > The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
> > can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
> > third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
> > Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
> > created by tax cuts paid it off!!
> >
> > Larry
>
> You are wrong on every count. How unlike you. The Bush adminstration
> every year projects higher deficits than what they really expect so
> that when the deficit comes in lower than the projection, they can
> take credit for it. Duhhh yourself, dumbass.
The deficit is also quoted lower than actual as they add in the suprlusses
of payroll taxes for social security and medicare. Those surpluses are soon
to end and the bill will come due.
3.6 trillion in unfunded social security liabilities.
36 trillion in unfunded medicare liabilities.
9+ trillion federal debt(3 trillion belongs to Georgie and the republican
congress)
Who ya gonna call?
Otto
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
>the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
>system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.
Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.
It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
for him and he is in remission.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Iraq couldn't have been a gamble on the part of Bush's handlers because
>their neocon ideology dictated that the whole sorry adventure would
>succeed.
Bush didn't have to gamble because there was no outcome that was worse
than Saddam remaining in power. I'm sure that a lot of people in the
Administration hoped things would have turned out better, but the main
goal has been achieved. An Iraq divided and in chaos is less of a
threat than a unified Iraq under Saddam.
No one in the administration will come out and say this, but this is
why they had no compunctions about invading in the first place.
Carbon
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:26:36 -0500, Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Iraq couldn't have been a gamble on the part of Bush's handlers because
>>their neocon ideology dictated that the whole sorry adventure would
>>succeed.
>
> Bush didn't have to gamble because there was no outcome that was worse
> than Saddam remaining in power. I'm sure that a lot of people in the
> Administration hoped things would have turned out better, but the main
> goal has been achieved. An Iraq divided and in chaos is less of a
> threat than a unified Iraq under Saddam.
Bullshit. Saddam had -0- WMD and was totally contained. A little tinhorn
dictator, a threat to his own people and nothing more.
> No one in the administration will come out and say this, but this is why
> they had no compunctions about invading in the first place.
Multiply the current price of a barrel of oil with Iraq's proven oil
reserves. It is a very large number.
And you seem to have missed the point. I said Bush's handlers did not
gamble on Iraq because per their Neocon ideology they assumed it was a
sure thing. Therefore it follows that with the ongoing chaos in Iraq, the
whole adventure must be considered a total failure from their perspective.
Even a twenty-three percenter like you has to concede that.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
>>the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
>>system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.
>
>Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
>rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
>misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
>because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
>option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.
He thought he needed his money for his family, and didn't know his
cough was important enough to take money from them.
>It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
>for him and he is in remission.
He didn't last a year.
The point is that we do have socialized medicine - for the employed
and old.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Bush didn't have to gamble because there was no outcome that was worse
>than Saddam remaining in power. I'm sure that a lot of people in the
>Administration hoped things would have turned out better, but the main
>goal has been achieved. An Iraq divided and in chaos is less of a
>threat than a unified Iraq under Saddam.
For the US, a middle-eastern bogie man was valuable.
the Moderator
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.03....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:36:58 -0600, the Moderator wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2007.02.01....@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:33:33 -0600, the Moderator wrote:
> >>
> >> That does not mean the voting machines weren't hacked. At any rate
> >> there is no evidence because these things do not emit a paper trail.
> >> They are very easy to tamper with. A standard hotel minibar key will
> >> open the lock. There have already been demonstrations of security
> >> researchers hacking these machines and changing the totals. It is even
> >> possible to do so remotely and then delete all traces of the offending
> >> code. Just the thing to sway the vote in a couple of battleground
> >> states.
> >
> > Don't you mean there was no evidence that the voting machines were
> > hacked?
>
> Can you not read?
Sure I can read. It is one thing for a sheeple such as yourself to spin the
story, but the major news networks should not be doing it.
the Moderator
Since the start of the war the growth of the GDP can be measured in
Trillions.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Bush didn't have to gamble because there was no outcome that was worse
>> than Saddam remaining in power. I'm sure that a lot of people in the
>> Administration hoped things would have turned out better, but the main
>> goal has been achieved. An Iraq divided and in chaos is less of a
>> threat than a unified Iraq under Saddam.
>
>Bullshit. Saddam had -0- WMD and was totally contained. A little tinhorn
>dictator, a threat to his own people and nothing more.
I disagree.
The reason why I think Bush will eventually be considered as a great
President is because, as time goes by, more and more people (there are
some who will never learn) will realize the nature of the threat that
the West is facing. Accordingly Bush will be seen as a leader who
understood the threat and took action.
There are some serious long term problems facing the US and, thanks to
Bush's decisiveness, Saddam is not one of them.
Jack Hollis
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>And you seem to have missed the point. I said Bush's handlers did not
>gamble on Iraq because per their Neocon ideology they assumed it was a
>sure thing.
Bush knew it was a sure thing because no outcome was worse than
leaving Saddam in power.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
>>rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
>>misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
>>because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
>>option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.
>
>He thought he needed his money for his family, and didn't know his
>cough was important enough to take money from them.
>
He should have at least had a full physical exam before he let his
insurance lapse. Twenty twenty hindsight to be sure.
>>It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
>>for him and he is in remission.
>
>He didn't last a year.
>
>The point is that we do have socialized medicine - for the employed
>and old.
Sorry to hear that.
The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
socialized medicine. It's a private system and is much better than
any socialized medicine plan you could possible have on the scale of
medical services in the US. Socialized medicine in the US would be a
disaster. It's a moot point because it will never happen and for that
I give thanks. Why fuck things up for 85% of the people to try to
provide coverage for 15% of the people. This is especially true
because around half of that 15% are people who could afford health
insurance but choose not to pay for it. I was a member of that class
for many years in my younger days. The trick is to provide medical
coverage for the people who can't afford it and need it without
fucking up health care for everyone else.
You can get bad health care in the US, but if you have good coverage
and know what you're doing, you can get better health care in the US
than anywhere else in the world. I'm not your average health care
consumer, but anyone with private coverage who takes the time to do
his/her homework can get excellent treatment.
I'm about 5 years away from being eligible for Medicare but I have no
plan to let my private insurance lapse. Medicare, which is socialized
medicine, sucks. Almost all of the physicians that I have seen over
the past 20 years would no longer be available to me on Medicaid. One
of my doctors wont even deal with private insurance agencies. I have
to pay him cash and I submit the claim and pay the difference.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
>socialized medicine.
Sure it is. If society shares the expense of my medical care, it's
socialized medicine. Whether my employer pays for it out of my
withdrawals or whether the state pays for it out of my withdrawals, it
is a group expense.
Sometimes the benefits are obvious - as when the state pays for an
inoculation program. Other times, the costs don't match the benefits
as well - as when we keep 90 year olds alive longer. Businesses
believe it is a worthwhile investment to assist in health care for
their employees and families - keeping them at work.
the Moderator
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:e0oes2lobi7j84q2r...@4ax.com...
You can use the VA unless your income is higher than their minimum. The
free medical that was part of my agreement with the government now has lots
of strings attached. I went to the VA a couple times right after I got
discharged. The waiting and shuffling from one waiting area to the next was
oppressive. That is what socialized medicine is.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:28:56 -0500, Carbon
That, Jack, is just plain silly. Are you aware how a statement so
inane makes you look?
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
“Someone likes every shot”
bk
John B.
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:23:15 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:28:56 -0500, Carbon
> ><nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>And you seem to have missed the point. I said Bush's handlers did not
> >>gamble on Iraq because per their Neocon ideology they assumed it was a
> >>sure thing.
>
> >Bush knew it was a sure thing because no outcome was worse than
> >leaving Saddam in power.
>
> That, Jack, is just plain silly. Are you aware how a statement so
> inane makes you look?
I believe Jack is adhering to the propaganda principle that holds that
if you make a claim repeatedly, people eventually come to believe it,
no matter how false or preposterous it is.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>>And you seem to have missed the point. I said Bush's handlers did not
>>>gamble on Iraq because per their Neocon ideology they assumed it was a
>>>sure thing.
>>
>>Bush knew it was a sure thing because no outcome was worse than
>>leaving Saddam in power.
>
>That, Jack, is just plain silly. Are you aware how a statement so
>inane makes you look?
Not at all. I think it makes me look smart and I'm sure that time
will prove me to be right.
Before WW2, the British wanted to avoid war with Germany and hoped
that negotiations and appeasement would keep the peace. At the time
Churchill was considered a warmonger. History proved that Churchill
was right.
Right now, you feel that negotiations and appeasement is what's
needed. I feel that negotiations are not only useless, they are
dangerous. It's time for action and getting rid of Saddam was the
major victory in a war that will go on for decades.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net>
Another statement that proves your naivete. You have no idea how I
feel about negotiations, or appeasement. Just as LLLLLarrry,
everything with you is black and white. What I do feel is that Saddam
was absolutely no threat to the U.S. , and that was proven over and
over again. Try saying this out loud..."There were no weapons of mass
destruction".
Whatever Dubya's reasoning was for the invasion, it was flawed. We're
now entrapped in a no-win situation.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
>>socialized medicine.
>
>Sure it is. If society shares the expense of my medical care, it's
>socialized medicine. Whether my employer pays for it out of my
>withdrawals or whether the state pays for it out of my withdrawals, it
>is a group expense.
The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
revenue.
In the US, if you're under 65 or not destitute (Medicare and Medicaid)
you have to get your health insurance from a private source. There
are also government run medical programs like the VA for veterans.
Most people belong to group plans through their employers. However,
these are still provided by private insurers. Some of these insurers
are corporations and others are mutual companies. These plans usually
provide the worker with a number of choices. A young single person in
good health can choose to only have catastrophic coverage that will
cover a serious illness or accident and pay for all the small medical
expenses when necessary. Generally speaking, the private insurance
provides better, and more expedient, care that you can get in a large
socialized medical system.
Jack Hollis
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>You can use the VA unless your income is higher than their minimum. The
>free medical that was part of my agreement with the government now has lots
>of strings attached. I went to the VA a couple times right after I got
>discharged. The waiting and shuffling from one waiting area to the next was
>oppressive. That is what socialized medicine is.
Absolutely, the VA system is not known for its quality of care. The
same is true for Medicare and Medicaid. I certainly wouldn't want to
see all health care in the US brought down to that level.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
>provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
>revenue.
Which doesn't mean that private insurance is not also socialized, with
many of the same problems and costs that a state run insurance would
have.
...
> Generally speaking, the private insurance
>provides better, and more expedient, care that you can get in a large
>socialized medical system.
And paying cash provides better, and more expedient care than we can
get with a large insurance system - for those who have (and spend) the
cash.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
> What I do feel is that Saddam
>was absolutely no threat to the U.S. , and that was proven over and
>over again. Try saying this out loud..."There were no weapons of mass
>destruction".
Minimally, his threat was not such that
>>Bush knew it was a sure thing because no outcome was worse than
>>leaving Saddam in power.
is at all reasonable. We had and still have *lots* bigger threats.
Some of those threats have grown by us replacing Saddam as a bad guy.
But we can never prove what leaving Saddam in power would have meant
to our freedom and security. I do know that I value my freedom
higher than I value my security - but that's the American values that
I was taught as a youngster - values that seem to be passe.
Lloyd Parsons
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
funding to do it.
Pretty much the same story with Medicaid.
Medicare pays for the medical care provided by your local doctor.
Probably the same one you used before you started on Medicare. If you
get poor care under Medicare then I would suggest you hold the doctors
hands to the fire.
Lloyd Parsons
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
than medicare's.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:58:59 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>> What I do feel is that Saddam
>>was absolutely no threat to the U.S. , and that was proven over and
>>over again. Try saying this out loud..."There were no weapons of mass
>>destruction".
>
<clip>
>But we can never prove what leaving Saddam in power would have meant
>to our freedom and security.
<clip>
If invading Iraq was the answer to that, then we could just pick a
country to invade. We can never prove what leaving any head of state
could mean to our freedom and security. How about Kim Jong il? He
damned sure is now more dangerous to us than Saddam would've been for
another ten years.
I guess Dubya picked a "war" he thought he could win. Wrong!
the Moderator
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-5BB7...@individual.net...
>
> The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
> issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
> they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
> funding to do it.
When was the last time you were treated at a VA facility?
the Moderator
>
> Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
> than medicare's.
I am afraid I am going to have to ask for a source on this.
sfb
must follow legally mandated accounting rules to cover all revenues and
costs, the government can cook the books hiding costs to prove anything they
want including that the earth is flat.
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
news:Ke-dner73Z3TB1rY...@centurytel.net...
Jack Hollis
wrote:
> What I do feel is that Saddam
>was absolutely no threat to the U.S. , and that was proven over and
>over again. Try saying this out loud..."There were no weapons of mass
>destruction".
Anyone who thinks that Saddam wouldn't restart his nuclear weapons
program once sanctions were lifted is living in a fantasy world. That
is why he was a threat. The US had the chance to get rid of Saddam
and took it. You have to take advantages of your opportunities when
they come. Job well done.
John B.
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:39:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
I stay out of debates on subjects I don't know anything about. I
suggest you consider doing the same. Your understanding of the culture
and politics of the Middle East and of foreign policy in general is
virtually nil. Your assertion (if I understand it correctly) that
military force is the only solution to our problems in that part of
the world and that diplomacy is "useless" proves this beyond any
doubt.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
>>provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
>>revenue.
>
>Which doesn't mean that private insurance is not also socialized, with
>many of the same problems and costs that a state run insurance would
>have.
I don't know anyone with private health care who has to wait to see a
physician for diagnostic procedures or treatment. However, there are
problems in the US. I would never belong to a HMO because it has the
most similarities to a sociaalized sysyem. Obviously, a HMO makes
more profit from not giving you service. In a similar light,
socialized medicine spend less tax money by delivering less service.
My wife got up this morning and felt a lump in her breast. She had an
appointment with he OB/GYN specialist three hours after she called
him. He saw her and sent her for a sonogram which was completed by
2PM this afternoon. The radiologist called the doctor back by 3PM and
the doctor called my wife not a half hour ago to inform her it was
just a cyst. Try that in a country with socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine sucks. The people who can afford it in those
countries have private insurance and see physicians outside the system
or they come to the US for medical care.
the Moderator
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170711225.2...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I stay out of debates on subjects I don't know anything about. I
> suggest you consider doing the same.
Since when?
Alan Baker
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Job very sloppily done, you mean.
No one should have had any doubt that they were going to succeed in
ousting Saddam's regime. The question is why hadn't anyone considered
what they needed to do then?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Anyone who thinks that Saddam wouldn't restart his nuclear weapons
>program once sanctions were lifted is living in a fantasy world. That
>is why he was a threat. The US had the chance to get rid of Saddam
>and took it. You have to take advantages of your opportunities when
>they come. Job well done.
Are other "rogue" nations more likely or less likely to produce
nuclear weapons now that we are occupying Iraq?
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:58:59 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net>
Or...Mission Accomplished! LOL.
We'll be there for a decade, and then just have to leave, unless Dubya
is stupid enough to invade Iran....and he's that stupid.
Incidentally, you said to me that "Right now, you feel that
negotiations and appeasement is what's needed". As I stated, you have
no idea what I feel. Two question for you; with whom could we
possibly negotiate? Even if there was an organized group with whom
we're fighting, what appeasement, other than getting the hell out,
could be acceptable?