Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania So let me see, you came up with Obama as a "messiah-like" figure all on your very lonesome....it is just independent innovation if you will. And calling Obama a socialist... I suppose you live under a rock, don't read the news or watch it for that matter... um, okay then. Actually I reference many as a messiah. Gore is the 'messiah' of global warming. However in this instance with Obama, I was reverencing a tee shirt being sold and worn by his supporters. I thought I'd be indulgent and use the same reference, never claiming that was mine. I guess that one word is worthy of you hanging the rest of the post as plagiaristic? In that case should it be pointed out that 'Julia of Oceania' plagiarizes Orwell? The reference to Obama as a socialist is pragmatic. Anyone who takes him for his word and compares his principles to socialism can see the association clearly. Whether he personally identifies himself, or you, as socialist doesn't change the factual similarity of the definition. Obviously I'm not in minority in that belief, but again claimed no exclusivity to assigning the label to him. Just as obvious, based upon the quote below, is you not having a problem with it or even disagree. You have 'no problem'. Well - I do, it doesn't work and is contrary to human behavior. quote:
I have no problem with some socialism... never have. It is funny though that so-called anti socialists are the most socialist of all (speaking of your president, Bush) None of that address anything I posted, but okay, I guess. And regardless of the dreamworld you chose to exist Bush IS the President. Reality is something you should try. quote:
And um, why put "daddy" in quotation marks.... I suppose you are beth's "master" They weren't quotes they are brackets to connote a name reference as opposed to a statement of fact - he isn't your 'daddy' anymore than he's mine. And yes - I am beth's 'master' - no problem with that with similar connotations. quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy Right now, there are upward of 16 million UM's in the US without health insurance. Philo, it depends on your focus. True there are millions of people both UM's and adults without insurance, but nobody in the US has treatment withheld. In may ways, the care is similar to the UK, if you are sick and don't have coverage you wait - sometimes for an interminable period to be seen and get treatment. Visit any hospital emergency ward and you can witness it happening first hand. Is there a better way - of course. However the existing PAC voting blocks funded by the Lawyers and Doctors will never let them see the light of day. You are identifying a failure of funded and serving special interests. quote:
You seem to favor a system that removes all possible barriers to the creation of wealth You'll have to point to where I made that representation. What I support is equal access to obtaining wealth. Remember the 'tax the corporations' thread? Not one method was given on how to do so, except the one I proposed - tax purchase. Tax everyone at the consumption level and the playing field is leveled for all. I'll pay more because I buy more. I may even be encourage to save - although I doubt it. Establish a per person minimum annual wage and it serves not only to give those at the lower end of the earnings a benefit, but it keeps the bureaucrats working for the IRS employed. The trouble is it can't be done without collapsing the US RE market even further because its still driven by the fact that no matter how much I make 100% of my interest is tax deductible. Without that motivation, housing prices would deflate even further and homeownership would not be as desirable. My atheistic nature prohibits me from joining the religion of 'Global Warming' however I don't support sacrificing the planet for the advancement of wealth. There is a middle ground that won't sacrifice either.
< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 10/22/2008 4:16:15 PM >
|