Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

To all who lost their lives from terrorism, rest and respect

Elliot

As I witnessed the IRA bombing of Hyde Park in 1982, I am somewhat familar with the effects that terrorism has. I was on the other side of the park with my Dad, horror films have never been the same since

I think here though you are trying to persuade an argument that was based on the number of people who died in a single attack

If it wasnt for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq etc

However, having lived with terrorism what seems all my life, do not think that the chances of you being bombed again have gone

The reason why it is particular effective is any idiot can do it, with very little assistance, but then you know that from your israeli experience

What you have to do is learn from each other of why there is so much hatred between the two sides

This involves talking, and I guarantee at some point talking will happen in Afgahanistan, and all its regions, because we cannot let this go and needs to be finished and not left to stir up again in 5 years

But this moves the subject away from the question

And we both know where we stand on this issue, im right your wrong :D

---

Phlanx,

Your prior post quoted Churchill and stated that we should look at the RESULT of our strategy, not just the strategy itself. I was taking your advice.

BEFORE 9/11 our "strategy" was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The RESULT of that strategy was more attacks... roughly 1 per year over a multiple-decade period.

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.

Given the change in strategy since 9/11 and the result of that change, I would argue that the strategy and the result are both favorable. Thus Churchill's advice is satisfied.

That was my only point.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

I wonder why you don't ask the same question when it comes to your wars.

excon

---

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.

---

Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

It's kind of the way Alice would look at it after she went through the looking glass. Silly Republicans.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).

---

Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

But, of course, it AIN'T true. You KNOW that's not going to happen, NOT because the Supreme Court is liberal, but because health care reform IS CONSTITUTIONAL.. Silly Republicans.

excon

PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

Quote:

---

By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?

---

And so they did .Perhaps you did not read the resolutions passed by large bipartisan majorities for BOTH wars ?

Tell me... where in the Constitution does it say that the wording of a war resolution that Congress passes needs the wording "we declare war " ? Don't waste your time looking for it. You won't find it.

Free healthcare would be a dream come true for some people like myself who can't afford health insurance and need the help. Humans are humans and deserve to be taken care of.

Not knowing your circumstances I can't comment . If you truly can't afford it then there are already many government safety net programs to fall back on.
But if you have the means then why should I pay for your health care ?

Why let people who are homeless die in the streets? Nobody's "worthless" and deserve help if needed..

Again... there are already provisions for the truly needy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

again ..... there are already provisions for the truly needy .

---

Hello itsamor:

Of course, this is the right wing mantra. It's just not so, as I'm sure you can attest.

excon

Idk if it's sleep deprivation but I don't know what you just said.. "right wing mantra" what is just not so? 0_o
Somebody come be an elitist prick and tell me how stupid I am!

Hello again, itsamor:

Slooooow down. You're just fine, and I ain't an elitist prick because I happen to know stuff...

A mantra is something that people repeat over and over again until it becomes believable. Right wing, is a political persuasion that MOST of the people have, who repeat the mantra.

Those people are the ones who believe that you HAVE health care now, but for some reason CHOOSE not to use it. You and I know that that's just nuts.

Nonetheless, for THAT reason, they're against passing a bill that would help you.

excon

Ohhh okay, I know what a mantra is but didn't know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that I want to help as much as I can.

Salvo all,

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

So how can you have one without the other - this is just hypocrisy

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

---

Hello again, p:

Last I heard, they're putting it off till next year.. That means never.

Say hello to President Palin.

excon

Quote:

---

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

---

No ;the Senate is delaying voting because they can't convince the General Accounting Office to massage the numbers so it doesn't appear to be a budget buster.

Quote:

---

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

---

I have been consistent that I favor basic safety net provisions for the truely needy.
I don't think it is inconsistent at all to say that massive government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient . The bigger it gets the more inefficient it is . Yes I think the vast majority are better off on their own without the "helping hand " of Super Nanny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

---

I'm sure that Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts WILL vote against it. Just as I'm sure that the 5 radical libs on the court with vote in favor of it.

Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean that the liberal courts are going to vote against it. We all know that to be true... well, everyone except you, of course. You still think the court is conservative.

Quote:

---

PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

---

Sure we should. But based on the EFFECTIVENESS of the war efforts, I'd say that we're getting our money's worth. So... it's both cost effective AND constitutional. That's why I'm not worried about it.

Quote:

---

PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

---

We've been through this before. Congress not only declared war, they did so TWICE. You can claim that they didn't all you want, but they did. Facts are stubborn things.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

---

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

Let's put it this way... if for 30 years you were getting attacked by mosquitoes, and then suddenly in the past 8 years you didn't, I'd wonder what you were doing differently, because it would seem to have been effective.

You, of course, would chalk it up to accident.

Quote:

---

The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

---

Yeah... about that unmitigated disaster...

War in Iraq has accomplished:

1) Freedom for 25 million Iraqis from a dictatorial regime,
2) The creation of a parlimentary democracy,
3) The formation of a national police force and military that is increasingly taking charge of its own national security,
4) Increased employment,
5) Increased wages,
6) Increased productivity,
7) Increased oil production,
8) New schools, hospitals and other infrastructure necessary to grow society,
9) reflooding of the marshlands of southern Iraq which were intentionally drained by Saddam Hussein and which destroyed the culture of Marsh Arabs living there. We have rebuilt the marshlands and given the Marsh Arabs a place to live again.
10) reinstituted a non-corrupt, fair Iraqi judicial system.
11) Reinsitituted free press in Iraq.
12) Ended the factional wars within Iraq.
13) the destruction of 38,000 chemical munitions, 480,000 litres of chemical agents and 1.8 million litres of precursors of chemical agents. (You didn't know about that one, did you?)

And, of course, there's # 14) We have not had a terrorist attack against us in 8 years.

Yeah... I can see where you'd call all of that an "unmitigated disaster"...

NOT!!

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsamor

Ohhh okay, i know what a mantra is but didnt know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that i want to help as much as i can.

---

So... when you are a doctor or nurse or whatever, and you are working 60 hours a week (as many health care professionals do), are you going to expect to be paid for your services? Or will you be working for free just because you want to help people.

Keep in mind that you are going to have either a mortgage or rent to pay, as well as taxes, the costs of food, clothing, perhaps the occasional movie or concert. Presumably you will eventually have children, and you will need to pay for their food, clothing and toys as well. How are you going to pay for all of that if you are going to be working for free?

Or are you expecting someone to just give you all those things for free?

And do you expect the doctor who went through 4 years of medical school, 2 years of internship, 2 of residency, and 2 of fellowship (for relatively low pay with very long hours) and who had to take loans to live on during those 10 years of professional training (because he was getting paid very little) to work for free and not pay off his loans? Or his food costs? Or rent?

Why would he or she choose to work their tail off for 10 years or more if they aren't going to make money out of the deal? Just because they love to help their fellow man?

Love doesn't pay the bills, young lady. Your landlord isn't going to accept your love as compensation for your use of his apartment. The grocer isn't going to except good intentions as payment for his fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs. The clothing store isn't going to accept nice feelings as payment for the clothing you wear.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Now... How much should you be paid for your work?

---

How much are you being paid for your work? You go first.
Edit to add: please add where you went to school and how much you spent for your education.