SG Broadband Community

Dan wrote:I see this "new member" thing in threads like these as a "which existing member is this ?"

take a look at typing ,punctuation,and word use,and many times it is a fingerprint of a member.

maybe I'm wrong,but it's worth looking at.

Sarahnn wrote:A safer bet would be to say I look at the problem and try to remain germane to the issue. What specifically have I avoided that makes you cast your judgement?

My thoughts on Bush are that he's history. I had my complaints in the past but let's face it. You are using Bush as a diversion. Are you not able to address the current issues which have come into play under Obama's policies?

And so do Clintons and GW Bush...and Carters and Reagans. This is how it goes. Here is one way Bush's policies effect the current administration. Obama has extended and followed all of Bush's anti-terrorism strategies. He may be bowing to other world leaders but he follows Bush policy mostly.

More innocent civilians died at the hands of Saddam Hussein than have died in the Iraqi war. People were dying there whether you want to admit it or not. I believe Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 600,000 people. Also, Saddam launched two wars. One against Iraq and one against Kuwait.

I, for one, am glad Hussein was taken down and probably most of the Iraqi population is too. So, let's not go there. It's two different subjects.

mnosteele52 wrote:
No, but it's pretty obvious that if people are taking their time to march on Washington and have organized events in protest of what the President and his Administration are doing then they are pretty upset about it. They are VERY upset about it to be honest, I have never seen this much public outcry over ANY previous President, Democratic or Republican.

David wrote:"Tax Enough Already" tea parties started during the Bush era. Google it, if you like.

Sarahnn wrote:So, was Steele being sarcastic when he called him a new member ?

mnosteele52 wrote:I just googled it and everything I found were ongoing Tea Parties opposing government taxes in general. "Tax Enough Already" wasn't/isn't geared specifically to Bush, it seems aimed at ALL government taxes, no matter what President is in office.

Sarahnn wrote:They are going to such extremes to put this one bill through, even though the repubs have agreed to work something out with them if they give up this health-care fiasco. It makes me wonder what they have to gain besides health care for 30 million people. (that's an overworked number by the way)

Anyway, I love making political predictions and I don't make many. I'll bet that the Dems have far more to lose than the 30 million without health care if this doesn't go through. Besides 30 million votes they'll have in their back pockets, I mean.

JawZ wrote:The GOP is stuck. For many years now the GOP has taken a contrarian stance on most issues while not having been held accountable or responsible to the people they represent for not having provided viable policy alternatives. For all intents and purposes, the GOP has devolved into an echo chamber.

The conservative idea I put forth is to LOWER health care costs by lowering the DEMAND for healthcare.

For example...when gas prices were high, the government took a leadership position and told Americans to cut down on their fuel consumption and to invest on more economical means. When the economy went south...gas prices tumbled because the demand for gas went down. This is simple economics. Healthcare, like gas, is a COMMODITY. And as with all commodities, if the demand for that particular commodity is low...the price for such will follow suit.

IMO, the GOP needs desperately to take a leadership position and develop a model for increasing the health and wellness of all Americans which would eventually lead to lower healthcare costs. If you lead a healthy lifestyle, eat right, promote and live in a culture of fitness...you can avoid many of the ailments that people are plagued with. Obesity and diabetes are two huge causes of many illnesses...and in many cases, they can be prevented. The GOP should focus on PREVENTION. What is the old saying? an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Right now, the GOP is basically stuck in a quagmire. It created the healthcare model (Mitt Romney) that the Dems are blasting them with and it's also part of the Republican Roadmap which I have posted earlier a few weeks back. Acting contrarian this late in the game only makes them appear to be insincere hypocrites.

Rainn wrote:Anything on Bush who remains relevant to the discussion.

I can understand why you would feel that way. After all the Bush screwups I would prefer to forget them also.

Which is why I don't like Obama either. Whereas Bush called himself the Decider, Obama is the Undecider. First he supports something then he backs off. Take a look at the possible terrorist trials in NYC. First he strongly supported it, but since has backed off as the outrage increased.

So you support going after North Korea? Iran, Darfur?

Roody wrote:This thread title is highly ironic. The last Administration had little problem with pissing all over the Constitution. Again, there is nothing wrong with blasting what a current President does, but if you are going to throw rocks you might want to make sure you don't live in a glass house. Frankly, no Bush supporter should ever be mocking any President going forward for disregarding the Constitution.

jeremyboycool wrote:"IMO, the GOP needs desperately to take a leadership position and develop a model for increasing the health and wellness of all Americans which would eventually lead to lower healthcare costs. If you lead a healthy lifestyle, eat right, promote and live in a culture of fitness...you can avoid many of the ailments that people are plagued with. Obesity and diabetes are two huge causes of many illnesses...and in many cases, they can be prevented. The GOP should focus on PREVENTION. What is the old saying? an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. "

The government should not be telling people how they need to eat or take care of themselves. You are right, prevention is the best medicine but we don't need a daddy government.

JawZ wrote:Jeremy, did I say that the government should be giving orders? No. Was it implied? Nope. The government can and should act as an educated adviser as they do in thousands of different capacities. The government should also offer incentives.

Do we reward good drivers with lower car insurance rates? Yes we do. Why can't healthcare insurance premiums be lowered for those that live a healthy lifestyle?

jeremyboycool wrote: Why can't healthcare insurance premiums be lowered for those that live a healthy lifestyle?"

Sure do that, but you don't just ignore the current unethical practices of insurance companies. My point is that the majority of the focus should be on the corporations. That individualistic freedoms should come before corporatism not after, but unfortunately in this country it is much too often the reverse.

As long as corporations are left unchecked they will exploit the situation. Because that is what corporations do, they do not have a soul, they do not know the difference between right or wrong and they will only be ethical insofar as the law of profits dictate, therefor we need to dictate to them what is ethical. This is what the health care reform should be about, placing laws into effect that will force these soulless companies into ethical practices. I do not have any comments on how effectively the current bill does this but I do not agree on where you place the emphasis.

JBrazen wrote:Hope and Change.....remember that slogan? The crap that Obama ran on that a lot of suckers fell for hook line and sinker for? What happened to that promise of being different than the previous administration? The only thing different about this guy is his skin color, other than that, he's just another no good politician claiming to look out for you, but he's only worried about himself. I wish I were surprised by all of this, but I'm really not, we were all warned about what we were getting with this wannabe.

JawZ wrote:Corporations are created by free individuals. You'll have to reconcile your philosophy of individualistic freedoms versus corporate interests at a later time. A good movie for you to watch is called The Corporation. Healthcare insurance is a commodity. Lower demand for the commodity. If you feel that Corporation X is unethical, don't buy from them! Just because consumers are too friggin stupid to use their power doesn't mean we have to legislate every consumer failure.

Sarahnn wrote:It's petty to think anyone here is throwing rocks by being poliitically engaged in current events and concerned with current administrative policy which will have a long reaching impact on their personal lives. I suggest you get with the program.

And the last administration did not piss all over the Constitution. However, this administration's leader has clearly defined our Constitution as a flawed document. What is wrong with Bush pissing on a flawed document?

jeremyboycool wrote:"You'll have to reconcile your philosophy of individualistic freedoms versus corporate interests at a later time."

No, I don't think I will, because I recognize a difference between just liberty and excessive liberation. When liberation reaches the point that it only liberates the individual but unjustly suppresses those around the individual then it is no longer liberty. Liberty is about balance and compromise for the greater freedom of all.

JawZ wrote:I also recognize a difference between just liberty and excessive liberation. Why are our "differences"...different? Define unjustly. Please define exactly what compromises you're willing to make. The subjective nature of liberty is not relevant to the discussion imo. While entertaining, I can't keep involving myself in these irrelevant tangents which do nothing more than cloud the issue.

What do you want the government to do Jeremy as it relates to healthcare. Do you find yourself at odds with the current pending legislation? If yes, spell it out and provide reasons.

Roody wrote:Can you name one Presidential candidate who didn't use the word change to describe what he would do when becoming a President? Truth is there is none.

mnosteele52 wrote:Yeah, but his whole slogan/logo was CHANGE, he used the word on almost all of his campaign posters. No President has ever preached change as he did.... and that is a fact.

jeremyboycool wrote:"The subjective nature of liberty is not relevant to the discussion imo. "

Yes, it is. This whole mess over health-care is about human rights. The right to reasonable and affordable heath-care, the right for free enterprise and the individual/corporate's responsibility to health-care. These are the central reasons this is going.


"Do you find yourself at odds with the current pending legislation? If yes, spell it out and provide reasons.'

I just said to you,"I do not have any comments on how effectively the current bill does this..."

Between you and me, UOD,... things will just degrade into bickering and fighting. But if you are really curious then I have made plenty of comments in the pass on specifics in the bill. For now though, I will only discuss the philosophy behind it but not the legislation.

Sarahnn wrote:Obama has extended and followed all of Bush's anti-terrorism strategies.

JawZ wrote:Come on, apathy has MUCH to do with it...maybe even moreso than any government sponsored legislation. You can't keep looking to the government to solve all of our own failings.

Take the government out of the equation...how do WE solve the problem?

JawZ wrote:Without distinction from you, this statement is only partially true. There is domestic anti-terrorism which is a civilian law enforcement function and then there is international anti-terrorism as a component of counter-insurgency which is the domain of the military. In the latter, you are dead wrong. Bush believed that we could battle an insurgency using law enforcement anti-terror tactics and it was a huge failure. Obama changed all that when he took office and hired the right guys in the military to implement a true counter-insurgency campaign which has proven to be very effective.

JawZ wrote:Jeremy, did I say that the government should be giving orders? No. Was it implied? Nope. The government can and should act as an educated adviser as they do in thousands of different capacities. The government should also offer incentives.

Do we reward good drivers with lower car insurance rates? Yes we do. Why can't healthcare insurance premiums be lowered for those that live a healthy lifestyle?

JawZ wrote:Come on, apathy has MUCH to do with it...maybe even moreso than any government sponsored legislation. You can't keep looking to the government to solve all of our own failings.

Take the government out of the equation...how do WE solve the problem?

Miggs wrote:Hey Sarahnn, I love you, you sound like you're a great American, keep up the great work.

Rainn wrote:What about Jawz? Is he a Great American even though he's not in bed with the Republican Party or doesn't hate Obama? What about Roody? What constitutes a great American in your mind?

Sarahnn wrote:Are you saying that Bush used Iraqi law enforcement to fight insurgents? And how does a President "Hire" guys in the military? Wouldn't that make them mercenaries?

David wrote:Is not our government, our tool, to unite us in mitigating large scale issues?

JawZ wrote:I wholeheartedly agree. But for many years now...who has been the tool, and who has been the screw?

David wrote:It remains our common ground, Evan. Justice. Those who are corrupt must be punished or removed.

The Libertarians might point to the Constitution, however the majority have financial motives.

JawZ wrote:The President nominates from within the volunteer pool. The Senate then has confirmation hearings. That's the hiring process Sara. You are probably used to hearing about mercenaries because Bush made use of companies like Blackwater...who were mercenaries.

Miggs wrote:Hey Sarahnn, I love you, you sound like you're a great American, keep up the great work.