Hepatitis Social Community
Who in the election will fight for our cause?
About This Community:

This forum is for hepatitis patients, family members, loved ones, friends or anyone with an interest in hepatitis, to have open social conversations about any topic they choose, with the exception of religion and politics. Please note that our standard “Rules for Posting in Public Areas”, which are found in our Terms of Use , also apply in this community. If you are newly diagnosed with Hepatitis or you have questions or information to share about current treatments, research studies, clinical trials, or other medical issues pertaining to Hepatitis, please post it in one of our Hepatitis Communities ( Hep A , Hep B , Hep C or Hep-autoimmune ).

Font Size:
A
A
A
Background:
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank Blank
339 Comments Post a Comment
Viewing 201-341 comments:
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
You will be added to the the remarkably long list of those on the left who have tuned into his show . Personally, I've never listened to him on the radio one single time. I understand he holds many of my views. I've met many libs who listen to his show. It's both ironic and amusing at the same time that I know more liberal listeners than conservative.

Fact Sheet: October 2007 Marks Record 50th Consecutive Month of Job Growth
8.31 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Months Of Job Growth On Record


Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 166,000 jobs created in October.  Since August 2003, 8.31 million jobs have been created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October.  Our economy has now added jobs for 50 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent.  

The U.S. Economy Remains Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic

Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007.  The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent – an average of over $3,800 per person – since President Bush took office.
Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September.  This rise is faster than the average rate during the 1990s.
Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year.  This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average.  Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.

www.bls.gov
Blank
179856_tn?1333550962
In terms of Susan's original question I agree with this statement the most out of everything discussed.

"As long as it is seen as 'that druggie disease', nothing is going to change. "

Yup, when HIV was considered "a gay bath house disease" it wasn't important to do anything - not until the husbands started bringing it home to their upper class wives.  I just don't think any candidate in general even cares about HCV more than any other disease. I believe as a course of action Democrats dump much much more money into the medical field (ie: the first cuts Bush made were of course health and education - wiping out every penny that the Clinton's did in fact get put into those programs).  As a general matter of politics I feel a Democrat is needed if you are talking anything at all about Medical and Health and the Environment and things like that. They just aren't priority on a Republican leaders agenda at all (ie: why is the USA the only superpower not signed to the Kyoto Accord)....

But again, it's a crapshoot and we'll never know until after the election cause they do all promise all things and deliver only what they are able to pass through Congress and stuff.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
oops pushed a button and lost my post.  I was saying to Mike that I sited Greenspan's memoirs regarding how the deficit reduction was Clinton's doing.  I don't think it matters what sites we offer.  

I am reading History of the Cia, recent book and it clearly states that the reason we went into war with Iraq was because of the misinformation given the CIA by one lone source in Iraq. Turned out to be false.  How we are still there instead of going after Bin Laden is a mystery to me.  

Beamer;  I totally agree with you!  Mr. Liver wins, cuz he says so.  
Blank
154668_tn?1290119595
NY, I'm not sure where you get your information.  Clinton's 2000 National Institute of Health budget was 18.8 billion and Bush's 2008 budget is 28.9 billion.  I wouldn't consider a 59% increase a cut.
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171

  I’m impressed more by Dennis Kucinich’s ideas concerning healthcare than the other candidates. Perhaps he is the one who would help us?

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/

Health care in the US is too expensive and leaves 46 million Americans without insurance and millions more underinsured. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for President with a plan for a Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-Profit health care system.

America's patchwork of for-profit, private insurers waste billions of dollars on spending that has nothing to do with paying for care. Elaborate underwriting, billing, sales and marketing divert huge amounts of money away from delivering health care. Huge profits and staggering compensation for the insurance companies' top executives and CEO's.

To cope with the endless bureaucracy of private insurers, health care providers maintain huge administrative staffs. The administration of the health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying any more than we already do.

In Congress, Representative Dennis Kucinich has co-authored HR 676, legislation which would establish Medicare for All - a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system that leaves no American behind.

Resources:

Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform A paper refuting many of the myths associated with single-payer health care.
No Health Insurance? It's Enough to Make You Sick American College of Physicians paper - Uninsured Americans live sicker and die younger.
Uninsured Americans with Chronic Health Conditions Key Findings from the National Health Interview Survey - the Urban Institute and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
H.R. 676 - the United States National Health Insurance Act Read Rep. Kucinich's legislation on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
Your contention that Clinton was the reason for the Iraq war is simply ludicrous, and I don't see a lot of people defending it besides you, that's your bone to chew on, apparently...And yes, you do get a little *immature* when you seem to feel threatened, and you want to get in these neener neener neener debates....You do this Snidely Whiplash thing like your curling your mustache while laughing at the effrontery of trying to dispute what YOU say...it's weird...let's just say you don't stay calm and collected while youre debating....no, I wouldn't say that...

Bush does what he wants in his OWN administration and you're chasing your own tail here, cause if you're contending that Bush went in and invaded a country based on Clinton's assertions, what a dope of a president anyway??? He doesn't look good no matter how you slice this....say Clinton  thought what he thought - based on the evidence he had at the time, there's always the possibility that he would of tried to get more VERIFICATION before he INVADED A COUNTRY, Clinton had respect for Blitz and his findings, or non-findings...kinda of a big step no? Based on the "evidence" he had? He didn't invade Iraq....Bush did...From the Washington Post but I could site a bunch of other sources, like anybody could...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html?sub=AR

Colin Powell later said one of the lowest points in his life is when he was "encouraged" to make that speech to the UN urging the invasion of Iraq, (based on the questionable evidence they had) there are sites all over the place attesting to this, including his own autobiography... In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." I saw this show...this is probably the reason that Powell himself did not run for president, and I believe he would of been a fine candidate. These colossal blunders have smeared mud on everyone actively involved.

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare. - Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph. - A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

I believe the Bush administration was treasonous in outing Valerie Plain, a CIA operative, because her husband wouldn't play ball with their agenda, there are sites all over the place explaining this....do I really need to go find them? Is anybody questioning this? I'll go find a bunch if I have to, but I believe you all read the paper.

This kind of stuff is all over the net, it's pretty much substantiated by most everybody out there, heard McCain say it the other day in an interview, that the case for war was badly laid out, badly planned and mismanaged once it was underway, etc etc...

do I really have to sit here and defend these contentions? Does anybody here believe that this was a really great move on the President's part? If you thought this Mr. Liver, then why didn't you argue these points in the beginning, why did you wait so long till I asked you to address this? What are we talking about here? If this was such a great move on the Bush administrations part, why do you hear nary a word about Bush in the Republican debates or speeches? Why are the Republicans themselves trying to distance themselves from Bush et al? Mention his name and you hear crickets from them...

As far as the economy being *strong*, why not let polls of the people of the US themselves be a factor in this, they are the ones living in it and having to deal with it...not highly paid economic analysts, and not everyone of THEM believes it is "strong" either...see the polls of actual people in the US and what they feel about the economy...and as I've pointed out before, how strong do you think our economy will be at 9 billion a month prosecuting a huge blunder of a war? We're being floated now by other countries, but how much longer do you think 'our economy" will take a hit like this? Does it feel to you like it's a strong economy? Do you know a lot of people who got Christmas bonuses etc and feel zippitydoodah about this economy?....I don't...but maybe I'm missing something as you so consistently point out...

And does anybody here dispute that these vast amounts of money going to Haliburton, Iraq, Blackwater, etc etc would be BETTER SPENT RIGHT HERE AT HOME addressing these domestic issues in the first place? The reason this thread was started? It would of made much more sense to just have stayed in Afghanistan, getting Al Quida and Taliban factions there, securing THAT country, that's when The Taliban and Al Quida were pretty much despised by many Muslims in the first place, we would of gotten much more of an attably getting them there, invading Iraw made martyrs out of them, and was a great PR move for THEM...

We are now trying to prosecute a two front war, with relatively scarce resources and a volunteer military that is NOT infinite....the fact that these poor men and women have to do 2, 3 and 4 hitches is taking them to the brink....how can we ask this of them much longer?....in this GIANT boondoggle that's called Iraq...

Mystermeet: splitting hairs just a little bit no? Even if it's only 500,000 dead? Kinda of a lot no matter how you look at it?
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Great post.  I loved most of your statements, although apparently we are the "lunatic fringe". Isnt' that a Rush comment?  He has to be right, no doubt about it. Forget the sites we suggest, forget even considering there are ANY problems with what he says. Match, set win...on everything.  Yep,  that book I sited is called "Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA,"  Tim Weiner.  Thanks for the your comments on that.
  
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
You can visit the authoritative scorekeeper of iraqi dead at iraqibodycount.org which has been documenting civilian deaths from violence due to the war since the beginning. It's widely regarded and accepted to be about as accurate as possible, and it IS an antiwar site. It's no schill site for conservatives or hawks. Plus, they have an extensive verifiable database with locations, number of dead, names of dead, manner of death (when known). They report documented civilian deaths from violence within a range of 80,298 – 87,709 (as of now). Yes, that's right - less than 1/9th of the number you reported and a small fraction of the estimates commonly provided by hollywood stars, left wing extremists and the generally ill informed (who parrot what they've heard from these usual sources). Furthermore, if you examine their database in even the briefest and most cursory manner you'll see that the vast majority of the total death toll is due to terrorism - roadside bombs, car bombs, shootings, beheadings etc. The deaths are usually NOT from crossfire (or direct fire) from coalition forces (although yes there are those incidents too, to be sure). So the actual deaths from direct actions associated with coalition forces is less than half the total number of dead reported from this reputable source. Which would make the actual number of people killed due to coalition forces less than about 5% of the value you provided. Also, are we to believe that every single person who was killed by coalition forces was an innocent bystander? Not a single person killed by coalition forces was a bonafide terrorist? Of course not. And as a noteworthy aside - what would the body count be if Saddam had remained in power since 2003? And what was his total body count during his reign?? My goodness it's certainly much more than this, I can promise you that.

Anyway, these facts are just about never reported and no one stops to question the WILDY inaccurate numbers of iraqi dead (due to coalition actions) lavished around by propagandistic lefties. There are legitimate arguments against the war, so I'd suggest sticking to those legitmate arguments and leave the fibs and propaganda to hollywood stars and the daily kos.
Blank
144210_tn?1273092382
Here is a good book, "Slouching Towards Gommorra"  by Robert Borke. It is a little dated, but an informative and intelligent read. Yes, you hate him, and no, you are not smarter than him.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
come on...you really believe that? , what about the carpet bombings we did when we first invaded? there is no mention of that...if you intentionally destabilize a country by INVADING it ....taking down any safeguards the civilians of that country have...however brutal a dictatorship that is there in the first place..., (say what you will about the evil Saddam, he had order there)...in essence, the invading country is responsible for much of the bloodshed that ensues because of the subsequent civil chaos and disorder...remember, we were busy defending their oil sites and banks, not the civilians themselves....(a great way to get the people on our side! ) (see the Rumsfeld edicts at that point).....or their public buildings, libraries, museums, on and on and on, that define their culture.....

whether you're talking about specific incidences of , say, a soldier directly bombing or shooting an Iraqi civilian....

say Russia came to *liberate* us? and did the same stuff we did over there... if you took arms against them, and they called you a terrorist? what would you say about that? We have so many double standards here it's crazy....And if you're only disputing that in my posts... I'd say that you probably don't think this war was such a good idea either...and I don't think you're arguing just to take an opposing view to what a liberal is saying about it, for the sake of arguing....
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
My dictionary's definition of Tolerance:
acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.

Ideally, children learn tolerance from their parents and community. We teach them self respect, knowing that to respect oneself is to also respect others.

We live in a country composed of many people of differing backgrounds, religions, political beliefs, ideas, tastes, etc; a mixed plate.
Our diversity I believe is a strength. It gives us the opportunity to learn, to share and empathize with those who may differ greatly from ourselves.

Those who resort to name calling because they cannot tolerate difference of opinion, cannot be expected to have their views seen as formed by mature, thoughtful adults .
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
forgot to say, you're point that we *probably* would of killed less then Saddam himself, if he were alive and in control of Iraq today?....to me, is questionable...that should make us feel warm and fuzzy all over? We shouldn't be there in the first place.

Gauf: I agree with you that Bork is highly intelligent...much more intelligent than I am to be sure...I also feel that about Carl Rove...and I rarely agree with anything either of them says...To me Carl Rove is a highly intelligent moral relativist...he would of run for president himself, had he been better looking and much more charming, with a better personality...so he put Bush in there instead. Sorry for going off on that tangent...better get off of politics for now and I promise I will...:)

Churchill said that Stalin was a highly intelligent man as well, and a keen observer of human nature....and he oughta know...

To me, there's more to a leader then their adeptness and *intelligence* (although I think those are prerequisites to lead) ...intelligence and a keen observer of human nature can often be used for unfavorable and detrimental purposes...

I also value inherent *goodness*  - wisdom and integrity, compassion and perspicuity...and I know that's a tall order...
Blank
144210_tn?1273092382
Well said. I know you are probably more intelligent than I because I had to look up the definition of "perspicuity". Good word, but I prefer "promiscuity"!  HA  My post was addressed to "The Lunatic Lefties", and not you. However, you did respond rather quickly......  lol  
Tell you what, give me some book titles, and I'll give you some. And maybe we will meet in the middle. (though not likely)   I like your compassion and misguided enthusiasm.

Peace.
Blank
144210_tn?1273092382
Come to think of it....  What Bill Clinton lacked in perspicuity, he more than made up with promiscuity!
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: “come on...you really believe that?”

Do I really believe what I said? Of course I do, that’s why I said it - and *substantiated it*. And my point of course is that I didn’t believe what you said about 700,000 people being killed (nor Rosie Odonnel’s 600,000, nor Susan Sarandon’s 500,000, nor Tim Robbin’s 400,000 etc etc). Making things up and grotesquely exaggerating just to make a point is wrong, especially when it comes to a very serious issue like the war. If the truth is really on your side, don't be afraid to seek it out and use it.

As far as the rest of what you said, I’m not here to defend the war and really have no interest in doing so. I just thought I’d point out the absurdity of that oft-cited statistic that echoes all throughout Hollywood and leftist blogs (which I suspect is where you picked it up). And also to ask you where you got your statistics from concerning the other things you mentioned (which you still have not cited). I suspect they’re also from dubious liberal blog sites and that’s why you haven’t referenced them, which I suppose is understandable when you don’t want anyone to accurately analyze or question what you’re saying. Mr Liver here has “de-livered” on his documentation, and he’s used reputable sources to do so. Maybe you guys should follow his lead and do the same in the event these unsolicited, repeated, leftist political tirades are going to persist at every given opportunity?
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
I am working two different jobs right now, and doing a whole bunch before I'm going to start the dreaded treatment, and I don't have a whole lot of time, I don't really have time to write a much as I do, and I shouldn't be, debates always seem to get to a point where it comes down to the fact that people here believe the way they want to believe...and they can either choose to disagree, or let it all get contentious and redundant, and this thread is rapidly getting there...I did site some sources and gave info on where I got them....,.it's not like I'm siting a bunch of obscure info, anyone can look this stuff up, sometimes all we'll do is site websites that dispute each other......it's also not to lie about anything, and since some of these points are up for dispute, sometimes it's a question of what you want to believe, and whatever is feasible under the circumstances, to you, or me, ....because a site is considered 'liberal" it is in question to you.... well.....that cuts both ways to conservative sites, you think the Right, who are downplaying the tragedy that is Iraq, are going to be completely forthcoming on civilian casualties?....evidence to me, is not necessarily evidence to you....Imagine how hard it is to verify how many people have died there, and from what causes, etc, you don't really address my points, but choose to keep disputing a statistic....there is a good book out, the Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Inside Iraq's Green Zone, ...but I'm sure you'll question the writer's findings..... I do not believe the statistics you site, but that doesn't mean that I'm calling you a lier, you choose to believe them, i don't. If even some of this book is true, what I wrote is only a trifle in detailing the magnificent blunder this war is to ourselves, and to the Iraqis. What other things that I mentioned, do you need citing anyway?, the way I feel about this war? What in particular?, and I'll look it up when I get the time.

Analyzing this book...

The Emerald City is the Green Zone, the U.S. headquarters in Baghdad that the author calls "Versailles on the Tigris." Run by Halliburton, it looked like a casino. American soldiers and staffers were presented with swimming pools, all-you-can-eat buffets of American fast food, T-shirts with slogans like Who's your Baghdaddy?, Chinese take-out, free cell phones, pirated DVDs, liquor and fatally, no contact with the Iraqis just outside the gates. Americans could spend a year in Emerald City and never meet an Iraqi. (Iraqis weren't considered sufficiently trustworthy to enter the City.)

The CPA needed staff to run a devastated country. But job applicants went through a bizarre interview process. They were asked, Chandrasekaran writes, if they supported Roe v. Wade, and if they had voted for George W. Bush. Resumes of people highly experienced in reconstruction were tossed in favor of those sent by contributors to the Republican Party. The attitude was reminiscent of the Soviet Communists. Were you a Party member in good standing or not?

You were not hired for expertise.

Chandrasekaran, then the Washington Post's Baghdad bureau chief, writes about the overwhelmed Americans he met.

John Agresto had been hired to rehabilitate Iraq's universities, with 375,000 students on 22 campuses looted bare after the Americans failed to guard Baghdad structures after the invasion. His main qualification was running a Santa Fe college with 500 students. But he was connected. Donald Rumsfeld's wife had been on his board and **** Cheney's wife had worked with him at the National Endowment for the Humanities.

When it was decided that the Baghdad Stock Exchange had to be rebuilt, the Americans hired a 24-year-old real estate agent who had not a) followed the stock market b) studied finance or economics. But he knew someone who knew someone who knew Paul Bremer, and he was in.

The real villain was Viceroy L. Paul Bremer III, as he called himself. There is not room here, or even in the book, to relay the chasm between Bremer's plans and the paucity of his achievements. Preaching the free-market mantra, Bremer crippled the Iraqi economy by firing many experienced people in government and the military, leaving 650,000 men out of work and full of hate for their American "liberators."

Bremer's neocon dreams made him abolish the 100 per cent tax on imported cars. What happened? Smart Iraqis bought used cars cheap in Europe and brought them into Iraq. The number of cars doubled, clogging the streets and creating a massive and permanent traffic jam. Bremer then hired a personal injury lawyer to come up with a traffic code, in the end lifted from the State of Maryland and ignored by anyone with the sense to expect bombs buried in the streets.
Ideology: brawn trumps brain

The one question Imperial Life in the Emerald City doesn't really attempt to answer is why a small group of Americans with presumably good intentions nearly destroyed Iraq.  

Chamdrasekaran does discuss ideology. Neocons are big on ideology.

Charles Ferguson, an American neocon who has just made a documentary, No End in Sight, about the failure in Iraq, was interviewed on Salon.com about this question. Hey, it could be Murphy's Law, he said. Or it could be the "individual psychologies" of the American officials running a debacle that has cost $1.8 trillion so far and is, according to the journalist George Packer, the worst foreign policy blunder in American history.

This is about the author...

Rajiv Chandrasekaran is the National Editor of The Washington Post and the author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City, a best-selling account of the bungled American effort to reconstruct Iraq. The book, which provides a firsthand view of life inside Baghdad's Green Zone, won the Overseas Press Club book award, the Ron Ridenhour Prize and Britain’s Samuel Johnson Prize. It also was a finalist for the National Book Award.

As National Editor, he oversees the newspaper’s national news content, including coverage of the federal government and domestic politics, foreign policy, national security, social issues, science and medicine.

Prior to his appointment as National Editor, Chandrasekaran headed The Post's Continuous News department, which reports and edits breaking news stories for washingtonpost.com. From April 2003 to October 2004, he was The Post's bureau chief in Baghdad, where he was responsible for covering the American occupation of Iraq and supervising a team of Post correspondents. He lived in Baghdad for much of the six months before the war, reporting on the United Nations weapons-inspections process and the build-up to the conflict.

He took a sabbatical from The Post in 2005 to serve as the journalist in residence at the International Reporting Project at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington and as a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
that was a good one...I'm glad you ended this on a funny note...
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
Again, I have no desire to discuss the war beyond what I already have. That's not primarily why I come to this forum. If I wanted to debate or discuss the endless politics of war I'd certainly go to another site for that, god knows there's thousands of them out there that would be better for that sort of thing. I come to this forum to discuss hepatitis C and its side effects, along with its treatment and its side effects. Pretty much everyone else here does too, with a few AIH and hep B'ers thrown in for good measure. The succinct point that myself and others who are not screaming libs are trying to make, is that it gets tiresome to have to sift through what seems at times an endless chorus line of nearly endless liberal barbs and snotty comments (almost always unprovoked/unsolicited). And usually they go unconfronted, but for whatever reason Mr Liver decided to step up and confront some of it. I think that's appropriate, you guys need to know that not everyone agrees with you and not everyone appreciates the buffet o' liberal wisdom you guys seem bent on providing to all of us. And frankly you guys wilted and folded your tents very quickly as soon as you were challenged by an informed conservative. Also, you keep "writing" material that is not your own and you are not citing it nor giving credit where credit is due. For instance the earlier post I mentioned where you have all these very specific statistics (including your 700,000 dead stat), and yet provide no reference for it. But guess what? I found it on the net, you simply cut and pasted it without citing it. Then your last post about your "critique" of Chandrasekaran's book was taken verbatim, word for word from a cbc article found here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20070730.html

And yet you don't mention it at all. You don't indicate that it was copied from somewhere else. Why? I mean this is Joe Biden country were in here, what's up with that? Also, who cares what Chandrasekaran's book says? Why are you telling me all of this? Did I say anything about Chandrasekaran or his book? Did anyone ask to be informed about Chandrasekaran's book? Did I say I wanted to discuss the war? Did anyone say they wanted to discuss the war? No, but yet you still feel compelled to solicit an uncited multi-posted cut and paste barrage of irrelevant information about the war (much of it incorrect at that). Why?

If you're preparing for treatment, take my advice - clear your head and focus on what's ahead of you. All this nonsense that we're bickering over here and now is not important in the slightest. You've got bigger fish to fry, and if you take the bait so easily on these politico threads off treatment, trust me you may find controlling your anger on threse drugs a *real* challenge. I'll leave it at that for now because I have to go to bed - goodnight.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
you got it wrong, I didn't mean for anybody to think I critiqued that book, I said it was analyzed, and I also posted about the author, it's obvious that it's a journalized article by the way it's written, I thought that was clear to anybody.... ..I wasn't trying to take credit for that....and I think you know that, but you're somehow deflecting the argument by coming out with this. Now watch someone else here, run with this, that I was plagiarizing, etc etc..anything to not admit I have some good posts here that critisize Bush and his policies. And yes I cut and pasted those statistics, do you know statistics off the top of your head? anybody else here cut and paste statistics? I've cut and pasted so many statistics about scientific articles, supplements, pertinent information for the edification of the board. I don't know scientific formulas, statistics off the top of my head. Bravo to you if you do.

And sometimes I might put somebody's name in the well, but my post will encompass other people, or meant more generally to the board, I'm not always careful about that....I'll be sure to be careful to not speak generally about something, if I have your name in the well, my whole post will be specifically to you and no one else...many times when I write posts, I'm speaking about things generally, so anyone can answer it...

I think what's going on here, is that you're splitting hairs, an excellent way to not address points that I have made, because you even might agree that this war was a huge mistake and badly handled, which goes against your conservative bandwagon.  

I defy you to name one person here who constantly sites every bit of information that they post...give me one name, cause I haven't seen it. You or anybody else. We're not writing college papers here, where every piece of info has to be sited. Some things are too painstaking to site. When I said Churchill said Stalin was very intelligent and a keen observer of human nature, I read that in biographys of Churchill that I have read, I'm supposed to go to my library and find the book while I'm writing, see if I still have it, if not, look for it? I don't have that kind of time. When I said that Republicans are virtually silent about Bush and his policies, that's because I watch their speeches and debates. I'm supposed to cite what channel I watched it on? Many of the things I write are my own experiences, that I draw opinions from, just like everybody else here. People don't want to believe me, or disagree with me, that's perfectly fine. I'm just one voice among many.

My whole thesis here, is that we would have a helluva lot more money to spend on important domestic issues, like home security, healthcare, education, etc etc...if we weren't involved in a boondoggle of a war, that's siphoning off money that should go to these things, WW2 this ain't. That's it distilled to it's essence. No one has addressed this main point, except people that agree with it...if you don't agree fine.Tell me why you don't agree, but these endless attacks on a statistic that, at best, is arbitrary is baffling.  And I'm sorry, but I can talk about the war if I want, in addressing this issue, as I think it's fundamental in my answer to this question. Someone disputed my points about the war, I elaborated, that's how debates start. I'm a big girl, and though I thank you for your advice, I'll post what I want to post on this side, if it bothers you that much, don't read my posts. You don't think conservatives make a few ruminations here? youre wrong. I read them with interest, I don't let them get under my skin like you obviously have.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
and since you're saying this man's book is inaccurate...please tell me where and what are the inaccuracies, I'd be interested to hear it. It's very easy to say this is inaccurate, or make characterizations of people as making idle inaccurate comments constantly - because they are "liberal" - it's another to actually address these issues and give your reasons why you think these things.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
the only time I ever step in and tell someone they are wrong to write things is when I see someone get personally insulted, something that I think everyone should be aware of, for the sake of the board and it's members so no one feels harrassed...other then that, people can write about space aliens, shag rugs, amoebic dysentery, whatever subject matter they want on this side, I'd never be so nervy as to tell people not to write about something I wasn't interested in....or objected to for some arbitrary reason...really, what arrogance.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: “you got it wrong, I didn't mean for anybody to think I critiqued that book, I said it was analyzed, and I also posted about the author, it's obvious that it's a journalized article by the way it's written, I thought that was clear to anybody.... ..I wasn't trying to take credit for that....and I think you know that, but you're somehow deflecting the argument by coming out with this.”

Frankly I was surprised to see it because no, I don’t think you would knowingly/deliberately do something like that. During my education in middle school, high school and especially in college it was drilled into me that you do not cut and paste (or “rotely” copy in the days before cut and paste) an uncited, unacknowledged source and present those thoughts/prose/data as your own. That’s called plagiarism and it could land you in very hot water within an academic setting (legally too). Wasn’t that how it was when you were in high school? And I don’t know if you went to college, but if you did wasn’t that how it was there too? And even though an informal discussion on an internet forum may not rise to standards of a scholarly dissertation, I still believe that sources should be cited under certain circumstances. Those circumstances being (1) cutting and pasting large segments of verbatim text and statistical data word for word, and then (2) seamlessly incorporating it into your own statements in a manner that makes it difficult (or even impossible) to discern where your writing ends and where another person’s begins. But yet you were repeatedly doing that with no quotations, references or acknowledgment whatsoever of those sources. And no it wasn’t obvious to everyone that it wasn’t you that was writing some of what was in your post. Re-read your posts, how are we supposed to know that? Also, how much trouble is it to include a simple note of acknowledgement, a few quotation marks or a simple cut and pasted link of the source? Especially considering the cut and pasted text/data was cut and pasted from that source already…it’s quick and easy and it’s the right thing to do, so that’s why I’m surprised. But no I don’t think you were deliberately plagiarizing. I think you’re a well meaning and honest person, I guess you just don’t think those rules apply in a place like this. And I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on that count.

4cquote: “And yes I cut and pasted those statistics, do you know statistics off the top of your head? anybody else here cut and paste statistics? I've cut and pasted so many statistics about scientific articles, supplements, pertinent information for the edification of the board. I don't know scientific formulas, statistics off the top of my head . Bravo to you if you do.”

As already mentioned, you cut and pasted more than statistics, you also cut and pasted extensive qualitative text. And of course I don’t expect you (nor anyone else, including myself) to remember a bunch of stats off the top of your head, no one said nor suggested that (that’s called a straw man argument, by the way). But you should acknowledge where they came from, especially a long litany of very specific stats like “23,728,801 People with Health Care” or “102,945,454 Homes with Renewable Electricity” etc, etc that you’re attempting to use in order to bolster or substantiate an argument. If you’re attempting to make your case using statistics it’s appropriate that everyone know where your statistics came from (so they can judge their legitimacy). Mr Liver (and others) know this, and he backs up what he’s said with references, links and citations. So did I when I referenced iraqbodycount.org. This lets the reader evaluate the legitimacy of what has been said or claimed for themselves. In a world where statistics are so often abused and misused in order to deceive the public, this is important to know. I mean isn’t this just common sense?

4cquote: “I think what's going on here, is that you're splitting hairs, an excellent way to not address points that I have made...”

No I don’t think I’m splitting hairs on the issue of seamlessly cutting and pasting without acknowledgement. But that’s just my opinion (although it’s a commonly held one), and again I know you’re a well meaning and honest person, we just see things differently on that count I suppose. This is the internet, you could claim you’re a reincarnated divine astral presence from Andromeda…in the final analysis who’s to stop you? Certainly not me, but nevertheless a few people might take issue on that claim.

4cquote: “I defy you to name one person here who constantly sites every bit of information that they post...give me one name, cause I haven't seen it. You or anybody else.”

Again this is a straw man argument. No one’s suggesting that “every bit of information” they post has to be cited. As explained previously cutting and pasting large segments of word for word text and data from an uncited course and then seamlessly incorporating into your own text without acknowledgement is what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about someone saying something like “About one in five who are infected with the HCV virus will clear it naturally on their own”, or “About 50% of those with genotype 1 will achieve SVR with SOC treatment.” Again, it’s common sense, isn’t it?

4cquote: “And I'm sorry, but I can talk about the war if I want, in addressing this issue, as I think it's fundamental in my answer to this question.”

You certainly can and feel free to do so. But I won’t be participating any more than I already have, at least on this post. Thanks for the interest though. In the meantime hope you’re doing well and preparations for your treatment are also coming along. Take care and hopefully no hard feelings.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Mre, you do say nobody expects everyone to cite.  Large pieces are not appropriate to cut and paste?  We do it all the time on Hep C threads.  4c did say where the info came from,  in fact I think I will get that book it looks interesting.  Some of the CIA quotes are backed up in "Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA" and The Greenspan memoirs back up her asseration about how Clinton's budget was made.  Seems like these were overlooked. The only sites Mr liver gave us were to letters from the Congress asking Clinton to use force in the war. Smartly, he did not.  I am not sure why you say we liberals are all running from Mr. Liver's  other conservative posts, we aren't.  

Forseegood is doing a great job, making excellent points IMO.  I don't think either of us have problems with conservatives.  Just when the name calling and devisive posts appear. We are having a very mature converstation on one of the other threads with a very conservative republican.  
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
While giving due consideration to the fact that we are indeed a 'community' i wish to address a couple of your comments,opinions..
I never claimed that either you or i listen to rush limbaugh..i may have logged 10 minutes listening to his vindictive venom..i do know he  compared chelsea clinton unfavorably to a dog when she was the 14 yr old daughter of our sitting president-i really don't need to know anymore than that..he is not credible-on any level..
my take on the present economy will never jive with yours..i am not a fan of greenspan nor the late milton friedman..i do not believe that the majority of working americans are enjoying any growth in either income or purchasing power..the fact that more jobs are being created may well reflect the need for many to work two jobs&lot's of overtime..It is certainly a fact that productivity has increased dramatically and yet wages are stagnant..The loss of value of our currency against others(yen,euro,canadian dollar) has resulted in the defacto loss of of something on the order of 30%-check out the price of gas&heating oil....Globalization is kicking the american working class's butt.
The war was& is a ghastly mistake..deaths in iraq have been  reported in the 'Lancet"  and i have seen no credible refutation of the staggering and absolutely unnecessary bloodshed..we destroyed a nation for no GOOD reasons and for that i am humbly ashamed..our military has been burdened with the occupation of oil fields-i fail to see  any winners except for exxon/mobile,british petroleum,haliburton,fluor,et. al......we squandered a perfectly good opportunity to catch the perpatrators of 9/11 at tora bora and then fumbled...I cannot offer any good reasons for any of these decisions but in my opinion we are wasting energy,talent and lives and gaining very little but breathing room for this administration to leave their mess for the next generation-also an unheralded nat'l debt that is  unconscionable  both morally&economically...Our leaders have been at the v least-incompetent.at worst criminal.......it is certainly not the first time..i feel no need to defend past administrations...here&now is quite depressing enuff.......
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"Your contention that Clinton was the reason for the Iraq war is simply ludicrous"

I never said that. Get your facts straight . You and your friends have stated on more than one occasion that we went in Iraq based on lies of WMD. I posted letters disproving that line of thinking. Both Clinton and Dem leaders in Congress believed 100% that Saddam was lying.This was 1999. The same intelligence existed when President Bush assumed office. If you knew history of Iraq inspections ,you would know that .Why do I have to repeat myself ? Just scroll up and read before you post.

"VERIFICATION before he INVADED A COUNTRY, "Blitz and his findings, or non-findings...kinda of a big step no?
Once again you need to go back (if you ever read them in the first place) and read those letters, Any sensient person can see where the situation was headed.


I will repeat this once more for you and the rest of your Blame America First crones.

Every dollar spent and ever drop of blood is the result of ONE man and that man was Saddam. ALL he had to do to avert war was to produce documents showing the destruction of KNOWN, TRAGGED, and INSPECTED WMD including chemical and biological. Let me say that again since some of you have apparent reading comprehension problems--It was SADDAM'S doing and no one else's. IT WAS NOT OUR JOB TO "FIND" WMD. IT WAS HIS DUTY TO REPORT THEM. Can any off you comprehend those words ?

Nothing Greenspan writes changes the statistics. And I'm curious---what numbers do economic analysts use ??? TAKE A WILD GUESS. lololol

And I would love for you to show me which numbers in the BLS report are incorrect. Cite an economist who says any of those numbers are wrong. And I don't want opinion nor analysis. I want REAL HARD NUMBERS that show a misrepresentation in the ones I posted. Good luck.

And citing trash off of political websites doesn't cut it in a real debate in case you didn't know that.




Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
well, even though the tone of your post is as friendly and alluring as ever....I feel I should just opt out of this discussion, after all is said and done, the arguments just become circular and redundant anyway...(but some of your rationalizations are pretty amusing, I must say...) people can read this thread, if they have a mind to..(or not) and look at the substance of the arguments themselves, apart from any distractions ...and decide for themselves ....everyone pretty much has given their views as they apply to these issues...been fun, but I gotta run...

Oh, and not folding up my tent or anything in the face of your exceptional reasoning .....just think everyone has said all they have to say, ad nauseum, right or wrong...and I'm not seeing anything new that I want to debate...ta ta.....!
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
Just for you, I am repeating my above comments.

My dictionary's definition of Tolerance:
acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.

Ideally, children learn tolerance from their parents and community. We teach them self respect, knowing that to respect oneself is to also respect others.

We live in a country composed of many people of differing backgrounds, religions, political beliefs, ideas, tastes, etc; a mixed plate.
Our diversity I believe is a strength. It gives us the opportunity to learn, to share and empathize with those who may differ greatly from ourselves.

Those who resort to name calling because they cannot tolerate difference of opinion, cannot be expected to have their views seen as formed by mature, thoughtful adults .
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Please show me where I called anyone persoanlly a name.

Tolerance is a gate that swings both ways. You and your ilk have posted left wing rants and lies for a long time now. Everyone has been more than ntolerant of you and your friends when it comes to this subject.
It is YOU and your friends who seem to be intolerant.
I want even go into the outright blatant lies you posted above in this thread concerning WMD. Which I refuted and backed up with documentation. It is you and your friends who better learn to be more tolerant as I intend on jumping in whenever I see far left political ideology being spewed out onto a HCV support forum.

And OH let's be clear---there is a very large difference between opinion and the outright blatant lies being told by you and your friends. When you make statements and portray them as fact and they are no,t that is not a 'difference of opinion". That is distortion of the truth and will be dealt with just as I did above---with facts. Remember facts ? Those are those pesky little annoyances that keep getting in liberals' way.

Show me where I called anyone personally a name. You made the charge now back it up. I'm not putting up with any more of your lies. I called no one a name. Now produce or shut up.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Please show me where I called anyone persoanlly a name.

Tolerance is a gate that swings both ways. You and your ilk have posted left wing rants and lies for a long time now. Everyone has been more than ntolerant of you and your friends when it comes to this subject.
It is YOU and your friends who seem to be intolerant.
I want even go into the outright blatant lies you posted above in this thread concerning WMD. Which I refuted and backed up with documentation. It is you and your friends who better learn to be more tolerant as I intend on jumping in whenever I see far left political ideology being spewed out onto a HCV support forum.

And OH let's be clear---there is a very large difference between opinion and the outright blatant lies being told by you and your friends. When you make statements and portray them as fact and they are no,t that is not a 'difference of opinion". That is distortion of the truth and will be dealt with just as I did above---with facts. Remember facts ? Those are those pesky little annoyances that keep getting in liberals' way.

Show me where I called anyone personally a name. You made the charge now back it up. I'm not putting up with any more of your lies. I called no one a name. Now produce or shut up.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Please show me where I called anyone persoanlly a name.

Tolerance is a gate that swings both ways. You and your ilk have posted left wing rants and lies for a long time now. Everyone has been more than ntolerant of you and your friends when it comes to this subject.
It is YOU and your friends who seem to be intolerant.
I want even go into the outright blatant lies you posted above in this thread concerning WMD. Which I refuted and backed up with documentation. It is you and your friends who better learn to be more tolerant as I intend on jumping in whenever I see far left political ideology being spewed out onto a HCV support forum.

And OH let's be clear---there is a very large difference between opinion and the outright blatant lies being told by you and your friends. When you make statements and portray them as fact and they are no,t that is not a 'difference of opinion". That is distortion of the truth and will be dealt with just as I did above---with facts. Remember facts ? Those are those pesky little annoyances that keep getting in liberals' way.

Show me where I called anyone personally a name. You made the charge now back it up. I'm not putting up with any more of your lies. I called no one a name. Now produce or shut up.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Please show me where I called anyone persoanlly a name.

Tolerance is a gate that swings both ways. You and your ilk have posted left wing rants and lies for a long time now. Everyone has been more than ntolerant of you and your friends when it comes to this subject.
It is YOU and your friends who seem to be intolerant.
I want even go into the outright blatant lies you posted above in this thread concerning WMD. Which I refuted and backed up with documentation. It is you and your friends who better learn to be more tolerant as I intend on jumping in whenever I see far left political ideology being spewed out onto a HCV support forum.

And OH let's be clear---there is a very large difference between opinion and the outright blatant lies being told by you and your friends. When you make statements and portray them as fact and they are no,t that is not a 'difference of opinion". That is distortion of the truth and will be dealt with just as I did above---with facts. Remember facts ? Those are those pesky little annoyances that keep getting in liberals' way.

Show me where I called anyone personally a name. You made the charge now back it up. I'm not putting up with any more of your lies. I called no one a name. Now produce or shut up.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Not sure how the multiples came up. This thread is long enough without that.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"This thread is long enough without that."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Amen to that.  : )

At the risk of mildly changing the topic (although this one is endlessly...... endless, I mean entertaining), I have a question that might be posed in another thread.  In a way it was brought up here but (IMHO) not adequately addressed.

What are our issues?  What is our "cause"?  If we were caucusing for a platform for heppers.....or some legislation what would it include?

Would this be better for a seperate thread?  

I just thought if we had a wish list that we could provide we might get more action.  Obviously, if we don't agree on anything we will continue to get what we have always gotten;
NOTHING.

Willy
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
"...you and your ilk."..is at best demeaning if not technically name calling....also labeling the political beliefs&opinions of others as: "left wing rants and lies" ..."outright blantant lies".....is not debate or discussion.....you sir, seem particular outraged that we do not swallow the official administrative version of events on the ground..i am not defending any past administration ,but i will continue to look critically at the situation we now inhabit...if things are so wonderful,why are you so angry?......i ,for one, have never considered our nations foreign policy enlightened...i do not believe we need or deserve military bases in 80% of the nations of the world...i am staggered by our enormous military budget-greater than the combined military budgets of all other nations...and then there is 'star wars'...why not just burn money?
latest unemploymnt figures are not very encouraging either,or would you rather not use current numbers?
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
A wish list huh?   Okay, that sound reasonable and non confrontational.  Beam, we have to make the record of the most responces!!  hahaha  

As the beauty contestants say, ' I want world peace"  Me too.  
I want us outta the war
I want our money to be spent on OUR countries internal problems ie; healthcare
I do want our borders secure, especially since we have SO many new enemies.  
I want us free of oil from nations and give tax breaks to those who put up solar and wind power to get us out of this mess
I want a great president who is intelligent and can speak and negoitate with other nations, so we aren't hated everywhere.  
I want our money spent here at home to protect workers that are being replaced in India and China
I think we need some negotiations with Mexico to help the workers we need here, and also assistance there to help there families.,  NOT GOING ACROSS TO THE MIDDLE EAST.
Hummmm..wish list.  Perhaps I will come up with others.....great question.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
LOL.  You are too funny, actually sad to respond to.  You keep referring to those letters. I read them, they mean NOTHING.  You use nothing sensible to respond to those in the posts that are responding to you,  that we provide you, even with sites.   You are are the one who is intolerent in my opinion.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"...you and your ilk."..is at best demeaning if not technically name calling....also labeling the political beliefs&opinions of others as: "left wing rants and lies" ..."outright blantant lies".....

Ilk is not a demeaning word. It is not name calling. It simply refers to those of a like mind. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ilk    While you have the dictionary out look up 'rant'. I think the definiton aptly describes what I've witnessed.

"left wing" is an appropriate term used to describe those who reside on the left side of the political process--there is nothing demeaning about it in any sense.It is a political description. It goes back to the early days of the English Parliament.

saying that someone lied has all of a sudden become inappropriate? Seems I saw the word 'lies' going around here long before I joined in the debate. It is quite easy to delineate  what is a misinformed statement, and what is a blatant lie. A misinformed statement is when you pass along what you believe to be true information. Such as in the case of President Bush and WMD. A blatant lie is when, after being shown proof to the contrary, you keep insisting that your version of the circumstances is the correct one. I don't think I need to name anyone do I ?

I'm not angry. I am adamant. I prefer to use highlight or bold or underline to put emphasis on words. In here to achieve that I have to use caps. If you imagine me smiling the entire time I type you would be much closer to my actual demeanor. In fact, sometimes I have to stop typing because I'm laughing so hard. Now, that doesn't sound so angry, does it ?

That SDI technology that Reagan pushed for is at the core of our anti-missile technology that has all but elminated any threat from N Korea. It will protect all of Europe from rogue states who possess the missiles to reach them.

I agree that our military presence should be slimmed down alot. Let the Germans and all of the NATO allies start paying their fair share for their own country's defense. I absolutley agree with that. Let's get out of Kosovo. Let the Europeans babysit their own. But all of these foreign deployments have existed for a long, long, time and is certainly not President Bush's doing. In fact, he has reduced troop presence in several countries already during his presidency.

The latest unemployment figures are not too bad if you look historically at them. In the last administration they were ABOVE 5% half the time. However,its never encouraging to see them go up and particularly now with other concerns such as in the housing market becoming more problematic. Many analysts believe these are clear signs that we are headed for recession. Some say it won't quite be that deep but I believe a consensus exists that a slowdown is coming to our economy. Its been on a long run and someday it will pull back. Much of this is cyclical. (Deep recessions take about 11 years to develop on avg) But, none of this is related to what I have previously posted about the economy, nor related to the assertions that I replied to.

It has been repeated ad nauseum by the left in here that Bush took a good economy and ruined it. This flies in the face of the known facts as they exist . The links and numbers I posted reflect this. He took over the office in 2000 and the numbers speak for themselves.

Our military budget is much less than it used to be when we were in the Cold War. One way you can quantify at military budget is as a percentage of GNP. If the Cold War had never ended and we continued to keep pace with USSR by now we would have spent trillions more on defense than we have. You can thank President Reagan for that money we saved.

I firmly believe that this is NOT the place for a poltical discussion of any kind. A support forum is supposed to be a safe place to come. There are a thousand websites that specifically exist for the purpose of political debate. No one on either side of the political fence should have to endure reading inflammatory political rhetoric on a consistent basis. But as long as I see leftist rants based on misinformation and lies  I will continue to respond. And I do choose my words carefully. I have not  called any one person on this forum a name. Unlike the many I have been called.

You sir, have been hoisted upon your own petard.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
. But as long as I see leftist rants based on misinformation and lies  I will continue to respond."  Hey and so will we leftists.  Those unemployment figures are from who?  They don't count those that have been out of work for some time, and you know this.  I liked your calm response to Beamer.  Name calling is not debating at all. If you can please calm down and talk at perhaps a tone that lets us talk about the issues you ane we bring up, without the divisiveness that would make this a whole lot better for all of us. Yes, this is a Hep C forum,  but we need a spot here to air our views too.
Blank
250084_tn?1303311035
  Good God....236 post on this...and Susan never did get an answer?? I'm not even trying to read them all (see my friday night vent' CAN'T keep up post!)

Willy....... "Obviously, if we don't agree on anything we will continue to get what we have always gotten;
NOTHING."

  As a 'group' wanting more action, assistance, research, awareness on Hep C............you are correct! (which I believe is the main point here, right?)

                                                                                                 LL
Blank
250084_tn?1303311035


  Left field, right field...batter up!

  Just kidding! The 'question' went way off track to many other debates, views, which happens a lot here............ my point in the post was if we're trying for these things, to change things, I think the topic has to stay on that itself, or as Willy said....it'll still be 'NOTHING', no changes. I gave up reading when it kept going to left than right field.

  I'll shut up now and go back to my simple threads!
                                                                                                  LL
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yep, you are correct. We have a much calmer thread with republicans and democrats talking about issues here on the community forum. This one has taken an a turn for the worst as some have become divisive.  I think we need this, I sure do as I don't wan't to think about my Hep C all the time.  Don't feel competent in posting elsewhere and prefer to get opinions from my friends I have made over the two years plus here on this forum.  I obviously don't know everyone, especially Mr Liver, but feel I want and need to post on MY special forum.  I prefer to talk to my friends than find somewhere else.  Is that so bad?  It takes my mind off of all the bleep problems I am having and lets me talk about something I enjoy doing....talking politics. Of course, I prefer talking reasonably,  but that doesn't seem to happen on this thread anyway. Got a great one that reasonable, mature and people that think critically post too.  Perhaps, I should just give this one up......
Thanks
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yep, you are correct. We have a much calmer thread with republicans and democrats talking about issues here on the community forum. This one has taken an a turn for the worst as some have become divisive.  I think we need this, I sure do as I don't wan't to think about my Hep C all the time.  Don't feel competent in posting elsewhere and prefer to get opinions from my friends I have made over the two years plus here on this forum.  I obviously don't know everyone, especially Mr Liver, but feel I want and need to post on MY special forum.  I prefer to talk to my friends than find somewhere else.  Is that so bad?  It takes my mind off of all the bleep problems I am having and lets me talk about something I enjoy doing....talking politics. Of course, I prefer talking reasonably,  but that doesn't seem to happen on this thread anyway. Got a great one that reasonable, mature and people that think critically post too.  Perhaps, I should just give this one up......
Thanks
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
My dear Mr. Liver,

Nobody is forcing you to tolerate anything on this forum. You can easily scroll past that which offends you or even turn the computer off!   I certainly did while on tx.

I see the irony of your considering my opinions as extreme and false just as I do yours.
I won’t call them lies because I know those who espouse them, believe them to be true.
Just as true and real as my beliefs are to me.

The wonderful thing about our constitution is it guarantees our right to divergent views.

Wishing peace and contentment for all,     OH
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
I always get a kick out of American liberals who start shouting and screaming about how TERRIBLE our economy is when our unemployment rate actually approaches a whopping ~*GASP*~ 5% (as long as a conservative is in office, that is ;-)  Apparently they're unaware that the unemployment rate is nearly *always* MUCH higher in socialistic European nations that are run just about exactly the way they want the US government to be run. And when I say "higher", I mean often DOUBLE the unemployment rate in the US and sometimes even beyond that (especially in France and Germany). And yet the liberal response to a US unemployment rate approaching 5% (again, only when a conservative is in office) means "new policies" have to be implemented in order to "save the economy" and decrease that godawful 4.8% unemployment rate. These policies are invariably to raise taxes on those that create jobs, raise taxes on those who would invest in companies that will hire people (and that means pretty much everyone today), increase consumption taxes (which lowers sales and hence profits of companies that employ people), increase payroll taxes (which gives us all less to spend), increase both unemployment benefits and the duration these benefits are available - and the expectation is that this'll fix the economy and lower the unemployment rate??? Get a clue libs!! ;-)

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba475/

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/france-pays-price-of-liberal-jobless-benefits/2005/08/30/1125302569771.html

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsjec.txt
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
says, "These policies are invariably to raise taxes on those that create jobs, raise taxes on those who would invest in companies that will hire people (and that means pretty much everyone today), increase consumption taxes (which lowers sales and hence profits of companies that employ people), increase payroll taxes (which gives us all less to spend."  Who by the way will consumption taxes help?  The mid/lower class?  How can they afford to buy anything?  Giving tax breaks to the rich to trickle down is ludicrous.  Being one of the so called rich, I would never buy into these awful plans to raise taxes only to hurt those people that they employ...and many of them are illegals btw.  Shouldn't these employer's be held accountable?
Blank
250084_tn?1303311035

  Just ventured over to the other one :}
I agree with you in that this community side is FOR talking about things other than Hep and we need that and that we are 'friends' here, thru an awful disease and need to think OUTSIDE hep c during tx and all. This site is saving my currently a recluse sanity (WAS a social butterfly before tx, love people, love conversing, etc.) and it's hard holding conversations with this brain with people that don't understand my all too often "what was I saying' blank stare! I have tried and tried to find a site like this for my sister with incurable cancer and can't find one that has 'community' and medical.
  Guess everyone just has to keep in mind tx drugs and different opinions here, bound to disagree but can be done with a little more grace/tact/diplomacy...(oh jeezz, pick a word Lauri!:)  when it happens.

  Now wander back over to that other thread :}

                                                                                     LL
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
"Who by the way will consumption taxes help?"

Excessive consumption taxes don't help anyone, especially when coupled with other forms of taxation, as they will stunt people's purchasing power. If everything from food to cars to gas to widget x become more expensive, the sales of these items will diminish. Reduced sales means the factories and distributors and vendors and employees who provide these products will shrink proportionally, or go out of business altogether. This means less jobs, which means higher unemployment. It also means simultaneously that ordinary people will have less money to survive on because more of their money is stripped from their pockets as it goes into the government coffer.

"The mid/lower class?  How can they afford to buy anything?"

Exactly, it will hurt the mid/lower class, I'm glad you seem to understand this concept. And you're right, higher taxes of all types make it harder for ordinary people to afford to buy anything, including things they may really need (i.e. not just luxury items). This makes people who otherwise would be indepenent *dependent* on the government or some other external source of support in order to survive and make ends meet (including everything from charities to organized crime).

"Giving tax breaks to the rich to trickle down is ludicrous."

You're right, only giving tax breaks to the rich is ludicrous. But the first thing we need to do is to define what "rich" means. "Rich" used to mean being a millionaire (back when being a millionaire meant something), and perhaps also owning and/or trading stocks/commodities. However, liberals have ongoingly lowered the bar of what being rich means anymore. The reason they do this is because they want more money from all of us, NOT just the rich. Nowadays if you live in a household that makes more than ~$96,000 year, you're rich. And of course progressive taxation starts at income levels well, WELL below that. And if you own or trade stocks, you're also rich and you need to be taxed excessively for doing so. The current capital gains tax is reasonable (thanks to dubya), but its flipside is a very restrictive tax write off of only $3000 a year in the event you lose money on stocks. This means if you invest your hard earned money heavily into some company, and end up losing a large amount of money because the stock goes down, it can take you years and years to write those capital losses off of your taxes (and sometimes never writing off the entire amount depending on how long you live and how much you've lost). Liberals wish to raise the capital gains tax much, much higher as they view this as a free ride for the "rich." Many liberals also wish to further restrict or even outright eliminate capital losses on income taxes. But times have changed, and nowadays millions of ordinary people who are not rich buy and sell stocks all the time, and some people actually make their living this way. What this means is that both the rich AND the lower/middle income people who otherwise might invest in companies that (obviously) employ people and sell products or services people need, now will shy away from investing their money. Why would you want to take the risk of investing a large (or even modest) amount of money into a stock when you know that even if the stock goes up you'll have to pay substantial capital gains taxes on it, perhaps even well beyond 30%? Meanwhile, on the flipside if the stock goes down you cannot mitigate the risk you took and write off your capital loss, or even if you can it could take years and years to realize the writeoff. Guess what a large percentage of people both rich and ordinary will do if these liberal tax schedules are implemented? They won't invest anymore, and they won't invest because it's simply not worth it. On the one hand the investor takes all the risk and burdens all the loss in the event the stock tanks. On the other hand the government takes a very substantial chunk of the winnings in the event the trade is successful. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. No thanks, I'll just keep my money in the bank, and so will millions and millions of others. And what does this mean for the companies all those people (both rich and not rich) would have invested in if tax rates were reasonable, but now shy away from it due to excessive liberal taxation? It means they have less money to expand, to hire, to innovate - like Vertex Pharmaceutical for instance (THINK about it!). It may even mean they go under, or fail to get started in the first place. This means less productivity, less jobs, less prosperity and a decreased standard of living for all of us. And this is just one example out of many exemplifying how excessive taxation stunts and even reverses job growth and economic development.

And incidentally, even John F. Kennedy realized that raising taxes paradoxically actually ultimately REDUCES the revenues the government gets. He knew that when taxes were raised, especially to excessive levels, this stymies and stunts growth. And stunted growth likewise stunts the ability of corporations and individuals to pay taxes. Lower taxation stimulates growth, jobs and income levels which directly stimulates tax incomes of all types (including payroll, sales and corporate taxation) which of course means MORE money for the government (and MORE money for all those lovely liberal social programs). Who are you going to get more money from, a guy that has a job and is taxed at 22% or an unemployed guy that's taxed at 53%? I mean good heavens, it's not rocket science!

Also, it's a fabulous misperception to assert that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. You claim to be rich, and if you are you must know this to be true (assuming you actually manage your family's financial portfolio). Bottomline is that the tax breaks should be extended to all classes, which means lowering income taxes for ordinary people. And this is the thing that really angers me about liberals. They claim that they only want taxes to be raised on the rich, but it's NOT true. Liberals want taxes raised on EVERYONE. They want sales taxes to be higher, income taxes to be higher (yes for ordinary people making ordinary levels of income), generally they want exemptions and writeoffs curtailed or eliminated (like the capital loss I mentioned earlier), they want property taxes to be higher, they want gasoline and energy taxes to be higher, and generally want more tolls, fees, surcharges, levies etc - it goes on and on. All of these things directly hammer the lower and middle classes. Joe rich guy doesn't care if it costs a few more bucks to fill up his bmw or to heat his house because liberals have directly jacked up oil taxes, or indirectly raised "corporate taxes" on oil companies who will then simply pass them on to the consumer (I call this "trickle down taxation", incidentally). Joe rich isn't bothered if his property taxes increase a few thousand a year, but an old retired person on a fixed income can no longer buy his groceries because of something like this. But yet the liberals relentlessly levy these taxes and always do so with the very "best of intentions". (cont..)
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
But wait, it gets better. Liberals are also very big on other forms of taxation. They're not called "taxes" though, they're called permits and regulation (amongst other things). On a national level excessive regulation increases the cost of just about everything. For instance, excessive governmental regulations have played a big role in preventing any new oil and gas refineries being built within the US for about 20 years. This has constrained our capacity to refine the crude we need to fuel our cars, houses and economy. There is very little reserve refinery capacity within our current system. Once in a while, one or more of the refineries goes down and since there is precious little reserve refinery capacity, this results in fuel shortages. The shortages drive up the price of oil/gas (supply and demand being what they are), which socks it to all of us (unless you're rich of course). The governmental regulations which are largely at the source of this mechanism were and are born of liberal energy policies. Similar examples can be made for nuclear power and many other essential products and services that everyone needs (having a similar impact on low and middle income people).

And on a local level, don't get me started. Houses have gotten very expensive lately due to the massive real estate runup, and now the liberals come running in with reassessed house valuations AND simultaneously increased property tax rates. They also have an "impact fee" for anyone who wants to build a new house where I live. They raise this impact fee every couple of years. It's now up to $10,000. You must pay this fee in addition to all the other regulatory and inspection fees (some of which are reasonable and necessary) that are common within local districts throughout the US for constructing a new house. The county gives you NOTHING for paying this impact fee, they provide no service nor incur any expenses as a justification of this fee (the other fees pay for those things). And of course you still have to pay local income, sales and property taxes. And guess who levied this fee? Local liberal politicians. And guess what effect it has on the cost of housing? (which is already fantastically inflated) And guess who is hit hardest by it? And guess who can't own a home now and must continue to rent and enrich a landlord for the rest of their lives? That's right, middle and low income people. And who is it again who's looking out for the little people??? Gimme a break liberals.

"Being one of the so called rich, I would never buy into these awful plans to raise taxes only to hurt those people that they employ...and many of them are illegals btw.  Shouldn't these employer's be held accountable?"

Should the employers be held accountable for hiring illegals? They certainly should, but that's another story for another time. In the meantime here's to your SVR, and lets hope Vertex has enough money to complete their Telaprevir testing before liberal tax policies go into effect and drive down investor input. Sounds like a joke, but I'm actually half serious.
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
hoisted on my own petard..dear me......you parse and refer to dictionary definitions and yet refuse to address my point..your tone and reference is arrogant,demeaning and righteous...none of which matters one whit...i merely question your glad tidings with regards this present economy...you like it-i don't......you see reason and measured response on the part of this administration and it's "war on terror" -i do not....You believe we must spend trillions attempting to build a missle defense system to protect us from n. korea(?)...i do not...you like geo bush....i do not...
i have never made indefensible statemnts and put them in your mouths..."You liberals make me laugh..." glad we can bring some joy to mudville...... i never mentioned anything about taxes whatsoever.but.what i would truly like to see is a massive increase in the inheritance tax- and make  rich folk work for theirs too ..just might reduce the  power of the leisure class..i wonder what george bush would have acomplished without daddy's money&influence?                                                                                                                                                   .i believe that our country has never been so poorly served..i believe that corporate interests(read:GREED) have undermined our democratic system and i do not think a corporation can be patriotic or loyal or humane-WE will just have to agree to disagree..i am a working class guy who just doesn't respect my betters
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Just read your first post and you make sense, except for blaming in on liberals. I am liberal and had to pay $300,000. taxes on capital gains last year. Didn't like it one bit!  We didn't make that much off of what we sold and it was a killer.  So I dont' think you can say liberals did this.  I certainly didn't want this and I don't know who would. You buy a house or stocks, as I have and then lose it all in capital gains?  NOT FAIR,  this is where you are supposed to have the American Dream, right?   Not with these unfair taxes.  I am liberal, but don't agree with all tax and capital gains that we are supposed to pay.  I do agree with some taxes, not consumption!,  but fair taxes.  Not sure how this will work out.. I certainly don't mind paying for schools, libraries, parks, healthcare etc.  but there has to be a better way.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
All I can say about the oil is I am damn glad John likes it cold in the house. Me, I get under my comforter.  I always thought that oil should be taxed as it is in Europe. Perhaps we wouldn't use as much oil and gas.  Again, I don't like you blaming liberals, the neo cons had plenty to do with this.  Housing prices went sky high, ours doubled in a year and since it is a high end house most likely won't go down. But the house I own in Oakland and am renting is going down, rents are going way up. I didn't take advantage of that and am eating the high mortgages that they imposed on me.  1k a month over my rental.  Doesn't see fair. Yeah I can deduct it in taxes. I feel for those that have to pay more rent and can barely make it by.   Thankfully, I am not in that position yet, but we are getting there!  Healthcare costs, energy, colleges and maintenance have taken a huge toll, even though John makes more now than he did when we got together. He used to make 1k now he makes 7k a month,  doesn't seem to make any difference.  But we are both liberal and Dems. We want to make sure that everyone has their fair share and can make it.  Can it be improved. Damn straight!!  How do we do it??/ That is the big question.  

Also , yes, I think employers should be held accountable for hiring illegals.  They just started this in Arizona.  It will be interesting to see what happens....I think we need the labor they provide.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
while I write angry, adamant posts...wow...and we're the lunatic fringe? yikes...
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
A most excellent dissertation concerning economics and the lesser known inner workings of our tax code when it comes to investments.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"Smiling and laug  while I write angry, adamant posts...wow...and we're the lunatic fringe? yikes..."

And you are an unadulterated bald-faced liar of the first degree. First you edited my words and then took some  out of context. That's an underhanded method used by those desperate to score a point, any kind of point even if it mean you have to make it up. How utterly pathetic. And its all above for anyone to see.  

I already kicked your butt in debate---you back for more ? That's fine by me. I enjoyed it last time and I have no reason to believe I won't even enjoy it more this time.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
You mischaracterized what I have said and put words in my mouth in your last post. The missile defense system will be used much more by European countries who have more rogue states in the region. And taking away N Koreas ability is very important. The WTC cost us over 1 trillion in trade, 500 million more to bail out the airlines. Now, imagine a nuclear bomb over San Francisco or LA.. The money to develop and deploy a missile defense  all of a sudden looks like a very cheap  investment.

I don't begrudge the wealthy. I have no class envy of the rich. I've been around alot of people with personal financial wealth in my life and not one person I know inherited their money. In fact, less than 5% of the wealth in this country is inherited. Those with money that I am acquainted with worked their ***** off 65-80 hours a week for years upon end, making huge sacrifices, and living on tight budgets like everyone else. They invested their money wisely, and ran their businesses honestly. I admire their ambition, drive for success, and tenacity to get there. No one should be punished for making a success out of themselves.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"Those with money that I am acquainted with worked their ***** off 65-80 hours a week for years upon end, making huge sacrifices, and living on tight budgets like everyone else. They invested their money wisely, and ran their businesses honestly. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If only we ran our country the same way.  Our president at least last term had the distinction of taking the most vacations of any president in recent times.  He has increased our debt in a manner unprecedented by any president.  We are printing money to cover our deficit spending.  We are refinancing our debt selling it to other countries while they in effect are buying up our real estate. The value of the dollar has dropped like a rock.  Our allies have dwindled while our enemies have grown in volume and strength.  Our status in the world has been undermined.  
          This is alllllll just my opinion.

Here's a quote often attributed to Everette Dirkson;
" A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"

Our current problem is that in our case we are talking TRILLIONS.  President Bush will have put our country into debt 4-5 trillion dollars during his 2 terms.  I have a feeling that you may not really support that kind of irresponsible spending from what you write about your friends and how their success with bugeting.  How does almost doubling our national debt in just 2 terms sit with you?
I will note that many Rebublicans are taking a much more critical eye at our spending and current policy overseas.  Let us also NOT forget that many Democrats went along for the ride -Willy
_____________________________________________________________________

I personally think the debate here can overpower the needs of the board.  I see really gifted writers and thinkers on both sides of this argument.  They end up entrenched in a polemic, a never ending debate.  So often it is about who is "right".  I'm not sure that I believe in that concept.

In some ways it alienates us from each other.  It can weaken partnerships that that we have built over weeks or years.  It distracts from the "business" of the board, at least the primary purpose for many of us here.  That business or goal is to help and support each other as we fight a common goal.  While I grant everyone their right to join in such threads I would just remind them that there is a "cost".  Is it worth it?  I would hate to lose any of the people that post in this thread due to hurt feelings.  You may not be aware of your value to the board and the people who post here.  There is information or support which you have all communicated to others that have helped people in ways that they can not be helped by friends, by employers, insurers and even sometimes by their own doctors.  You have a tremendous value as a board member in the capacity that we all showed up for, whether to help or be helped with our HCV.  My hats off to you all.

Willy


Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yeah, we are the lunatic fringe?  Funny, huh?  Heard today we are headed for a recession due to the loss of jobs and the not creating new ones. Kinda makes Mr. Liver's claim that we are in such great shape a sham.  You are NOT a liar and cited your claims. I too have read them. Guess that makes me a liar too.  

Willy;
Love the first part of your post, it is so true!  We are in debt up to our ears!  Perhaps if we cut out some of those earmarks and cut the budget like Clinton did we can get back on track.  

I personally have no problem talking Hep C with those I disagree with, so no harm to relationships. This is typical debating politics.  I have responded to Mremeet, Gauf and Mr. Liver in civil ways since this so called debate started.  I know people get worked up about politics and that there is nothing I can do to change their minds, but it doesnt' stop us from agreeing in other areas of the forum.  I dont' want to lose my friends and don't plan to. Hopefully no one else holds grudges, doesn't seem to be the case, so far, for me anyway.

BTW Mremeet,  I agree with you about those permits special assessments etc. that come in the way of taxes.  I have a house that was pre Javis/Gann, so my taxes are low.  You should see the extra assessments that aren't supposed to be taxes.  Always loopholes!
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171

Mr. Liver (to OH)“Please show me where I called anyone personally a name”

Mr. Liver:(to Forseegood)  “And you are an unadulterated bald-faced liar of the first degree.”

Forseegood is not a liar just because you don’t agree with her.
You are obviously one anger consumed hypocrite.

I am taking my thoughts and time elsewhere.      OH
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Don't leave, the lunatic fringe knitting circle can use your wise comments.  I don't like what Mr. Liver has said here. He sure can spin a tale and win every debate, b/c he says so.  My mother is rabid as he is and we have screamed and yelled.  still can lover her for other things she says.  Hey, it's politics.  The other thread with R Glass is so much more civil... Check it out.  
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
you kicked my a$$ during a debate? by calling me names? calling me a lier? that's kicking my a$$? "oh, all you're bald face lier", so, of course, I'm winning the debate."

Well, considering the fact that I got more then a couple of emails, telling me that certain posters agreed with my points, that silliness might be up for debate itself...many people are good at debating tricks so it looks that they *won* a debate, while the actual substantive points on both sides go unnoticed, with all the subterfuge they throw......the "as long as I make you *look* wrong - then by extension, I look right" crowd....there are people like you all over the blogs....

When we talk about Reagan closing down the mental institutions - you talk about how that was  "good" for the patients to be put out in the street with no where to go, because of all these questionable reasons....learning how to defend the indefensible, then acting like your defense, with all it's specious reasoning - is the valid answer...and this insistence that Clinton "would" of gone into Iraq because of whatever he thought of WMDs, to offset the reasons that Bush DID go into Iraq, is just laughable. Anybody ever tell you hypotheticals don't count, actions do?

These are old debating tricks....I can have a horse that came in 5th, but as long as I keep shouting it's the winner, then I win.... tired old debating tricks...You go on about Greenspan and how he's the reason for Bill Clinton's TRULY good economy...then someone posts something about Greenspan that doesn't go along with your viewpoints...then it's forget about Greenspan and youre off on another tangent....you've done this over and over...look at this entire thread...if anyone's got 9 hours to kill...

No, I'm not "back for more"...you don't remain civilized while debating (which is another debating trick in and of itself, who is the more bilious, contentious, angry and righteous sounding? that must mean they are "right"!!!)

It's obvious you're laughing while your making a bunch of rude characterizations of people who oppose you're viewpoints, that's why you creep out people, but it doesn't mean you're winning all the arguments...not by a long shot...your arrogance and self-righteousness is off putting, STILL doesn't mean you're winning all the arguments.

This game, match, win stuff....can you be any more immature?  I don't care how much you "laugh" while youre spewing this vindictive... I can see how Rush Lumbaugh is probably a hero of yours.

But the trouble is, it's not your bad, it's mine. The fact that I took the time to argue with someone like you says a lot about myself as well, that I'm nervous right now and not reasoning well myself...to go down to your level, using some of your obvious tactics so I can be heard over your rhetoric. I just come here to debate viewpoints, to find out what others think. And this *can* be done civilly, without impugning the motives or character of the person you're debating with.

On another thread, I was talking to Rglass, who is a republican, and his views are much different from mine, say, in talking about someone like Obama, etc, but he remains civil and I learn from his perspectives, maybe things I hadn't looked at.....he doesn't turn everything into a pi$$ing contest with this "rabid" (good word SFbaygirl) need to win and make everyone look bad except those that agree with YOU. Someone should of told you a long time ago, just because you make a huge effort in making others "look" bad, doesn't mean you've *won* anything.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Again a great post!  Rabid is the word I need in this discussion. Mr. Liver claims to not even know or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Yeah right!  That's okay.  He most likely thinks we are Feminist Nazi's. lol   Some of the names I embrace, why not?  Not like I said them.  Gotta say that I am okay talking to this guy on the forum without politics.  Hep C issues come up and I respect all of us.  Yeah this political thread seems pretty rabid to me, I can also embrace those comments they make on Hep C threads.  So bring it on buddies, I will still listen to your comments here and on the hep c threads. I may agree or disagree,  but I am not going to hold what you say here as something that will reflect on our common goal of HEP C. I would love it if you could quit the name calling...   My mother does the same.How can I hate her for her different views.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
yeah, willy was right, I didn't have to wallow around in the mud debating certain "individuals" either...on another blog I go to sometimes, there are probably 10 or 12 people who I regularly debate with, some are libertarians, right wingers, etc...but we're all friends now...and we have very high spirited debates, but a rule is we don't go at each other, we stick to the issues no matter what...no one can be overly rude to one another either...we learn a lot from each other...but if you see that there are people who don't follow these tacitly agreed on rules, then you should just opt out in my opinion, because then it will just devolve into something else, I share some of that blame, but it's just a political thread on this side of the board, we aren't curing cancer here, lol...you take it for what it is...
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yep, you are correct.  Why put up with the name calling and the 'win, set, match'.  Pathetic.  I like politics and enjoy them. the Board you describe sounds like what I would want. As someone on tx, different but tx nonetheless,  I feel that posting here, I won't have the problems; ie; spelling, word box, forgetting so many things!  So I continue to post.  I did stop at one point, then started again.  Send me the URL of your group. Sounds fun.  Yeah,  why fight with people.  NOT fun at all.
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
if as you claim,only 5% of wealth in this country is inherited(and i find that figure intuitively absurd)...who is getting the other 95% ?...i am not envious of anyone who has indeed earned their wealth&influence-heck,i did the samething-,but i do believe we have allowed too much of our nations wealth to accrue to a very small group of people(the majority of whom did inherit it)...which in turn has allowed them undue political influence...add to this the incredible sums lobbied into washington by corporations&their interest groups...and ordinary,working americans(you know,couples who just work 60 hrs aweek apiece and actually raise familys) are being sold down the river in the name of globalization and free markets and yes corporate welfare&malfesance...i am not trying to win anything-i just don't agree with your view of our world.....
  i am with Willy on this let's just get over the polemics-we don't agree,so what?
  i also must secound forsee on your incessant clams of "winning"...no one is winning here,but many are dying elsewhere..if we can ameliorate that situation in anyway ,then we really have a match,set,win...
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "When we talk about Reagan closing down the mental institutions - you talk about how that was  "good" for the patients to be put out in the street with no where to go, because of all these questionable reasons...."

Actually deinstitutionalization for the mentally ill began decades earlier than Reagan's time in office and was especially spearheaded by JFK when he signed into law the "Community Mental Health Centers Act" just before he was assassinated in 1963. At the time many of the people held within mental institutions were being held against their will. And they were not true criminals nor were they a threat to themselves or to others. It was thought to be more humane and more "American" to release these people if they did not wish to be held within the institution (something I happen to agree with to a certain extent). Also, many people had been wrongly institutionalized against their will by relatives or legal guardians for less than benevolent reasons (i.e. for the purposes of seizing their money, property, inheritances etc). Plus better drugs for the treatment of common mental disorders were starting to be developed around that time which also contributed to this movement away from institutionalization. But unfortunately although the intent was good, the effect was to turn many of these people loose on our society causing the homeless population to boom, and for our prisons to swell all during the 60's and 70's (and up until the current day for that matter). Believe it or not, many mentally ill people who are not a threat to others or themselves do not want to take treatment or drugs and do not wish to be institutionalized. I've met and spoken to many homeless people when I used to live in the city (many of which were mentally ill).

I remember when I was a kid in the 70's we had an old run down asylum that had been closed for many years in our town. Me and my friends used to sneak into it and run around inside. Most of the old gurneys and equipment were still there, even things like these big chrome and glass hypodermic needles. It looked as if everyone had just walked out of the place sometime in the early 60's, and then the doors were simply locked behind them. It was eerie.

Anyway, of course the point is that the oft repeated bogus assertion that Reagan closed down all the mental institutions is just that - a bogus assertion.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
so much for your not debating me on this thread anymore...I don't agree with your assertions, having just looked up Reagan's legacy re this to refresh my memory, on a few sites besides this one, and having lived here in California when this was done....hearing the outcry of citizens at the time (and witnessing it for myself) when all of a sudden, people were walking the streets talking to themselves, being jailed for vagrancy, etc...I remember the outrage many of us felt at the time, if youre going to skimp on something to balance a budge, why this? I can post many others...This is from the Ronald Reagan history section in Sparknotes, from Barnes and Noble, the kid I take care of uses this site for looking up facts for her school papers, as do many other students....just so no one thinks I'm writing this, here is the following....

Reagan's two terms as governor of California were neither spectacular nor failures. Like many politicians, Reagan had to abandon many of his campaign pledges when faced with political reality. His first crisis came during his first term when the government suddenly had an enormous budget deficit. In order to save money, Reagan cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. Although this sounded reasonably simple and worked in certain departments, it also proved to be an inadequate solution. For example, because of budget cuts, many of the state mental institutions had to release unstable patients in order to save money. Reagan froze government spending and purchases and even sold the state jet. Finally, Governor Reagan rescinded on his promise to cut taxes when he increased the state income tax in order to make money.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
here is the url...

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/reagan/section5.rhtml
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I was here too when the mental institutions were shut down and the mentally ill were let out. As someone who has a mentally ill child, it was heartbreaking to find that I could get no help in his teen years.  They would help for maybe 30 days. I can't tell you how awful it was to hear he was living on the street, had to pick him up once in Hawaii, where he threw his meds in the ocean.  It is a real problem that many don't want to take their meds. They weren't fun meds,  hopefully they have better stuff now.   When he started self medicating things got even worse.  He just got out of prison and denies that there is anything wrong with him.  A 72 hour hold is all we can do now, against their will, then they can leave.  

I can see your point about putting people in hospitals against their will to take their money etc. But what about those that roam the streets, not wanting their meds and causing our towns problems, besides the fact that they are not really having a good life themselves.  We need some programs, perhaps unwanted by these people so that they can find a med they can live with.  

Regan did do this, all a once. Not assessing who needed it and giving any assisitance once they were released, other than a bottle of pills many didn't like.  It was a really sad time and we are still reeling from it today.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I was here too when the mental institutions were shut down and the mentally ill were let out. As someone who has a mentally ill child, it was heartbreaking to find that I could get no help in his teen years.  They would help for maybe 30 days. I can't tell you how awful it was to hear he was living on the street, had to pick him up once in Hawaii, where he threw his meds in the ocean.  It is a real problem that many don't want to take their meds. They weren't fun meds,  hopefully they have better stuff now.   When he started self medicating things got even worse.  He just got out of prison and denies that there is anything wrong with him.  A 72 hour hold is all we can do now, against their will, then they can leave.  

I can see your point about putting people in hospitals against their will to take their money etc. But what about those that roam the streets, not wanting their meds and causing our towns problems, besides the fact that they are not really having a good life themselves.  We need some programs, perhaps unwanted by these people so that they can find a med they can live with.  

Regan did do this, all a once. Not assessing who needed it and giving any assisitance once they were released, other than a bottle of pills many didn't like.  It was a really sad time and we are still reeling from it today.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
I think you're missing the point. The point is, is that there was a NATIONWIDE trend towards releasing mentally ill people who did not want to be institutionalized for the reasons mentioned in my last post and in mr liver's post previously. And the cuts in mental health facilities (or general lack of funding) was something that was going on nationwide under the leadership of both liberal and conservative local and national politicians. It wasn't something that was just going on in California alone (again spearheaded by JFK's policy implemented in '63). So again, you've solely associated sinister funding withdrawals by the "evil republican" as the primary reason for these mass releasings of the mentally ill, when the complete reason for their release is much more complicated than that (as described in my previous post). And again the main reason is that many of these people had been institutionalized against their will prior to the early 1960's. And no surprises, many of these people wanted out of asylums when it became possible to do so (both because they understandably wanted their freedom and frankly, because they were crazy too). Many of the mentally ill people you previously didn't see wandering around the streets were warehoused in asylums against their will prior to that. That's why they had been warehoused years and years prior to that in the first place, because people didn't want them wandering around the streets! Then, after these policies were implemented you start seeing them again and knee jerkingly (even all these years later) interpret it as being solely caused by Reagan cuts. That's absurd.

Furthermore, according to your own link Reagan was confronted with a tough budgetary issue to contend with. Looks like he had to make some tough choices and cut spending across the board, including even raising taxes (no mean feat for a republican). But he only cut 10% percent "across the board", so that of course retains 90% of funding. So he didn't close all mental institutions as you claimed earlier when you said "When we talk about Reagan closing down the mental institutions..." above. Sounds like the mental institutions simply analyzed who they had in their custody and released the ones they were legally obliged to release anyway (as a consequence of the laws defending and protecting the mentally ill from being unjustifiably incarcerated recently passed just a few years prior to this event).
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
I'm sorry to hear about your son and his troubles. I also have a close relative that has chronic long term depression. He takes gobs of pills every day. Pills to get up, pills to control his depression, pills to go to bed. He usually cannot hold a job down and sleeps about 12 hours a day. He's not "toys in the attic" crazy, but he is largely disabled as a result of his depression (it ebbs and flows over time). I don't know what would happen to him if he stopped taking his drugs or if my relatives did not look after him the way they do. He'd probably end up on the streets, and he did end up in jail for a short stint as a result of 2 DWI's already. He had been self medicating with alcohol because his anti-d's work so poorly.

The bottomline is that when it comes to people with serious emotional disturbances there simply aren't any easy answers, and there aren't any easy villains either. The drugs and treatments they have for the mentally ill are usually lacklustre and in many cases effectively don't work. Or their side effects are so bad, the patient often feels like stopping the meds is the lesser of the two evils (and that's just what they do). I'm quite certain that a hundred years from now people will look back on this era as the stone age when it comes to treatment of the mentally ill. But unfortunately that's where we're at right now.

But getting back to the homeless, I used to have long chats with some of the homeless people that lived near me when I was lived in the city (some of them really smelled though ;-). I used to ask them specifically if they wanted to be institutionalized and many of them said they already had been and didn't like it. They preferred life on the streets and living life on their own terms (as crazy as that may seem to us). I also could see that most of them self medicated either with alcohol or other drugs as a way of dealing with their emotional problems. And frankly, the more I learn about modern psycho-active drugs (including my own experience with them during my tx), the more I wonder if they're really any better in certain ways than alcohol or other illicit drugs. It's just a crying shame is all I can say, but that's a part of our collective human experience today, like it or not. That collective experience is something humanity has been struggling with since we started walking upright, and I'm sure we'll be dealing with it for many many more years to come.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
I'm not going to keep at this with you, no, he shut down mental institutions here, they didn't simply analyze who needed to go and who didn't....my psychiatrist who is famous in California, have had long discussions about this very issue, he ran a few state institutions, and begged the Governor to not let out everybody in some of these institutions (particularly those in dire need) but he said Reagan turned a deaf ear to him and other leaders in this field...no one has to believe me on this, since this is anecdotal...but the effect was overnight - crazy people were all over the streets, news programs focused on the phenomenon...yes, some of it was thought to be an  advocacy of their "rights" but here in California especially, it just went way too far and has never recovered...

once these people were let out, there was no back up for them. Counties didn't and don't hav the resources to deal with the sheer amount of people requiring mental hospitalizations, many long term. This was not duplicated in any other state, particularly of this size.

From the California healthcare foundation.
http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/article/C26/63_background/

In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed a landmark bill—the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act—that had bipartisan support. LPS effectively emptied the state’s mental hospitals. Public care of adults and children with mental illnesses was delegated to a system of community-based programs created under the Short-Doyle Act in the 1950s. Reagan proudly announced that he was closing several state mental facilities and eliminating 1,700 staff jobs.


Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
No one's arguing that mentally ill people were not released, obviously they were (as already discussed ad nauseum). But returning to your original assertion that this was all Reagan's doing in the overly simplistic manner you did is obviously incorrect. According to your own source above it says:

1. The Lanterman Petris Short Act had BIPARTISAN support. "Bipartisan" means that members of both political parties approved of it and wished for it to be passed. This of course means that democrats approved of it and helped pass it into law, not just Ronald Reagan. (remember that governors, like presidents, are not dictators in the US - they must work in a bipartisan manner to get things done)

2. "The intent was essentially benevolent." Benevolent means it was well meaning and was thought at the time to be a good solution.

3. Here's what else it says in your link: "Five years earlier, Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest had aroused the nation to the plight of patients—including vagabonds, public drunks, misbehaving children, and impoverished elders—walled away against their will, drugged, shackled, shocked, lobotomized in antiquated public institutions where many languished indefinitely. (kinda like we already talked about, huh??)

LPS changed that. Under section 5150 of the act, only people who pose imminent danger to themselves or others, or who are unable to care for themselves, can be taken into custody for treatment and evaluation. And then they can be held for no more than three days without a hearing before a judge. (yep, also like we already talked about)

As an alternative to hospitalization, LPS required California’s counties to provide the services locally that were needed by people with mental illness. The state would assume 90 percent of the costs and the money would “follow the patients,” the legislature promised."  

So, lets review what this means based on the information you've provided. The LPS act was implemented by a bipartisan committee consisting of republicans AND democrats (i.e. not just Ronald Reagan dictatorially shutting down mental hospitals as you've suggested above). The plan was at its heart a "benevolent" alternative to the current system for the reasons described, namely to prevent warehousing people in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" asylums against their will. So the plan (by both democrats and republicans) was to simply restructure how the mentally ill would be taken care of in a manner that both kept these people from being incarcerated while still providing them with mental healthcare. Well, my goodness even if the idea wasn't executed as well as had been envisioned (or to your personal satisfaction), that's a far cry from the grotesquely oversimplified characterization you made above about how Reagan just shut down all the nuthouses and dumped the crazies onto the street, isn't it? What about the democrats who supported the LPS act? Aren't they also responsible? What about the issue concerning keeping people in nuthouses against their will?? Aren't those salient issues that Reagan along with the state democrats were at least attempting to rectify? According to the link you've provided above, obviously that's exactly what they were doing.

Furthermore, Ronald Reagan hasn't been California's governor for more than 30 YEARS! It says in your link above "But in 1973, budgetary pressures led lawmakers to cap the state outlay. Only cost-of-living increases have been applied during the intervening three decades—and not even those, most recently."  Ronald Reagan's term ended in '74, and the state of California has certainly had Democratic governors since then and quite obviously has had liberal politicians throughout its legislature (and some of them *very* liberal). Maybe you haven't heard but California is a largely democratic state (that's why they call it the "left coast"). For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone, even all these years later is patently absurd. You mean that all of the California voters, governors, and legislators since 1974 (a mere one year after budgetary pressures raised their head in '73) have had NO SAY in how the mental health system has and is being run to this day??? It's all Ronald Reagan's fault??? Good lord it defies the imagination that anyone could even imagine such a thing and take it seriously. And while we're at it, why do you suppose there were and continue to be these these tight budgetary constraints? Could it be because of excessive spending on all sorts of other social programs? Could it be that the voters and elected officials (that the voters put into office) within California simply haven't prioritized these issues? Certainly sounds like it to me, especially considering Reagan was re-elected in 1970 a coupla years after the LPS act was enacted anyway. I really dont know what your point is by blaming Reagan in the manner you are, it really doesn't make any sense.  ??????
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing.

" For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone" where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign. You don't want to believe that? fine. done with this.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I remember when it happened. Reagan did sign the bill. Not sure if his congress could even override the veto...don't remember. But I do know that once it happened there is no way to put it all back into place.  Even for the volentary patients. What is really sad is a 5150 that only lasts for THREE days!  Then they are thrown back out on their sick way.  Believe me, I have dealt with this.  You say Reagan was part of the  nationwide lead,  but he IS the one who did it.  We actually have had many many more republican govenors than you think during these 30 years. I can't even remember one....But all I know is once it is taken apart,  how is it even going to be put back together.  I understand your concerns about locking up those that don't want to be, but what about the ones that commit crimes?  Do they belong in real prison instead?  Also how were local counties, already strapped supposed to take care of all these people?  I was on the phone 8 hrs a day trying to get help. This was for a teen. ONce he was 18, there was nothing I could do, except talk him into getting help. When I did,  these great county facilities were so understaffed and inadequete that I had to pick him up. He was terrified!  
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Adding to this;   He was terrified b/c most of the patients slept on the floor near the nurses station, so they would not be hurt in the night.  County hospitals just don't have the help or budget to staff the amount of people who are 5150'ed or want help.  My son was only 18 and there was no way I was going to leave him in place like this to be hurt, although he wanted the help. So out on the streets he went (stayed with me, but when manic I couldn't stop him) and now just did a three year stint in the Pen for exstacy.  Seems that a well staffed hospital like Napa (govt. run) would have been a lot better than a county run facility
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
You said:" Heard today we are headed for a recession due to the loss of jobs and the not creating new ones. Kinda makes Mr. Liver's claim that we are in such great shape a sham.  You are NOT a liar and cited your claims. I too have read them. Guess that makes me a liar too."

Wrong on all accounts,as usual. You ,OH, and 4C stated that Bush had taken a good economy and ruined it. I proved that to be an absurd assertion in light of the FACTS. I provided those facts, which you could not dispute then, nor now. What happens today or tomorrow has NO bearing on what has happened up until this point which was the direct assertion I replied to. The assertion wasn't Bush WAS going to ruin a good economy (which won't happen). No , the assertion was Bush had taken a good economy when he was sworn in and has been "ruining it". THAT was the topic and nowehere did I see a refutation of the facts that I posted that held up to scrutiny in light of the known facts.

Please show me ANY facts cited by Forseegood that are from a reputable source (not someone's opinion) that are based on numbers that can be verified. I have yet to see any such evidence presented. For anything. One must assume they don't exist or I'm sure you would find and post them.

You are also dead wrong about me not acknowledging the latest unemployment figures and possibility of an economic downturn. This from me several posts above yours:

"The latest unemployment figures are not too bad if you look historically at them. In the last administration they were ABOVE 5% half the time. However,its never encouraging to see them go up and particularly now with other concerns such as in the housing market becoming more problematic. Many analysts believe these are clear signs that we are headed for recession. Some say it won't quite be that deep but I believe a consensus exists that a slowdown is coming to our economy. Its been on a long run and someday it will pull back. Much of this is cyclical. (Deep recessions take about 11 years to develop on avg) But, none of this is related to what I have previously posted about the economy, nor related to the assertions that I replied to. "

BTW jobs forecast for '08 have been released and they are slighly down from previous years. One million new jobs are expected to be created this year.

You know you and your friends would fare much better if you dealt in facts, rather than drawing upon the demagogeury and propaganda found from leftist sources. If you want to be successful when debating or even discussing politics you must deal in facts. Not innuendo, misrepresentation,  or something your hairdresser told you. If you draw your views from slanted sources you will  not unsurprisingly end up with slanted views. Those who watch Michael Moore for example. He is not a documentarian, but a propagandist, and uses the same technique as Forseegood employed as witnessed in the post above,e.g., cutting , pasting, and editing to achieve a statement that never existed as written.

Before accusing or attempting to make fun of me, perhaps you should first examine to see if your statement is true and not bs as it was in this case.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"calling me a lier?"

I didn't coronate you a liar. You did it the old-fashioned way---you earned it.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

BTW you are not the only one getting supportive e-mails. Many I have received are from names you haven't even heard of. They are tired of the endless leftists postings, too, but just didn't want to get into it for various reasons. Tx being the reason for many.I just didn't feel the need to mention it as I don't feel the need to bolster any of my positions.. I appreciate their support, of course.

You, nor any of your friends have this figured out yet. But, it will hit you one of these days and I'm guessing it won't be long now.  ;)
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
The above post should have been addressed to you.
Blank
Avatar_f_tn
When you start polarizing debate such that you each start citing that you've got the support of the members here, your debate has spiralled out of control and you begin to enter the territory that l-horn warned about.  The potential acrimony that a political debate can cause risks what we're here for and that is to offer support to each other while we deal with our HCV.  

So ask yourselves.  Is this still a productive debate?  Are either of you going to change your positions?  I don't think so.  You are both past the point of having any respect for anything each other says.  You both border on or cross the border of defaming the other personally instead of their discussion points.  So there is no point in continuing to debate with each other once that happens as the debate ceases to be academic but becomes a personal war.  Neither of you has or will concede a point to the other and that is essential in a good and honest debate.  That is, that when the other person says something of merit, you have the integrity to acknowledge that.  

So... I respectfully suggest that go have a virtual soda and lime or  together and talk of your common HCV struggles to get your perspective back...or go into your respective corners and take deep breaths before your next post...or simply call it a day.  
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
You are correct---I misstated what I intended to say. To clarify--I did not mean to say 5% of the wealth in this country was inherited. Rather , I should have worded it differently and didn't catch it until I read your post. What was meant was that 95% of those called 'wealthy" did not inherit their wealth. Upon doing some research I have found my number to be slightly off---I have been seeing 7%-8.3% of the wealthy inherited large sums at one point. I don't think this detracts from the point I was making, but perhaps you will.

Lobbyists play an important role in America. They have been around since the halls of Congress have been opened. I have mentioned this before---we have our own lobbyists in Congress--our Representatives and Senators---and they are the only ones who can cast a vote. I have participated as a lobbyist in our state capitol on numerous occasions, both for funding of HCV awareness, and HCV-related legislation. The purpose of lobbying to simply to draw attention.

And though its not considered lobbying, occasionally we also hold 'breakfasts' at the state capitol  throughout the year.  It's another way to keep them thinking about you.

Regional economies exist and for that reason alone perception of our economic health is not always consistent with one another. While perception may be reality it may not necessarily jibe with the overall national averages and statistics from economic data sources
.Here is an article I ran across at MSNBC website that I think brings to light some overlooked principles.

"That’s not to say that current economic conditions don’t feel like a recession to many readers. You might walk out the door, when the wind is blowing and the temperature is 33 degrees, and observe to a friend: “Wow: it’s freezing out here today.” And we wouldn’t say you’re wrong. But the weatherman won’t use the word "freezing" until the temperature is 32 degrees or lower.
Unfortunately, measuring the health of the economy takes a little longer than looking at a thermometer. Because of the time involved in collecting and analyzing economic data, it’s very possible to be well into a recession before the numbers confirm it.

Until the data makes it clear, no one can confirm that a recession is under way. Until then, it would be inaccurate (not to mention irresponsible)  to report that the “U.S. economy is in a recession now.”--end

Of course I don't like nat'l debt to go higher. Who does ? I can assure you the answer is no one, especially if they hold political office on a nat'l level. Pres. Bush should have used the veto pen much, much, more than he did. And believe me, the Dems are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Whether we should be expending blood and treasure in Iraq is a highly (and hotly) debated topic. When I look at the big picture, and in light of the stated goals of extremist Muslim factions, I support the decision.To think that if we go away the terrorists will too, as some people do, flies in the face of recent historical facts. WTC '94 and WTC 9-11 were committed before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Gee, I feel so much better about everything now. Thanks you guys for such insightful and stimulating  dialogue. Mike
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"rabid is the word I need in this discussion. Mr. Liver claims to not even know or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Yeah right! "

In the statement above it is you once again misstating the facts. Please show me where I said that I did not know who Rush Limbaugh is. Why do you always misrepresent the facts ? Could it be that the truth just doesn't fit in with your agenda? Do you just misread all of the time? What is it? Is English your second language ?

It is apparent that you are calling me a liar in your statement. And solely based on your own 'belief' not facts. I don't know why that doesn't surprise me. But, there it is--plain as day---you are calling me a liar. I've yet to see what nameS I've called you or anyone for that matter. Please don't include my calling Forseegood a liar because that's already been proven to be fact, and its in black and white for all to confirm.

But to attack me once more with the wrong facts is getting old. Do you EVER check your facts before popping off ?


Blank
Avatar_m_tn
You have presented an argument that is fact-based, well-reasoned using critical thinking skills, coated in pure logic, and presented in a clear, concise format which was not only readable, but interesting.

It was doomed from the start.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Political discussions online are best left to poltical websites. That's why they exist. HCV forums are best used for support and info exchange, and be safe places fo those with HCV. And that's why they exist.The two will NEVER be compatible.  Debate can be polarizing. But you don't think that posting far left ideology isn't polarizing in and of itself ? Because it is. Not everyone with HCV holds the views of someone on the left, let alone the far left  as such is the case here with a few vocal members. I have never spoken of anything political since I've been here but I have been exposed to the political ideology of the lunatic fringe over and over. When I come to a HCV support site I don't expect to see political debate and in 8 years I have never seen it allowed on any HCV moderated or members only format. This place has neither, so I guess its left up to the sensibilities of the members where and where not to go with discussions. And anyone with a lick of sense should know that an HCV forum should be a safe place , not a place to get stressed out at. The inevitability of political debate becoming polarizing is the inherent nature of political debate. Passions run strong.  This is WHY no HCV website that I know of allows it. But, this is how it will remain here as long as there are those who do not have the intelligence to discern what is and what isn't a good idea on an HCV forum. If the left wing whack jobs quit posting their trash everything will quiet down. Until then there will be no peace here.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
does have moderators, but it is barely moderated.  That's OK if members moderate themselves.  That is the ideal and ultimate moderator.  

There can be a price for "going over the line" here.  It could be injured members.  It could be scaring others off the board, not the least to mention the damage it does to those who get drawn into harsh debate.  (How would you like to have 20 hours back in your life? ---an understatement, I know.  : ))

It feels so good when you stop.  : )  

If you can't...... one can always consider softening ones tone.  We are friends here, ideally we can stay friends, eh?

Willy

Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
151263_tn?1243377877
4cquote: "What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing."

Yes you did say that Reagan emptied the mental institutions and this was your half-truthed and largely incorrect statement. Firstly, not all of the mental institutions were emptied. Some were shut down and some were not, and some patients were released, but not all. Please do not deny this or I will provide links to prove that this is true. Secondly, as obviously and clearly demonstrated by your own source of information provided above, it wasn't just Reagan simply waving his golden hand like some all powerful King and simplistically slashing all funding to zero and shutting down all of the mental institutions. The Lanterman Petris Short Act was devised and formulated by a BIPARTISAN panel consisting of BOTH democratic and republican California lawmakers. It was a BIPARTISAN effort and the LPS Act was the byproduct of that bipartisan effort. Furthermore, the LPS act was not primarily enacted simply for the purpose of dumping crazies onto the street or to deny them mental healthcare simply because the state didn't want to pay for it anymore. It was enacted to stop the injustice of incarcerating people against their will in asylums who were not a threat to themselves or others. It also provided an alternative plan for providing mental healthcare for the patients that were being released, and a line of funding to pay for it. That's a noble cause (or "benevolent" as your own source cites) and it's understandable why the legislators enacted such a law (and was also probably to comply with similar federal acts enacted by JFK in '63, as previously described).

So, these are the facts. This is what really happened, and this is why the LPS act remains in effect today (over 40 years later!). I saw just recently that Britney Spears was taken away under the 5150 code and was held for acting like a nut (and possibly posing a threat to her children and to herself). But they cannot hold her longer than 3 days without an order from a judge finding that she does pose a threat to others or herself. Under the old system they could have kept her incarcerated indefinitely (or anyone else for that matter). That's an example of the LPS act in action today, still in effect all these years later. Certainly sounds like the California voters, legislators and governors over the past 40 years APPROVE of the LPS act. Sounds like Reagan simply signing it into law (a law he didn't even construct) is what everyone wanted. If you're dissatisfied with this law or don't like it or feel that more funding should be directed into mental healthcare, fine. But attempting to simplistically lay all the "problems" (in your view) associated with the LPS Act (or its execution) at the feet of Reagan is obviously wrong.

4cquote:  "(mmquote) For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone"   (4cquote) Where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign."

I didn't say you "said that", obviously I said you implied that. That's why I used the word IMPLY in the text you quoted me as saying above! And you most certaintly did repeatedly imply (or directly state) that Reagan was the sole cause of the crazies walking the street, when as we can see now that's far from the truth. You didn't say anything about "Lanterman", or "Petris" or "Short" or any of the other lawmakers who were responsible for the act's construction. You didn't say anything about them nor did you say anything about how Reagan was re-elected a mere 3 years later and how the LPS act remains in effect today (which obviously directly indicates it had and HAS wide bipartisan support). I'd suggest you admit that you've mischaracterized the complexity of what happened back in 1967, and admit that Reagan was not the simplistic bogeyman you're suggesting he was. Reagan simply implemented the bipartisan will of the people, and obviously 40+ years later that edict has been preserved and continued on for that very reason.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
My source for the info about the recession the other day came out of the mouth of GW Bush.  
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
10 consecutive posts make this thread seem even more obsessive, if that's possible.  : )

I'm glad that I wasn't the only person having trouble getting on.

Willy
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yep,  kinda makes your day, huh?  I couldn't get on for about an hour. Haven't read all the posts, obviously mremeet had a problem, or MH had a problem. Do you think this is the longest thread ever?
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
I think this thread should be retitled "War and Peace".  ; )

Ever time I open this "page" my computer acts like I've kicked it in the cajones.  It takes a while to open.  I'm pretty sure that the MedHelp power outage was caused by the server overload when members simutaneously tried to open this thread monday morning.  Mre posting 10 times didn't help none.  ; )

just teasin...... carry on....carrying on.  ; )

willy
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"Heard today we are headed for a recession due to the loss of jobs and the not creating new ones"

"My source for the info about the recession the other day came out of the mouth of GW Bush."  

Please show me any quote by President Bush that says we are heading for a recession. You have once again mispresented the facts. President Bush is pushing for an economic stimulus package to keep the economy from GOING into recession. Those quotes I can show you galore. You will see them as you search in vain for a quote from Pres. Bush that we ARE going into a recession.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Just to clarify, your statement was we were headed FOR a recession which implies it is a foregone conclusion. Knowledge of the definition of recession is important in this discussion. There are some variances but generally it requires 3 quarters of flat or negative growth. So far we have not had one. Could it happen. Sure. In that sense I can agree that if action isn't taken we will not only head for, but may see a prolonged economic slowdown, or perhaps recession. I said as much above. My point is that President Bush has not stated that recession is a foregone conclusion as you characterized it.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
hey ah, so what do you think about those darn Chargers huh? finally looks like they might take the playoffs....?
Blank
96938_tn?1189803458
You beat me to it this time
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
SORRY, but the chargers season comes to a end next sunday.

The colts CAN-DO and will:)
Blank
96938_tn?1189803458
Next weekend's games are what larger screen HD's were made for.  Best weekend of the too-long season.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
I dunno Canny...Tomlinson was looking p r e t t y good.....what kind of a spread will you give me??? he he he....
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
what kind of a spread will you give me???

hmmm, lets just keep our mind on the 'Football game' ok???:)

Lets see colts win, you have to eat my special diet TWICE next week. A big mac and greasy fries.

colts huh lose, you tell me your special diet and i will eat it twice next week.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Football it is.  I am angry that the damn niners are so weak!   Okay, canman, if I can eat at all I will try that big mac....maybe..lol.  

BTW;  Mr L  I watched CNN when I heard this, so no cites, sorry.
Blank
86075_tn?1238118691
okay, you got it...but I get to take that thing out in the middle...that brownish-grey textured thing in the middle of the bun....I'll eat the pickle and the quasi-lettuce, with that stuff that passes for mayonnaise...and the fries too...

but get your knife and fork ready...you'll be eating my diet, Manning looks off his game...he he he...

SFbaygirl: stick to football! "The pause that refreshes!" (just kiddin) but youre right, you guys don't have the strongest team this season...we don't even have a team...boo hooo.....should be a good game though...we can all go watch it at Fldude's place...heard he's got a big screen...he can buy the grub too....!
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Forsee, Tomlinson and the rest of the chargers better keep both eyes on Bob Sanders. And if Harrison decides to play a Manning and Harrison duo will be hard to beat. Are you having a big mac attack yet girl?

sfbay, a big mac and fries cures all.

Flguy, I AGREE

canny getting ready to see forsee heading to the can sick on big macs.
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
Dow Jones Index Suffers Worst Start to New Year Since 1904
In economic news, more signs are emerging indicating the country might be heading toward a recession. The reported unemployment rate hit 5 percent in December – it was the biggest jump in unemployment since a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The price of oil briefly topped one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time ever last week. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average suffered its worst start to a new year since 1904. The Nasdaq composite index dropped over five percent last week–its worst start to a new year ever. And the Times of London reports the living standards in Britain are set to rise above those in the United States for the first time since the 19th century. Ethan Harris, the chief economist at Lehman Brothers, predicted 2008 would be a difficult year for the U.S. economy.
Ethan Harris: "We are going into a very uncertain period for the economy with lots of downside risks. The fact that the stock market started the year on a down note is a reminder that there are significant risks out there, so that’s the message. It’s just confirming what we knew, which is it’s going to be a difficult year. The stock market could be up in the year if the economy can skirt recession, but it’s going to be a choppy ride this year. "


Published on Friday, February 23, 2007 by McClatchy Newspapers
US Economy Leaving Record Numbers in Severe Poverty
by Tony Pugh

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.
The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.
The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."
The growth spurt, which leveled off in 2005, in part reflects how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in an unstable job market that favors skilled and educated workers. It also suggests that social programs aren't as effective as they once were at catching those who fall into economic despair.
About one in three severely poor people are under age 17, and nearly two out of three are female. Female-headed families with children account for a large share of the severely poor
Nearly two out of three people (10.3 million) in severe poverty are white, but blacks (4.3 million) and Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) make up disproportionate shares. Blacks are nearly three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be in deep poverty, while Hispanics are roughly twice as likely.


Published on Sunday, July 17, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Casualty of War: US Economy
by James Sterngold

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.
That could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.
"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.
Put simply, critics say, the war is not making the United States safer and is harming U.S. taxpayers by saddling them with an enormous debt burden, since the war is being financed with deficit spending.
One of the most vocal Republican critics has been Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said the costs of the war -- many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003 -- are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.
"It's dangerously irresponsible," Hagel said in February of the war spending.
He later told U.S. News & World Report, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality." He added that the apparent lack of solid plans for defeating the insurgency and providing stability in Iraq made it seem "like they're just making it up as they go along."
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Good cites!  It is really sad to hear of women and their children on the streets, homeless.  The shelters are too full. I heard this on one of the campaign speeches.  The cities and locals are supposed to pick up the tab for these folks and also the mental health. How are they supposed to do that? They are strapped here by Javis/Gann tax cuts on property.  yes, I get a tax break from that, but what about these huge property owners who have found ways to sell, but have loopholes to advantage them.  Little people with houses aren't the problem.  We have no libraries, our schools are in shambles, so are parks and recreation etc, etc.  

Yep, I just saw on CNN about the recession coming. Hopefully not!  But even Bush was in on the conversation about it.  These wars are costing us a bundle. How can we justify spending all this money on war, while people are starving in the US?  40% have no health care?  What makes us the policemen of the world?  Now that we are there,  how do we get out?  Kinda like Vietnam, a quagmire.  Didn't we just leave?  Nixon did that,  pulled us out and now we really need to leave this mess we have created in Iraq.

Blank
Avatar_m_tn
The author above in the piece on poverty left out some very obvious facts. When this happens credibility for that person is diminished in my mind and I find it harder to believe anything else they have to say.

Of course this is the most people living in poverty since 1973.That should be a no-brainer. Since 1973, we have added 16 million illegal immigrants. This affects the number living in poverty substantially Then lets take population growth---from 1970-present we have added 89 million legal citizens. With the largest US population you would expect to see the larger numbers in all economic classes.
It is no coincidence that some of the states that have the fastest increasing poverty rate are the border states.

As for Hagel--He has been a closet liberal for 10 years. No one on either side of the aisle cares what he says or does.

"That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years."

This of course mean nothing unless we know just how far has it fallen ? Looking at median incomes for a family of four after inflation the growth line is rather static. This author does not address the tax refunds that an average family of four realize now under Bush's tax cuts either. Tax refunds are not counted as earned income so to get a true number reflecting the median household income the tax rates would have to be consulted and income adjusted. The middle class got the highest percentage reduction resulting in about $6000 in avg tax savings for a family of 4 . After adjusted for inflation, the median income actually rose, not declined when tax savings are counted.
Citing a book is not a very good source but it is an improvement. The problem with books is you can find one to support every view. Too many authors have open, or even worse , hidden agendas. When going for financial numbers its just as easy to find the published data and link to it.

Here are yearly inflation numbers.
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/Misc/Inflation.html

The median family income figures by year are available at census.gov.

You can then see for yourself with exactness as to how bad we've done during these 50 months of continued economic growth.

The cost of previous wars should have no bearing on the war we are fighting. What is the price you would put on the continued existence of the United States of America as we know it? I'm not being melodramatic. The stakes for the war we are in are incredibly high. Some folks have no problem with our surrendering to the enemy and leaving. I'm sure that wouldn't embolden them one bit. They just kicked the Great Satan's ***!. I'm sure that wouldn't help their recruitment (Join the group that kicked America's *** !) And I'm certain that if we just leave them alone they will play nice and just leave us alone. uh-huh.
Blank
Avatar_n_tn
the thread count is Amazing!-if only all  our bed-sheets were so luxuriously over-stuffed..even in homeless shelters..
and the football predictions are sucha welcome relief...but really,can-man-do you expect forsee to actually chow down a bigmac?..maybe a whopper....(now we can really polarize this discussion!! ).....
WRATH-as in Blake's tigers and Steinbecks grapes...we have been sowing sour seeds and IMHO are gonna reap fruit that ain't fit to drink...A bitter Harvest......we need to realize our own shortcomings;we should admit to  failures and embrace alternatives-we are all on the same page,quite literally!...the times they are a changing...and it's past time to get our own house in order.....how's that for a compendium of platitudes?FLguy?
Please : Super-size the compassion&solidarity that makes us the community we all belong to...and add a dish of ice-cream.....CHEERS,tommy
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
"President Bush has consistently referred to the Iraq war as "the central front in the War on Terror", and has argued that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, "terrorists will follow us here."[270][271][272] While other proponents of the war have regularly echoed this assertion, as the conflict has dragged on, members of the U.S. Congress, the American public, and even U.S. troops have begun to question the connection between Iraq and the fight against terrorism. In particular, a consensus has developed among intelligence experts that the Iraq war has increased terrorism. Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna frequently refers to the invasion of Iraq as a "fatal mistake."[273] London's conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.[274] The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a January 2005 report that the war in Iraq had become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists; David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." The Council's Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, "At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity."[275] And the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, which outlined the considered judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, held that "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."[276]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Mike
Blank
250084_tn?1303311035
.......but I get to take that thing out in the middle...that brownish-grey textured thing in the middle of the bun....

Ditto ! Ewww!

Amazed on the post count here! This may be turned into a book??

Blank
Avatar_n_tn
mike-thanks for the analysis...commonsense has become an apparently endangered species round washington..we have performed so incredibly bad on foreign policy fronts and at such incredible cost...ciu bono-who benefits from this calamity? dare i suggest a glance at naomi kleins latest  book on the CHAOS ?
lady laura.....thats meat in the middle-isn't it?how's about some froglegs?.......a book with 15 title pages justa cite authors...how ya doing ??
Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
"  The author above in the piece on poverty left out some very obvious facts. When this happens credibility for that person is diminished in my mind and I find it harder to believe anything else they have to say."

Yes indeed. It is hard to trust people who leave out pertinent information. The reason why I don't beleive ANYTHING said by the Bush administration.

Blank
144210_tn?1273092382
Economics 101 and well said. I have convinced the old timers I work with that a JFK democrat is fairly equivalant to a common day republican. That is not why they changed there vote though, they claim they can not support socialism, which is what the democratic party has become.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4c, i lived in california in the 70's/80's and yes I remember well when the "loons" hit the street.  but, if that is the worst you can come up with about Reagan.....  One of most disturbing things to me is liberal judges who let pedophiles out on the street. And the ACLU that defends these scum free of charge.  Why does the left villify O'Rielly? Because he exposes these judges and goes after them.
Blank
Avatar_f_tn
People, people, people,,,,,geesh.....    I went away for a few days and came back and signed on here and there was over 300+ messages on this thread.  I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  

Susan
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Yes, great analysis.  Goes to the point that if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place those jihadists wouldn't have gone there.  Yes, there is are lots of resentment for US involvement in Iraq. If we had just stayed in Afghanistan and gone after the Taliban and al queda we wouldn't have this problem we have now. We had world support whether open or implicit support going into Afghanistan.  Even Iran was providing information for us on Al Queda.  Why we went into Iraq is beyond me!  

OH; yep,  good post,  I agree.  

LL;  Yep,  except that brown stuff in the middle will leave that juice on the bun! Don't think you would like that!  

Beam;  Gonna check out the book and that ice cream. Who can leave out ice cream on tx?  Now I have higher cholesterol!  
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I wondered what you would think! lol  Hey, we're just having fun, at least some of the time.  lol
Blank
179856_tn?1333550962
..... I could hardly believe it!  What in the world have I started here?  I've created a monster.  I never intended for WWIII to begin.  
---------------------------------------------------

and I'm purposefully not even piping up (as hard as that is for me!!!!!!!)    ;)
Blank
250084_tn?1303311035
  LOL! Don't do frog legs! Would consider ONCE tho :}

Doing very good compare to many, pretty bad compare to some :} Not too bad, thank you. I've just given in to tx! I've found it hurt's me more emotionally to fight it, feel inadequate, feel like a wimp, can't get things done, etc. than to just give in to it!! (just learning this 16 weeks in, LOL!)

Your right....too many pages for the credits on a book!

And that is NOT 'meat'....put that thing in the back of a car and it'll take a year to mold! If at all!  And I haven't even seen the movie 'sicko' yet! Rarely eat meat...if so it's 'organic':}...not a strict veggie person but that ain't meat! :}

BTW..... I am learning a LOT in these threads, so even the hostile debates can be .....ok ??
Hope your doing good :}                                           LL
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I know what you mean about it being too much, but for me liking politics and discussions (not f'ing contests) it at least makes my brain think about things other than my illnesses.  It is good for the brain to think about things and weigh in on different subjects. God knows we have gone through the gamet here.  I think it is healthy, as long as we don't take things too personally about the politics.

Back to the orginal question;  Who do you think is the best candidate to help our cause."  At this point I really don't know. did anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  So does Obama and Edwards speeches about healhcare.  There are so many obstacles in the way of providing good healthcare for all ie; the Iraq war, the economy, the earmarks, the deficits....how do we get back to a place where we can even think about healthcare?  At this point, I don't think we can....Perhaps in the election and a candidate that is smart enough to deal with all the problems facing us, especially the war the the deficit we will do it.  Who Is that person?????
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
In New Hamshire;  Hillary and McCain won the primaries.  Given the issues that americans are closest to...Which candidate do you thiink will get us out of this war and bring diplomacy?  Which candidate will help our economy and why?
Blank
148987_tn?1287809526
I have reported this thread as spam....LOL !!!
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Ya mean the kind in the can?  Do you think Forsee or LL would eat that stuff?  lol
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
Opinion based----

When I'm hunting I can't think of a better scenario than my prey coming to my blind and congregating right where I am. Sure makes hunting easier. And as the next class in the madras (egg hatches) and finally graduates send them on over, too.

To think we are creating terrorists I believe is a naive view.  The Islamic extremists in the middle east were born, not created in a training camp somewhere. Their children from a very young age are taught that Israel does not have a right to the land, and are zionists that must be wiped off of the earth. The US is the Great Satan, a Collaborator with the Zionists, the root of all evil in the western world with a decadent society,and bent on destroying all Muslims.
If anything goes wrong in any mid-east country who is not an ally  for any reason at all,  the CIA will always be behind it. This is the way the children are brought up. Even their cartoons talk about jihad and America. The only reason we see more in concentrated numbers is twofold. Access from surrounding Muslim countries apparently is fairly easy, and for most going to America as a terrorist may or may not happen some day. besides, Why wait when they can fight personally against the Great Satan, just by hopping on a camel. How could an Islamo-fascist pass this opportunity by ? Secondly, there is strength in numbers.

All terrorists have a hatred in them for infidels. This hatred was planted long before we got there. And it will continue if we leave. I cannot imagine surrendering to a group of murderous thugs with no respect for life and cruel beyond measure, living just a couple of generations more advanced than stone agers. Can you imagine the boost in recruiting they will get when they show the rest of the Muslim world that it IS possible to kick the Great Satan's ***. It will boost their members worldwide, and greatly embolden them. Yes, I think Bush is right. They will follow us back home. I still can't get over the thought of losing and surrendering. Victory is the best option at this point.

The idea that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone so far has not worked out in our favor. Think WTC '94 and WTC 9-11, which happened before we occupied Arab land. They have a goal, and it matters not when it is completed. They have all the time in the world to fight this fight to wipe out all infidels, and install a theocratic regime globally. They will never leave us alone until their back has been broken permanently worldwide.

If the economy is only headed for a slowdown or a brief recession, a terrorist attack most certainly would turn it in a deep recession. Remember how long it was before people flew after 9-11 ? A dirty bomb could turn the world's biggest economy on its ear. It would have a very substantial global impact on the world's economic markets and the rersult could be worldwide recession.

I really believe it is better taking the fight to them there rather than fighting them over here. All the sob had to do was produce documents detaling the verifiable destruction of known ,tagged WMD.
I have a difficult time accepting the premise suggested by a couple of pundits that Saddam didn't think we would really do it. After '91 and '98 he HAD to know we would follow through on our word. besides there was no political risk, and only gain from the lightening of sanctions if he produced documents. It was a win-win for Saddam and he passed on it. This further suggested that he still had some.

There is alot at stake here---how this turns out will dictate how our kids and grandkids will live their lives. In constant fear of those who want us dead? Or a safer feeling that comes from security ?  Our economy, core beliefs and American values, all hang in the balance against the threat of global extremist jihadists. And they have all the time in the world. They are not going away on their own.

Blank
Avatar_m_tn
If we are really worried about Islamist terrorists coming here, wouldn't securing our borders and ports be of paramount importance? The fact that this administration hasn't done that makes me wonder how concerned they really are. Or, are they just that stupid? I am not impressed with the democrats on that issue either, by the way. None of the democratic candidates even mentions border security.
We just see it differently. I think that a common enemy unites disparate groups and galvanizes them and we are the perfect common enemy. And the enormous capital we're expending could be much better spent in so many other areas such as rebuilding this country's decrepit infrastructure, as one obvious example. I could go on but we both have heard it many times. We just disagree and that's okay with me - as long as you don't become the commander in chief.
Be well, Mike

Blank
179856_tn?1333550962
id anyone see Hillary emotionally say that she is for this country. That got to me.  
-----------------------

I was very surprised at how impressive she really was. Obama talks a lot of talk of nice words but I don't see him being able to change anything. Hillary's demeanor and speech gave me hope...but then again I am and always have been a supporter of the Clinton's (except they live in just about my hometown backyard and when they go on the highway they screw up the commute big time because you know they close the road exit to exit as they pass by).  ;)
Blank
Avatar_f_tn
Mike,

Very well said!
I have relatives in Eastern Europe --- they woke up one morning only to find 9 (nine!) policemen heads hanging on the trees in the center of the city (population of ~0.5 mil.)!!  I didn't see this news on the US news broadcast!!

The US Army should be increased at least to the size of the prior Clinton's reduction.  I don't want to have human heads hanging in any American city!!

I tried not to get involved in this subject.

But it occurred to me the most of American public is too nice and too naive even to comprehend the danger is out there!!

I didn't vote for Bush, but I think we should give him credit for keeping away further attacks on the US.  All politicians criticizing the US Army (like torture, etc.) doing disservice to the US and all peaceful nations.

Cheers!
Blank
Avatar_f_tn
BTW, prior to the US "invasion" of Iraq, when the US newspapers were covering news about "poor" Chechen population completely mistreated by Russians.  During this time one English and French reporters were be-headed by Chechens -- even though these reporters were there with the exceptional intend to help Chechen population.  I didn't see this news in the US newspapers either -- but I have a copy in German.
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
Mike, I agree with you about borders. If there is such a threat what are we doing to control the borders?  I still agree with you about the insurgents coming into Iraq, where they hadn't been before. We know there are training camps on the Afgan and Pakistan border. Still don't get why we are not there in the numbers necessary to get them.  

Mr. Liver;  Wow,  Your tone is so much more tame.  It is easy to read your POV's and actually I could understand what you mean on some things.  I do agree with Mike though,  Please don't become Commander in Cheif! LOL
Blank
233616_tn?1312790796
WWIII & 4....
and now you know why I suggested Big Bird : ))))))))))
lol
burn me once....


what I don't understand is if Regan emptied all the mental institutions why am I still here?????????                             (jk)
Blank
131817_tn?1209532911
I agree with you about the news not getting here. I lived in Europe and visit there often.  The news is so different, we dont' hear half the stuff reported by European reporters! That must have been a nightmare seeing those heads....geez. And of course we didn't see it. The news is owned by a few people who control what we see.  

NY;  I love Clinton and would like Hillary to win. Not sure who I am for at this point. Did you watch the speeches yesterday at NH.  Hers was read off of notes, really cold. Obama's speech was electric and reminds me of the magic of when JFK spoke and campaigned. Actually if any of the three won, I would be happy!
Blank
148987_tn?1287809526
without any discussion of, or mention of......poop.

Well how is poop political, you may ask ? Well if you need to ask that, then you really don't know poop then do you ? Politics is a poopy business.It is filled with poopy people with poopy ideas who don't know poop about poop. But one thing is for sure. They all poop. Some of them have their poop together better than others. I imagine some have really runny lose poop, others poop diamonds or titanium.

Some think their poop doesn't stink but others disagree. No one really smells their own poop...wait...that's breath. No one ever smells their own breath but some peoples breath does smell like poop but they'd never know it which is kind of strange since their nose is right above their mouth.  

I think politicians should be required to talk about their poop. It shows that they are people just like us. Maybe Wolf Blitzer, when he takes a break from his sichyayshun room thing, could just blurt out in one of them debates, 'When was the last time you pooped, sir ?' Who knows, one of 'em might say, 'I need to poop right now...' I'd bet Dennis Kucinich has never pooped in his life. I don't think aliens poop. Or maybe he could ask one of them if they've ever had the poop scared out of them of if they have ever pooped their pants or how often they change their underwear or, like the Donald, they wear new underwear every day, which to me, is the surest sign of success but it's a little highbrow for me. I think if I were rich, I'd probably wear a pair of underwear twice, maybe even three times, before I gave them to good will.

I don't know, maybe I'm alone in pondering these things...I've just always wondered why poop was never on the table or up for discussion among the candidates since it's the only thing we really share in common. I wouldn't mind seeing an interview or two from their bathrooms, maybe while they are in the act of pooping, just to see how they handle stress 'n stuff. You know, see how tidy they are. I just can't see myself voting for someone who doesn't properly clean or is constipated. For example, ask them; do you use a bidet, strictly paper and if so, what kind, or perhaps moist towelettes. Hell for all we know one of 'em keeps a poop rag in the sink, like myself.  That guy would get my vote. I think good poop etiquette would go hand in hand, so to speak, with a good foreign policy.Think of the cultural differences. In the ME, they just squat over a hole, which I find barbaric and completely unacceptable. Which reminds me...my peace plan for the ME involves sit down toilets and more air conditioning. I think that would go far to change the mood over there. I know if I was all hot and sweaty and had to squat over a hole to poop I'd want to blow up something myself. Maybe even cut a few heads off.  I could run on the cool poop platform. Form a party. Give it a cool name like the pooper party and anyone who didn't join would be...yeah that's right.... a party pooper.

I dunno..these are just things I ponder late at night and early in the morning. Call me crazy.

Blank
163305_tn?1333672171
LOL,yes you are right. Everyone thinks someone else stinks.

But, I disagree with you about squat pooping or pooping over a hole. Its more natural, cleaner and helps if you are in some little place in Asia wondering why the toilet is just some porcelain oval  on the floor.

One more thing, tx left me pooped out.
Blank
Avatar_m_tn
01/10/08 Blood transfusion risk
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has identified that blood obtained from emergency donors in US military facilities (and potentially other coalition facilities) in Iraq and Afghanistan may not have been properly screened.

This means it is possible that some personnel who had a blood transfusion involving non-UK emergency donor panels may have been put at risk of some types of infection.

A special telephone service is available if you would like to speak to someone or get more information. The number is 0845 850 9850*. The service is available every day including weekends from 9am to 6pm.

Blank
Avatar_n_tn
crazy!
Blank
Viewing 201-341 comments:
Post a Comment
To
Blank
Weight Tracker
Weight Tracker
Start Tracking Now
Hepatitis Social Community Resources
RSS Expert Activity
242532_tn?1269553979
Blank
How to Silence Your Inner Critic an...
Apr 16 by Roger Gould, M.D.Blank
242532_tn?1269553979
Blank
Emotional Eaters: How to Silence Yo...
Mar 26 by Roger Gould, M.D.Blank
1344197_tn?1392822771
Blank
Vaginal vs. Laparoscopic Hysterecto...
Feb 19 by J. Kyle Mathews, MD, DVMBlank
Top Hepatitis Answerers
1747881_tn?1358189534
Blank
hrsepwrguy
Greeley, CO
317787_tn?1373214989
Blank
Dee1956
DC
96938_tn?1189803458
Blank
FlGuy
South, FL
Avatar_m_tn
Blank
willbb
446474_tn?1385271190
Blank
HectorSF
CA
Avatar_m_tn
Blank
can-do-man
IN