Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

by **Ivan** on Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:57 pm

Here is a list of 100 things you can say to irritate a Republican:-

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/08/13/100-things-you-can-say-to-irritate-a-republican/

by astra on Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:19 am

Bottom line? If you want to anger a conservative, tell them the truth.

Heee Heee Heee

G'night all!!

by oftenwrong on Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:45 am

The Republican Party has been immobilised by its disbelief that Obama was ever elected President. Their only policy has been to erase his proposed changes.

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed.

by Stox 16 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:39 am

oftenwrong wrote:The Republican Party has been immobilised by its disbelief that Obama was ever elected President. Their only policy has been to erase his proposed changes.

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed.

The more I see and Read about the Republican party them more amazed I am that anyone who is not ill in the head could ever vote for them. by the time they get too Obama they will of cut each other to bits. to me the Repubican's sound like drunks fighting over a bed in the flophouse

by blueturando on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed

.

I think we are seeing the same here in the UK. In reality the Coalition should be miles behind in the polls, but they're not and I believe this has a lot to do with opposing for opposing sake....the people don't buy it!

by **Phil Hornby** on Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:13 pm

Purely opportunistic opposition is almost always a mistake. But there was nobody more guilty of that very strategy as Cameron and his fellow vermin up to May 2010. Adding hypocrisy to it now simply makes them what they are : a poisonous and corrupt bunch who should be kept as far from power as a naked flame from petrol...

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:34 pm

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for 'em.
Who let them in again, I thought we'd settled their hash in 1997.

by **Phil Hornby** on Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:08 pm

Yeah, so you say.

I bet you snuck into that Polling Booth back in May 2010 and supported the blue-rosetted one , then set off home, pausing only to salve your conscience by buying a Daily Mirror and whistling the Red Flag ( out of tune)...

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:06 pm

But the TORIES SENT A CAR for me.

by Mkitty on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:28 pm

*** we interrupt this thread with a Republican candidate saying the truth Shocked

***

"Oops, Mitt Romney Slips & Tells The Truth That Spending Cuts Hurt Economic Growth"
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/02/21/oops-mitt-romney-slips-tells-the-truth-that-spending-cuts-hurt-economic-growth/

Every so often, Romney, in his carefully propogandized messages, reveals the truth. He really isn't concerned about poor people. unless you consider his plans for the poor to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthy "concern." Of course now that's out, Republicans of the "cut and grow" philosophy are on damage control duty, mostly with their version of "nuh-uh." They can't counter that claim with facts, because they're basically espousing a "up is down" sort of philosophy and facts, explanations, or even simple logic make Conservatives' heads hurty! Me want easy to swallow catch phrase now!

Anyways, I imagine Romney will soon tell everyone he misspoke, Gingrich caved in when he told the truth about the Ryan plan. In fact, "Newt Gingrich: 'Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood'" http://www.polderdash.com/2011/05/gingrich-quoting-me-is-lying-about-me/

But basically it's political suicide for the party when someone in it is chastised by them for telling the truth.

by **Shirina** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:37 am

The only problem with Romney making blunders like that is it's giving more steam to Santorum - and Santorum is the most extreme candidate in the bin right now. More to the point, he's a "social issues" candidate, and his social issues are not pleasant. They are ultra-conservative and ultra-Old Testament. Of course there is that ridiculous speech he made about how "Satan is assaulting America's institutions." What I find interesting is how, according to him, Satan has already seized control of institutions regarded as traditionally liberal such as academia and the entertainment industry. Go figure.

What worries me more than an idiot who is using an assault by a supernatural demon-lord as part of his platform is that he is using "Satan" in place of "liberal."

by **RockOnBrother** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:59 am

Look at Brother Mitt a little more closely. Santorum isn't owned.

by Stox 16 on Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:44 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Look at Brother Mitt a little more closely. Santorum isn't owned.

Rock
what I cannot quite get my head around. is the fact that both my go down well within the Rep. but will get know where with most US people...its all just a waste of time if they can only win the Rep race... mind you I am dead pleased they cannot myself..

by **RockOnBrother** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:21 am

Stox,

True. The big difference to me is that I trust Santorum to tell me exactly where he stands, but I don't feel that I can trust Romney on any level.

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me. I've thought about it, and the Republican that might have gotten my vote has never been a candidate.

by **Shirina** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:48 am

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.

Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

by oftenwrong on Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Four years ago, who could have predicted that the Republican Party would have shifted so far to the right by now?

by **RockOnBrother** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:23 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.

Shirina wrote:
Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

The analogy breaks down with these two assumptions: (1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door; (2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Two truths: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and money doesn’t fall out of the sky. Everything that we don’t have costs money, and thus provisions to provide what we don’t have involve figuring out how to pay for those things.

My mouthy health insurance hit is six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month, seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) per year, with significant co-pays at both medical facilities (clinics, etc.) and pharmacies. If I had no out-of-pocket costs, that’s a whole slew of money I could have invested elsewhere.

Slightly left field, you’ve not seen me complain about the health care itself because that part is just fine. I’ve no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care I receive.

NHS, according to those who’ve responded to my requests for information thereof, cost Brits nothing out of pocket, but they pay at the “FICA” line, similar to how we pay for social security, so NHS is not free. Canadian universal heath care, according to a patient lady at the Ontario tax agency with whom I spoke a few weeks ago, cost at the “FICA” line and “at the pump” via the “Harmonized Tax”, similar to our sales tax, of thirteen percent (13%), a significant portion of which goes to fund universal health care. By comparison, people in Virginia Beach complain about paying ten percent (10%) at the pump, so they routinely bebop across Va. Beach city limit lines and shop in Norfolk, where the sales tax is maybe two percent lower. Once again, Canadian universal health care isn’t free.

Another thing the Ontario tax lady told me is that Ontarians have no choice in the “FINA” line; the money comes out before the remainder gets into their hands. There is no choice.

Rick Santorum addresses these issues straight out. He’s hiding nothing behind any doors. I know that you disagree with him, but it’s not over horse manure, it’s over funding universal health care. I hear the protests before I send this and you read this, because you don’t mention the money issue, but the money issue is there the moment you mention universal health care, because it’s not free in the UK, it’s not free in Canada, and it would not be free in the US.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How much am I willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How willing are some Americans to have no choice, as Ontarians have no choice, in the “FICA” line? These are money issues, and Santorum doesn’t duck them.

Romney, on the other hand, ducks all of them. He criticizes Obama but does not state where he stands. That’s all I need to know about Romney, as it was all I needed to know about Bachmann, a lady whose expertise in one area I respect but who negates this respect by having only one response to all questions: “Obama.”

I can and do respect people with whom I vehemently disagree as long as they are straight up about what they believe and why the believe. I find Santorum to be in this category.

I would like the honor of voting against Rick Santorum in November. It would be an honor because I would know where he stands, where I agree with him, and where I disagree with him. I would have a choice, and given current circumstances, I would not choose him while respecting the man I did not choose.

In stark contrast, given Romney’s duplicitous non-answers to straight out questions, I doubt that my current deep disrespect for Romney will change anytime soon. That disrespect started for me with his non-answer to a direct question I first saw on YouTube in 2007, when he tap-danced around a question regarding his religion’s historic stance on Black Folks. I’ve posted the YouTube video on this forum before.

by Mkitty on Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:28 pm

What I find interesting is how, according to him, Satan has already seized control of institutions regarded as traditionally liberal such as academia and the entertainment industry.

I also find it interesting how in these "Satan is taking over" talks, they never mention Wall Street or corporations or even banks-- you remember how Jesus only got really mad once, and that was with the money lenders, don't you? But we all know the Republican Bible would only be a page at the most, and it would contain:

The Ten Commandments: not to be followed, but the sole purpose of them is to be put on stone tablets and placed in every court house.

Those anti-gay verses in the Old Testament. Note how the other commandments like not wearing mixed fibers or making sure women will be silent in church aren't followed

Enough of the Adam and Eve story to disprove evolution

Matthew 24:31

"And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other."
"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood"

Those verses were used to disprove global warming.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/john-shimkus-climate-change_n_782664.html

by Stox 16 on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:28 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

True. The big difference to me is that I trust Santorum to tell me exactly where he stands, but I don't feel that I can trust Romney on any level.

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me. I've thought about it, and the Republican that might have gotten my vote has never been a candidate.

Rock
there is little wrong in disagreeing at all...I am just so pleased I do not have to see the Rep on TV Rock..just not a fan of the Right at all

by Stox 16 on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:34 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.

Shirina wrote:
Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

The analogy breaks down with these two assumptions: (1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door; (2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Two truths: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and money doesn’t fall out of the sky. Everything that we don’t have costs money, and thus provisions to provide what we don’t have involve figuring out how to pay for those things.

My mouthy health insurance hit is six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month, seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) per year, with significant co-pays at both medical facilities (clinics, etc.) and pharmacies. If I had no out-of-pocket costs, that’s a whole slew of money I could have invested elsewhere.

Slightly left field, you’ve not seen me complain about the health care itself because that part is just fine. I’ve no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care I receive.

NHS, according to those who’ve responded to my requests for information thereof, cost Brits nothing out of pocket, but they pay at the “FICA” line, similar to how we pay for social security, so NHS is not free. Canadian universal heath care, according to a patient lady at the Ontario tax agency with whom I spoke a few weeks ago, cost at the “FICA” line and “at the pump” via the “Harmonized Tax”, similar to our sales tax, of thirteen percent (13%), a significant portion of which goes to fund universal health care. By comparison, people in Virginia Beach complain about paying ten percent (10%) at the pump, so they routinely bebop across Va. Beach city limit lines and shop in Norfolk, where the sales tax is maybe two percent lower. Once again, Canadian universal health care isn’t free.

Another thing the Ontario tax lady told me is that Ontarians have no choice in the “FINA” line; the money comes out before the remainder gets into their hands. There is no choice.

Rick Santorum addresses these issues straight out. He’s hiding nothing behind any doors. I know that you disagree with him, but it’s not over horse manure, it’s over funding universal health care. I hear the protests before I send this and you read this, because you don’t mention the money issue, but the money issue is there the moment you mention universal health care, because it’s not free in the UK, it’s not free in Canada, and it would not be free in the US.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How much am I willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How willing are some Americans to have no choice, as Ontarians have no choice, in the “FICA” line? These are money issues, and Santorum doesn’t duck them.

Romney, on the other hand, ducks all of them. He criticizes Obama but does not state where he stands. That’s all I need to know about Romney, as it was all I needed to know about Bachmann, a lady whose expertise in one area I respect but who negates this respect by having only one response to all questions: “Obama.”

I can and do respect people with whom I vehemently disagree as long as they are straight up about what they believe and why the believe. I find Santorum to be in this category.

I would like the honor of voting against Rick Santorum in November. It would be an honor because I would know where he stands, where I agree with him, and where I disagree with him. I would have a choice, and given current circumstances, I would not choose him while respecting the man I did not choose.

In stark contrast, given Romney’s duplicitous non-answers to straight out questions, I doubt that my current deep disrespect for Romney will change anytime soon. That disrespect started for me with his non-answer to a direct question I first saw on YouTube in 2007, when he tap-danced around a question regarding his religion’s historic stance on Black Folks. I’ve posted the YouTube video on this forum before.

Rock here is the UK Spending on the NHS

HISTORY OF NHS SPENDING

At the beginning of the 20th century, government spent about 0.5 percent of GDP on health. But spending began to increase in 1909 after passage of the National Insurance Act, reaching 1.14 percent of GDP in 1921.
Health spending increased steadily in the 1920s and 1930s reaching 1.91 percent of GDP at the start of World War II. Spending kept steady during the war and then increased briskly after the war, reaching 3.07 percent just before the National Health Service was set up in 1948.
Costs rose sharply in the early years of the NHS, reaching 3.6 percent of GDP by 1950 and then dropping to 3.0 percent of GDP by 1955. Spending increased steadily after the mid 1950s, running at about 3.5 percent of GDP in the early 1960s and increasing to 4.0 percent of GDP by 1970 and peaking at 4.98 percent of GDP in 1975.
Health spending declined in the late 1970s, down to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1979 and increased thereafter, reaching 5.64 percent of GDP in 1983 before beginning a decline to 5.16 percent in 1988. Then spending jolted upwards, reaching 6.31 percent of GDP by 1993 before a steep decline to 4.91 percent of GDP in 1998.

Spending began increasing sharply after 1999, and is expected to reach a planned expenditures of 8.43 percent of GDP in 2010.
HM Treasury 2012

Its the best thing we ever did..when we set up the NHS..its a free service for all...its also great value for money...

The National Health Service or NHS is the publicly funded healthcare system in England. It is both the largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It is able to function in the way that it does because it is primarily funded through the general taxation system, in a similar fashion to the funding model for fire departments, police departments, and primary schools. The system provides healthcare to anyone normally legally resident in England, and also any other part of the United Kingdom (should a person from another UK area be travelling in England, for example), with almost all services free at the point of use for all such people.

The idea of the NHS being free at the point of use is contained in its core principles from the original NHS set-up, which are non-negotiable at their root but have variously been open to some interpretation over the years. In practice, "free at the point of use" normally means that anyone legitimately fully registered with the system (i.e. in possession of an NHS number), including UK citizens and legal immigrants, can access the full breadth of critical and non-critical medical care without any out-of-pocket payment of any kind. Some specific NHS services are fee-for-service: since 1948, patients have been charged for services associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and aspects of long-term care. However, these charges are often lower than equivalent services provided by a private health care provider.

In addition to the range of medical services available to legal residents and citizens of the UK, the NHS also provides free emergency care to those within UK borders, regardless of their legal status or national origin. People of questionable legal status or a different national origin who do not have the legal right to be in the UK long-term — including legitimate travellers and tourists from abroad — are not entitled to the full NHS, but are entitled to emergency care in an accident and emergency department without having to pay.

The NHS has further agreed a formal constitution which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the NHS, its staff, and users of the service and makes additional non-binding pledges regarding many key aspects of its operations

The English NHS is controlled by the UK government through the Department of Health (DH), which takes political responsibility for the service. Parliament has devolved management locally to ten Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs), which oversee all NHS operations, particularly the Primary Care Trusts, in their areas. These are coterminous with the nine Government Office Regions for the most part, with the South East region split into South East Coast and South Central SHAs.
There are a number of types of regional NHS trust:
NHS primary care trusts (PCTs), administer primary care and public health. On 1 October 2006 the number of PCTs was reduced from 303 to 152 in an attempt to bring services closer together and cut costs. PCTs oversee 29,000 GPs and 18,000 NHS dentists. In addition, they commission services from other NHS Trusts and from the private and voluntary sectors, provide primary care in their locations, and oversee such matters as primary and secondary prevention, vaccination administration and control of epidemics. PCTs control 80 per cent of the total NHS budget
NHS hospital trusts and NHS foundation trusts administer hospitals, treatment centres and specialist care in around 1,600 NHS hospitals (some trusts run between 2 and 8 different hospital sites)

NHS ambulance services trusts
NHS care trusts, providing both health and social care services
NHS mental health services trusts, specialising in managing and treating mental illness, including by the use of involuntary commitment powers
Some services are provided at a national level:
www.nhs.uk is the primary public-facing NHS website, providing comprehensive official information on services, treatments, conditions, healthy living and current health topics
NHS Direct provides telephone and email support services
NHS special health authorities provide various types of services

by **RockOnBrother** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:34 am

Stox 16 wrote:
Spending… is expected to reach a planned expenditures of 8.43 percent of GDP in 2010.

That’s a significant investment, particularly as GDP is a far greater number than total tax revenue. I suspect the percentage of tax revenue spent on NHS is significantly higher than 8.43 percent.

Stox 16 wrote:
It is both the largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It is able to function in the way that it does because it is primarily funded through the general taxation system, in a similar fashion to the funding model for fire departments, police departments, and primary schools.

… its a free service for all..

… with almost all services free at the point of use for all [users]…

… its also great value for money…

It’s not a free service for all. As your documentation shows, legal residents and citizens of the UK, most of whom I suspect pay some sort of income tax, pay for this service.

Free at the point of origin is more accurate. I’ve experienced that on but one extended occasion, when the comprehensive health care service chosen by my employer, under some circumstances provided free-at-the-point-of-origin comprehensive services to those who, like me, were within the parameters of those circumstances,

Value, or bang-for-buck, is both objective and, in a republic co-owned by We the People thereof, subjective.

Left field for a moment, a republic is any country in which (10 ownership and power belong ultimately to the people, (2) exercise of that power is via a democracy, and (3) the democracy is a representative democracy. Thus, the United Kingdom, defined as a constitutional monarchy, is in fact (de facto) a republic, regardless of its title (“Kingdom) and its definition, while the People’s Republic of China is not a republic, regardless of its title.

Since the UK is a de facto republic, its citizens have an inherent right to weigh in on the value received from, or bang-for-buck of, the NHS. Since you weigh in by who you vote for, and who you vote for comprises the House of Commons, which is the seat of power in the UK, I assume that, since Commons has never acted to dismantle NHS, most UK citizens feel that the NHS is a great value.

Transfer all of that to the US, which does not have an NHS, and you can se where an Obama-Santorum debate could center upon a substantive issue, whether a US version of NHS would be of sufficient value to invest eight plus percent of US GDP therein. Then it would be up to We the People of the US to weigh in on this issue via our votes in November.

That’s a far better scenario than an Obama-Romney debate, wherein I believe Romney’s inherent dishonesty (my opinion) would prelude a debate on substantive topics.

By the way, my minimum yearly health care expenditure is in double figures, the core of which is the $7,200.00 yearly hit from health care insurance, so I could easily support eight plus percent of US GDP going to a US version of NHS>

Stox 16 wrote:
The idea of the NHS being free at the point of use is contained in its core principles from the original NHS set-up, which are non-negotiable at their root…

I like that.

Stox 16 wrote:
In practice, "free at the point of use" normally means that anyone legitimately fully registered with the system (i.e. in possession of an NHS number), including UK citizens and legal immigrants, can access the full breadth of critical and non-critical medical care without any out-of-pocket payment of any kind.

I like that also. I’ve been a tax-paying citizen for quite awhile, so I would be included.

Stox 16 wrote:
… the NHS also provides free emergency care to those within UK borders, regardless of their legal status or national origin. People of questionable legal status or a different national origin who do not have the legal right to be in the UK long-term — including legitimate travellers and tourists from abroad — are not entitled to the full NHS, but are entitled to emergency care in an accident and emergency department without having to pay.

I’m going to try and arrange it so that all of my future emergencies occur within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!

by **Shirina** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 pm

(1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door

You're taking my analogy too literally here.

(2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

I don't think it's much of an assumption.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump?

I don't think anyone above the age of 12 actually thinks NHS is literally free. Of course we pay in one way or the other. Regardless, NHS is still far and away the better system, which is why every other 1st, 2nd, and even some 3rd world nations use it. Our system is barbaric.

With NHS, your financial situation does not determine whether you receive health care. Rich or poor, employed or unemployed, you receive health care. End of story. You don't have to quake in your boots wondering how your diabetic child is going to receive care if you lose your job; you don't have to worry about whether your insurance covers a kidney transplant, you don't have to worry about NHS cancelling you just because you're costing more money than you're worth. When you go to the doctor's office, you don't see signs on the counter reading, "We require payment in full before services are rendered." If you're disabled, you don't have to hire a LAWYER and fight a costly legal battle to get benefits, and then lose half those benefits as part of the lawyer's commission!

And, the rising cost of health insurance is far outstripping the rising cost of NHS taxes in Europe. How many Brits here ever saw their NHS tax shoot up 40% in one singular increase?

If that weren't enough, how much you pay into NHS depends on your ability to pay. It's not a set amount like it is here, an amount so high that it is literally stifling the economy and bankrupting private citizens. Even businesses are beginning to find themselves unable to offer employees reasonable health care plans. The bottom line is that our system is keeping Americans poor, and its keeping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general economy - every month!

Our system is all about greed, not health care. What's worse, NOT having NHS has created a sort of "moral imperative" fostered by the right-wing elitists and their deluded followers: If you don't have the $15,000 per year it costs the average family to maintain health insurance, then you don't deserve to live."

But that's not even my major gripe with Santorum. I don't expect ANY Republican to really endorse NHS (one reason why I won't vote for them). What I cannot stand about Santorum is his primitive, superstitious, Bronze Age mentality. We may as well elect an African witch-doctor to the presidency. I'm sick of America being an embarrassment with our candidates talking stupidity about how the cause of our problems stem from supernatural forces such as the rampaging antics of a demon-lord. How does one stop a rampaging demon-lord, I wonder? What measures can the government take to combat Satan? Is Santorum going to sign an executive order that reads, "Cease now, demon, and return to the abyss from whence you came! The power of Christ compels you!"? At what point do we start shaking rattles or consult chicken entrails to decide what direction to take America?

And if that were not enough - and believe me it IS enough - Santorum is being stupid about his views on contraception and prenatal testing. The political analysts are already stating that the GOP is going to lose the female vote - and women actually vote in larger numbers then men. I mean, we all get that conservatives are against abortion, but Santorum wants to ban any medical practice that MIGHT lead to an abortion such as prenatal testing. Thousands of babies used to die every year when the mother's immune system perceived the baby as a parasite; with prenatal testing and a bit of medication, that can now be prevented. But oh no, idiot Santorum doesn't like prenatal testing because it might lead to women getting abortions! So does Santorum actually think he's doing unborn children a favor by saving some of them from abortion while dooming others to being killed by their mothers' own immune systems? This guy is so focused on preventing abortion that he's literally killing babies to do so! Now how much sense does THAT make?

The assumption of horse manure is a pretty obvious - and extremely safe - assumption.

by astra on Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:06 pm

Thousands of babies used to die every year when the mother's immune system perceived the baby as a parasite; with prenatal testing and a bit of medication, that can now be prevented.

Shirina

I first heard that expression on an episode of House - you know, the medical prog with Hugh Lawrie. My impression was "what a thing to say" I did not have to look far to find out how true this statement was!

by **Shirina** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:10 pm

Hey astra,

Yeah, I used to watch "House" too ... but the show became too frightening for me. Since my health is not the greatest at the moment, every time House started making diagnoses, I was absolutely *convinced* that I had the same horrible nasty disease, then I would lay awake that night fretting over all the "what ifs." So I had to stop watching it. LOL! How pathetic, right?

by astra on Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:29 pm

How pathetic, right?

Not at all dear heart!

I think the term is "Subliminal indoctrination" is very real and recognised in some unethical regimes as a method of public, population, crowd control.

Apparently not everyone is suseptible to this, and it is best to stay away from books, subjects and programmes that make you uncomfortable.

I (in a class room) was told by a consultant psychiatrist that the human body will not hurt itself, and you are probably following that ethic, albeit unconsciously.

by **RockOnBrother** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:57 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
(2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Shirina wrote:
I don't think it's much of an assumption.

I do.

RockOnBrother wrote:
How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump?

Shirina wrote:
I don't think anyone above the age of 12 actually thinks NHS is literally free. Of course we pay in one way or the other. Regardless, NHS is still far and away the better system, which is why every other 1st, 2nd, and even some 3rd world nations use it. Our system is barbaric.

With NHS, your financial situation does not determine whether you receive health care. Rich or poor, employed or unemployed, you receive health care. End of story. You don't have to quake in your boots wondering how your diabetic child is going to receive care if you lose your job; you don't have to worry about whether your insurance covers a kidney transplant, you don't have to worry about NHS cancelling you just because you're costing more money than you're worth. When you go to the doctor's office, you don't see signs on the counter reading, "We require payment in full before services are rendered." If you're disabled, you don't have to hire a LAWYER and fight a costly legal battle to get benefits, and then lose half those benefits as part of the lawyer's commission!

And, the rising cost of health insurance is far outstripping the rising cost of NHS taxes in Europe. How many Brits here ever saw their NHS tax shoot up 40% in one singular increase?

If that weren't enough, how much you pay into NHS depends on your ability to pay. It's not a set amount like it is here, an amount so high that it is literally stifling the economy and bankrupting private citizens. Even businesses are beginning to find themselves unable to offer employees reasonable health care plans. The bottom line is that our system is keeping Americans poor, and its keeping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general economy - every month!

I agree. I told the Ontarian tax agency lady that I would gladly trade her thirteen percent (which would jack the price of my Super Big Gulp Diet Dew refill up from $0.96 to $1.01) for my ten thousand plus dollar per year hit. I mean, a buck oh one every now and then versus five figures?

by **RockOnBrother** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:58 pm

I don’t watch House, and I don’t watch Criminal Minds. I don’t like nightmares.

by Mkitty on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:10 pm

"2012 or Never" (GOPocalypse)

Republicans are worried this election could be their last chance to stop history. This is fear talking. But not paranoia.

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/

"Of the various expressions of right-wing hysteria that have flowered over the past three years—goldbuggery, birtherism, death panels at home and imaginary apology tours by President Obama abroad—perhaps the strain that has taken deepest root within mainstream Republican circles is the terror that the achievements of the Obama administration may be irreversible, and that the time remaining to stop permanent nightfall is dwindling away. "

Shows how the Republican Party may disappear due to demographics.

by **Shirina** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:08 am

Santorum is being stupid again. Here's his latest quote:

This past weekend, Santorum derided the president for his college-affordability initiatives. "Obama says he wants everyone to go to college, what a snob," the Republican presidential candidate boasted.

So now going to college is equivalent to snobbery. Great. Now we have a presidential candidate who wants Americans to remain uneducated, I suppose. Never mind the job market being so tight that you need a college degree to bag groceries these days. Oh, not because these low-end jobs require one, but people are so desperate for jobs that even college grads are applying to bag groceries, deliver pizza, or work in a call center. When you have a stack of resumes with college backgrounds, those without college, well, their resume will end up in the trash. Thus the need for college.

Of course, Santorum ... I don't know. What else can I say? His words speak volumes without any commentary from me. This guy would make George W. Bush look like Abraham Lincoln if he was ever elected. I don't think I could stomach being led by this piece of gutter trash. I didn't even dislike Bush as much as I do Santorum.

Oh yeah, and here's the link.

by Scarecrow on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:44 pm

Shirina wrote:
Is there no-one prepared to take on Fox Gnus which I believe is a Murdoch tentacle.

Interestingly, Canada passed a law some time ago stating that news programs are prohibited from lying or delivering false reports. Subsequently, Fox News has been banned in Canada.

Unfortunately, America is not nearly so prudent.

Fox News is offered throughout Canada on these services: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

The law referenced only applies to Canadian broadcasters using Canadian airwaves. Basically, it was put in place to ban the CBC (government subsidized) and Canadian broadcasters (using Canadian frequencies) from political ads, infomercials, phony health shows, etc. designed to look like news but selling stuff. Talk shows and discussion groups are not considered news programs. So... this law only affects the CBC and those broadcasting over regular air waves -- it does not affect any US station (they don't broadcast over Canadian air waves), nor any satellite, cable, or internet delivery -- i.e. about 95% of broadcasting is exempt.