radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Well as an active duty member of the United States military I will happily accept the congratulations - imagine that; a Non-Commissioned Officer in the US Army that is not a right wing conservative
I truly hope the bill succeeds in improving health care for Americans who need it, and isn't perverted by politicians too much over the years to come. I already belong to the largest group health care in the US, and while not perfect my family or I have never been refused care and I have had one $100,000 operation and am about to have another, so I hope others are able to get the same level of care I do.
thank you for your prudential post!
parsec1
parsec1
Olsen, I trust you enjoyed the bottle of Scotch and many more since.
Best Regards
Peter.
Olsen
Well-known
That is a shame that has to be fixed on a later date. As Obama said: 'this bill is not perfect, but it leads us on the right track'. What would you suggest?
Olsen
Well-known
Janelovven - the Law of Jante
Janelovven - the Law of Jante
digitalintrigue,
It is interesting to read your friend from Tromsø and his thoughts on Norway and Norwegians. But many of the traits he describes are not just typical for Norwegians, but for Europeans. - Or people in general. It is far more difficult to 'fire' an employee in all of Europe. We think that is a good thing.
Then he refers to Janteloven; the Law of Jante. Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
The maker of the Jante Law was the Danish writer Axel Sandemose:
"Generally used colloquially as a sociological term to negatively describe an attitude towards individuality and success claimed to be common in Scandinavia, it refers to a supposed snide, jealous and narrow small-town mentality which refuses to acknowledge individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while punishing those who stand out as achievers..."
...claimed to be common in Scandinavia. Well.
What Axel Sandemose (one of my favourite writers) wrote was that it was typical of small villages 'everywhere'. From Corleone, Sicily to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Not just Scandinavia.
By the Jante Law, Sandemose described his home town in Denmark. Explaining why it was necessary for him to move away from his home town in Denmark - to Oslo, Norway (of all places) to make success as a writer. What Sandemose tries to say is that it can be is easier to make success in New York, than in your small home town, say, Hackensack, New Jersey. I am sure that many from small town USA understands what Axel Sandemose ment.
What is also typical is that people from the North of Norway 'always' site Axel Sandemose's Jante Law, to explain to us 'why it was necessary for them to move south' to, say, Oslo.
Now, com'on!
We understand perfectly well why people from up there want to move south. Just take the light. In Tromsø, at 69 degrees 40 minutes north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tromsø ), it is all dark from mid November to mid January. Or the climate. Here in Oslo spring has started. While the snow is at it's highest in Tromsø around the 1 of May... I don't need help from Axel Sandemose to motivate me to move to, say, Costa Del Sol, Spain.
I think of Axel Sandemose when I drive home from work through the traffic jams around Oslo. He wrote that; 'if a Norwegian knew that his coffin would block the traffic at the crossing between Carl Johans Gate ('Oslo's 5th Avenue) and the Rosenkrans Gate, in the rush hour, he would die with a smile on his face'.
Janelovven - the Law of Jante
digitalintrigue,
It is interesting to read your friend from Tromsø and his thoughts on Norway and Norwegians. But many of the traits he describes are not just typical for Norwegians, but for Europeans. - Or people in general. It is far more difficult to 'fire' an employee in all of Europe. We think that is a good thing.
Then he refers to Janteloven; the Law of Jante. Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
The maker of the Jante Law was the Danish writer Axel Sandemose:
"Generally used colloquially as a sociological term to negatively describe an attitude towards individuality and success claimed to be common in Scandinavia, it refers to a supposed snide, jealous and narrow small-town mentality which refuses to acknowledge individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while punishing those who stand out as achievers..."
...claimed to be common in Scandinavia. Well.
What Axel Sandemose (one of my favourite writers) wrote was that it was typical of small villages 'everywhere'. From Corleone, Sicily to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Not just Scandinavia.
By the Jante Law, Sandemose described his home town in Denmark. Explaining why it was necessary for him to move away from his home town in Denmark - to Oslo, Norway (of all places) to make success as a writer. What Sandemose tries to say is that it can be is easier to make success in New York, than in your small home town, say, Hackensack, New Jersey. I am sure that many from small town USA understands what Axel Sandemose ment.
What is also typical is that people from the North of Norway 'always' site Axel Sandemose's Jante Law, to explain to us 'why it was necessary for them to move south' to, say, Oslo.
Now, com'on!
We understand perfectly well why people from up there want to move south. Just take the light. In Tromsø, at 69 degrees 40 minutes north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tromsø ), it is all dark from mid November to mid January. Or the climate. Here in Oslo spring has started. While the snow is at it's highest in Tromsø around the 1 of May... I don't need help from Axel Sandemose to motivate me to move to, say, Costa Del Sol, Spain.
I think of Axel Sandemose when I drive home from work through the traffic jams around Oslo. He wrote that; 'if a Norwegian knew that his coffin would block the traffic at the crossing between Carl Johans Gate ('Oslo's 5th Avenue) and the Rosenkrans Gate, in the rush hour, he would die with a smile on his face'.
Surprised you are going on the record as being pro-slavery.
At least you admit that this is an untenable situation that will eventually fail and bankrupt the country. The Thatcher 'other people's money' quote fits in well here.
You can keep mis-quoting me, or you can look up the history of the CRA yourself. It's not hard. You might try it sometime.
I am glad you agree on this: every time America tries liberal programs, they fail miserably and are mis-managed to the extreme. This has no relation to how poor they work in other countries, under other political systems.
Seriously, conservatism has nothing to do with child labor or slavery. Perhaps you should look at who really was behind the ending of slavery in the US and who tried to throw road blocks into the various civil rights acts.
Check and see how many blacks Eisenhower had in his administration in the 50s. In Arkansas in 1957, Democrat governor Faubus brought out the Arkansas National Guard in defiance of a Federal court order, to prevent blacks from attending Little Rock Central High School.
Eisenhower had to federalize the Arkansas guard, taking it out of control of Faubus, and brought in federal troops to ensure the first nine blacks could attend the school.
(Having grown up in Little Rock, I'm quite familiar with segregation, integration, and civil rights...not to mention Bill Clinton, along with his segregationist mentor, Fulbright.)
Leadership of which party within the 1964 U.S. Senate broke the filibuster and allowed a vote to be taken on the Civil Rights Act? Don't worry, I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since you don't seem to want to investigate these things on your own:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have become law but for the efforts of the Republicans in the Senate, most notably Sen. Everette Dirksen. This is true even though Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House...
And among whom was doing the filibustering (14 hour straight at one point?) None other than Democrat Robert Byrd. Still in the senate today.
For more edification, you might want to google 'Robert Byrd KKK.'
Last edited by a moderator:
I've already suggested the right track in previous posts. It doesn't have anything to do with government health control.
Repeal this mess, and start over with free market solutions that work.All the government social programs are abject failures that suck the life out of businesses, which ends up limiting employment, and hurts citizens.
Heck, even government-run business is a failure. Try the USPS for example. How many more billions does it have to lose?
Just take a look at how many people on RFF sell on the classifieds to CONUS only, because it's a pain in the ass to deal with the post office? Just wait til we have to wait in line for a doctor...
Meanwhile, Fedex and UPS are profitable, although not as profitable as they would be if the economy weren't strangled because of the actions of corruptocrats in congress.
Last edited by a moderator:
antiquark
Derek Ross
My comment was sarcasm. :bang:
You're confusing Republicans with conservatives. At one time the parties had different ideas.
Or would you have us believe that Lincoln was a conservative, and the Confederacy was liberal? Admit it, all those revolting concepts (slavery, child labour, no votes for women) are conservative ideals.
Here's what conservative means:[link]
is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and that society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.
Perhaps you have your own personal definition of conservatism?
Like I said, parties had different philosophies at different points in history. These days, Republicans are conservative. They were not always conservative. Even in Canada, at one time the conservative party did liberal things.
I know, so was my response.
That definition of conservatism leaves a lot to be desired. Conservatism is about individual liberties. It's about freedom. It's about the individual making the best choices for himself/herself, and for the family. It's not about a strong central government, rather limited government. It's about individual responsibility. The rule of law. Conservatives don't care about color, we are color-blind. We are for a strong national defense and national security. Property rights (down with Kelo!) school choice (vouchers!), TAX CUTS, free speech, (we are against McCain-Feingold.)
Lastly we believe the Constitution is the greatest document ever created for building a nation and allowing its people to realize their dreams.
No, I'm not following your trap to say that slavery is a conservative idea.
These days, it seems there are few true conservative Republicans. There are plenty of RINOs though.
Last edited by a moderator:
antiquark
Derek Ross
Then just say that slavery is a progressive idea!
Anyways, I've been arguing in this thread for 3 days now, time to continue living my life. Have a nice Sunday everybody! :angel:
Not sure what slavery has to do with health care, quark.
I agree, time to get out and shoot.
I agree, time to get out and shoot.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
OMG, are you serious? Around here the republicans don't say "Obama", they say "That N|GGER". Indiana, one of the most conservative states has historically had the largest KKK membership in the country. I watched the Klan hold a parade in Fort Wayne while the locals cheered in 1982 when I was a little kid and I vividly remember the KKK Rallies held on the steps of the courthouse downtown on Martin Luther King day in 93 and 94, much to the embarrassment of the city's leaders and their efforts to portray this rightwing ****hole as the sort of progressive and enlightened place that businesses offering good jobs want to locate. Those Klan rallies made the national news, and people I knew in Santa Fe a few years ago still remembered those events, it being the only thing they'd ever heard of Fort Wayne for. The police kept the Klan's supporters and opponents separated during the rallies to prevent violence that had broken out at Klan rallies in other parts of Indiana. While doing so, they also counted how many people went to each side. Fully half told the police they were there to support the Klan!
In rural Indiana, nearly every small town was what was known as a "sundowner". Sundown Towns are small towns where blacks are not welcome after sunset (this keeps them from living there). They were and are VERY common in the conservative midwest. When former vice-president Dan Quayle was growing up in Huntington, Indiana the town had signs on the edge of town that said: "N|GGER YOU DON'T LIVE HERE SO DON'T STAY AROUND TO SEE THE SUNSET". Most of Indiana's small towns had similarly worded signs, which always included the N-word. Many of these towns are still sundown, though the signs long ago had to be taken down. Huntington has a few black residents today, far more than most small towns here.
Don't give me that bull about conservatives being colorblind. Sure they are, as long as everyone in town is white.
Last edited:
remphoto
Established
Wow, you must have something in the water there. I live an hour and one half from you in a rural midwest small town and never hear the N-word being used -- and it is mostly conservatives living around here. Sunset? Never heard of such a thing. No signs or any other dispersions here. Is BHO popular here -- no -- but it has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his extreme left politics. Bill and Hillary aren't too high on the popularity list either
That said, I agree with Quark and DI -- time to go shoot some photos. Great debate folks.
jarski
Veteran
parsec1
parsec1
Surprised you are going on the record as being pro-slavery.
At least you admit that this is an untenable situation that will eventually fail and bankrupt the country. The Thatcher 'other people's money' quote fits in well here.
You can keep mis-quoting me, or you can look up the history of the CRA yourself. It's not hard. You might try it sometime.
I am glad you agree on this: every time America tries liberal programs, they fail miserably and are mis-managed to the extreme. This has no relation to how poor they work in other countries, under other political systems.
Seriously, conservatism has nothing to do with child labor or slavery. Perhaps you should look at who really was behind the ending of slavery in the US and who tried to throw road blocks into the various civil rights acts.
Check and see how many blacks Eisenhower had in his administration in the 50s. In Arkansas in 1957, Democrat governor Faubus brought out the Arkansas National Guard in defiance of a Federal court order, to prevent blacks from attending Little Rock Central High School.
Eisenhower had to federalize the Arkansas guard, taking it out of control of Faubus, and brought in federal troops to ensure the first nine blacks could attend the school.
(Having grown up in Little Rock, I'm quite familiar with segregation, integration, and civil rights...not to mention Bill Clinton, along with his segregationist mentor, Fulbright.)
Leadership of which party within the 1964 U.S. Senate broke the filibuster and allowed a vote to be taken on the Civil Rights Act? Don't worry, I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since you don't seem to want to investigate these things on your own:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have become law but for the efforts of the Republicans in the Senate, most notably Sen. Everette Dirksen. This is true even though Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House...
And among whom was doing the filibustering (14 hour straight at one point?) None other than Democrat Robert Byrd. Still in the senate today.
For more edification, you might want to google 'Robert Byrd KKK.'
Nothing that thatcher did was good for anybody except herself her cronies and malevolent son who she arranged with the Saudi's to get 20 million pounds of commission for a 'handshake' on a very 'suspect' arms deal and who now tries to overthrow governments in Africa with his band of mercenaries . Without his wife of course who 'retreated' back to her homeland with the kids.
DNG
Film Friendly
I've already suggested the right track in previous posts. It doesn't have anything to do with government health control.
All the government social programs are abject failures that suck the life out of businesses, which ends up limiting employment, and hurts citizens.
Heck, even government-run business is a failure. Try the USPS for example. How many more billions does it have to lose?
Just take a look at how many people on RFF sell on the classifieds to CONUS only, because it's a pain in the ass to deal with the post office? Just wait til we have to wait in line for a doctor...
Meanwhile, Fedex and UPS are profitable, although not as profitable as they would be if the economy weren't strangled because of the actions of corruptocrats in congress.
If you are an American, Can I predict that when you hit 62, you will not sign up for Medicare, or draw Social Security, and if you ever have children with disabilities, you will not help them get SSI, or Medicaid to help pay for the very expensive medical and other services like Occupational and Speech therapy ($100.00 per hour, at a typical 3-6 hours per week = $600 to $1,200 PER WEEK for 2 services per week). These ARE government run programs that are administered on the state level, to give these kids a fighting chance to at least grow to their potential. As a parent of a child with Downs and Autism, These programs have saved us tens of thousands of dollars of needed medical and other services.
So you want cut out Medicare. Medicaid, SSI. SSDI, and Social Security for the 62 and over group and younger disabled folks? These ARE ALL government run programs for those IN NEED....Do you REALLY BELIEVE this... Or, are you swede by the "Anti-Government" crowd with the likes of Timothy McFay and other extreme folk who don't represent the majority, not even close.
If you so strong on this view, a question for thought....
With NO GOVERNMENT.......
WHO will pay for public education, the roads that need fixing and upgrades, medical expenses when you no longer earn any money and you no longer will have Social Security income (because you got rid of them)...That is: you are broke and have no job...WILL YOU TRUST the PRIVATE sector to "BAIL YOU OUT" when you are hungry, or need to pay our rent.. or how about your med's in old age.. Who will pay for them? We've seen the Private Sector almost bankrupt out country with their greed for FAST WEALTH... Do you REALLY think these For Profit companies are going to take care of us (and you)? REALLY ??????????
Some things NEED to have a government role in providing money to those who can't afford it, by disabilities or they are no longer in the work force because of their age. Because the amount of money is WAY BEYOND any private entity to supply the money...If they want to... They don't have to, and won't, despite these extreme viewpoints being spouted. Why... They are under NO OBLIGATION to anyone but their stock holders or owners.. Ain't gona happen my friend.
HOW would you help these people, of which you will be, one day also??
Last edited:
DNG
Film Friendly
+1
I live 2 miles away from Morrisville, In..probably the largest KKK town back then, But the attitude is still very alive...I can assure you by personal experience!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
DNG
Film Friendly
dmr
Registered Abuser
What bothers me is that many of today's conservatives, and even mainstream Republican candidates do little, if any, to distance themselves from the hardcore bigots, racists, and extremists of that kind.
One notable exception was Ross Perot in the previous decade. When he was questioned about an allegation that he was supported by such types, his response was very blunt and to the point, along the line of ...
"If hate is your thing, I don't want your vote! End of topic, next question ..."
I did not vote for him, but I do have a great respect for the way he put those of that mindset in their place.
It is my impression, and I would very much welcome any evidence to show I am wrong here, that many of today's candidates, including those currently on the traveling tent-show circuit, are avoiding this issue like a third rail, almost as if they are afraid of alienating that particular contingent of the far-right.
That's one thing that scares me!
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
What bothers me is that many of today's conservatives, and even mainstream Republican candidates do little, if any, to distance themselves from the hardcore bigots, racists, and extremists of that kind.
One notable exception was Ross Perot in the previous decade. When he was questioned about an allegation that he was supported by such types, his response was very blunt and to the point, along the line of ...
"If hate is your thing, I don't want your vote! End of topic, next question ..."
I did not vote for him, but I do have a great respect for the way he put those of that mindset in their place.
It is my impression, and I would very much welcome any evidence to show I am wrong here, that many of today's candidates, including those currently on the traveling tent-show circuit, are avoiding this issue like a third rail, almost as if they are afraid of alienating that particular contingent of the far-right.
That's one thing that scares me!
I agree, Denise. The Republicans are perfectly willing to let the Tea Baggers carry their water.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.