Akin said what????
11 Sep 2012, 4:58 pm
Dear Kraichgauer, Karl Klaus was born in 1874 near Prague,the family later moved to Vienna.He became a writer and had a severe spinal deformity.in 1899 he founded his own magazine,Die Fackel(the torch) where he denounced the corruption of European society,he brought light to prison conditions,unequal treatment of women and children,child labor and financial and political issues.He was also a poet.He had few close friends and hated to have company or people stopping him on the street.He avoided most human contact.He died in 1936, heart failure.
Dear Tensu,
I think that Voltaire said,
I may disagree with everything you say,
But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I respect you for sticking to your beliefs.
11 Sep 2012, 5:59 pm
Tensu wrote:
If you ask me holding anyone to a higher standard than yourself is too close to hypocrisy for my comforts. Can you really be angry at politicians for being corrupt if you would do the same thing in their position?
Ah, but there are two crucial differences: First, I wouldn't do the same thing in their position; and second, I'm not in that position, nor am I presenting myself to my fellow citizens to be elected to such a position.
_________________
--James
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,835
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Sep 2012, 6:14 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Dear Kraichgauer, Karl Klaus was born in 1874 near Prague,the family later moved to Vienna.He became a writer and had a severe spinal deformity.in 1899 he founded his own magazine,Die Fackel(the torch) where he denounced the corruption of European society,he brought light to prison conditions,unequal treatment of women and children,child labor and financial and political issues.He was also a poet.He had few close friends and hated to have company or people stopping him on the street.He avoided most human contact.He died in 1936, heart failure.
Dear Tensu,
I think that Voltaire said,
I may disagree with everything you say,
But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I respect you for sticking to your beliefs.
Dear Tensu,
I think that Voltaire said,
I may disagree with everything you say,
But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I respect you for sticking to your beliefs.
Kraus sounded like a fascinating guy.
The quote you had attributed to Voltaire - I may be wrong, but I had always thought that was Jefferson.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Sep 2012, 7:02 pm
Double checked on google,Voltaire.
Last edited by Misslizard on 11 Sep 2012, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,835
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Sep 2012, 11:12 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Tensu wrote:
If you ask me holding anyone to a higher standard than yourself is too close to hypocrisy for my comforts. Can you really be angry at politicians for being corrupt if you would do the same thing in their position?
Ah, but there are two crucial differences: First, I wouldn't do the same thing in their position; and second, I'm not in that position, nor am I presenting myself to my fellow citizens to be elected to such a position.
If you feel you would do better, you have every right to complain.
If I was in washington, do I believe I would participate in the corruption? Past experience with my level of moral fiber says no. Thus when I hear of a politician being corrupt I am outraged.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would lie? Past experience with my level of honesty says no. Thus when I hear about a politician lying, I am outraged.
If I was in washington, would I make poor choices of words? Past experience suggests I mights, thus I cannot condemn Mr. Akins for this in good conscience.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would cite information from an uncredible source? I have done this several times in the past, but have made an effort to either A. make sure my sources are credible or B. make it clear that I'm uncertain if my sources are credible. However, I made these changes after the mistakes. Thus I feel I should wait to see wether or not Mr. Akins learns from this before passing judgement on him.
Akins is not a monster. That guy who said his statements "were not intended to be factual" is. I mean really? "yeah I lied, so what?" That's your response? Just because I'm anti-abortion doesn't mean I'm pro-deception!
12 Sep 2012, 12:06 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my humble opinion, that conservative rhetoric simply masks a hardheartedness. Try finding a job when there are none to be had - or employers that will only hire people already working - or won't hire the long termed unemployed. It's more often than not a matter that people on public assistance don't want to find work, but find themselves locked out of them. And then what happens if medical and housing coverage is cut off, then the job ends for whatever reason? Then what of the children? Are they supposed to suffer because their parents aren't working? That talk about self reliance and rugged individualism only hides the real intention of turning their backs on the needy. And the fact is, I've heard plenty of conservative journalists and politicians expressing contempt and even hatred for the poor, and use them for scapegoats for the country's financial woes. How is that caring?
And by the way, talk about buying into partisan BS. The Democrats have no intention of making people dependent on government - just to make life a little easier on the poor.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
And by the way, talk about buying into partisan BS. The Democrats have no intention of making people dependent on government - just to make life a little easier on the poor.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I will throw that right back into your face and say that I think these welfare programs are designed to keep people in poverty and dependent on Government handouts. Heck, people can get punished for getting a job under the current welfare programs...
Now that's just a paranoid conspiracy theory that the whole idea was to keep people in poverty.
And punished? How? By their benefits being cut off if they find work? How is that punishment? And if someone can remain on a social program after finding work, they only need report the new source of income to the agency giving them aid to avoid "punishment."
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Again, you're showing you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, for instance people on social security disability can get kicked off if they make over X amount per month for X number of months spread out over a 5 year period. Well if one's part time job only has you making over that amount in certain monthes of the year one can be kicked off anyways, despite the fact common sense would be to make an exception for that individual.
Then we have the fact that back when the welfare programs started, they broke up families because if a mother in poverty had any sign of having a husband living there they would be kicked off the rolls. In effect, the Welfare Programs are what wrecked a lot of traditional marriages and prevented thousands of children from growing up in a 2 parent household.
You know my dad had to fire a woman and rehire her because she got a raise and that raise pushed her over the limit where she could get welfare checks, and she was caring for a sick relative (don't give me the BS about Obamacare, because that person wouldn't be considered worth enough to be given anything other than a suicide pill under Obamacare). The facts are the facts.
12 Sep 2012, 12:52 am
Our recent Parish President starts his Federal trial on the first. He lied about being guilty when all of the evidence, and his live in girl friend, said otherwise.
He is facing life, plus 400 years. So is the Parish lawyer, who assisted in the kickbacks.
With a Grand Jury, his girlfriend, a guy who paid him $60,000 for the contract to set up networks, wiretaps, videos, he still lied about everything.
Lying seems to have something to do with politics.
Look at the background, Hicks, where birth control is a sin, or something, and abortion is murder.
If the voters want to hear something, like ending abortion, and you need their votes, less than science fact will get you elected, and the abortion laws will remain unchanged.
As far as I can tell in my local elections, all political donations, and cash in brown paper bags, is given to get public contracts, like the roofs of the whole school district, computer services, garbage contracts, highway projects, which are put up for public bid, but still are awarded to some people, and never anyone else.
The original contract is under bid, then changes are made, and the price adjusted, till it is profitable enough to make out big time and pay the kickbacks. It is the same everywhere else.
It is the same when the federal government awards small business and minority set asides to Lockheed Martin, GE, General Dynamics. They were partnering with this Black crippled woman.
So yes, they like to change the story to what is between your legs, and if the Universe is 6,000 years old. It keeps people from demanding a statment of accounts, about just where, and to whom, did you spend $16 Trillion, above the $30 Trillion you blew in the last ten years?
There are Corporations owned by Congress, on the side, that get contracts for Trillions to supply government needs. The things they vote for are rejected by the Marines, Navy, who have no use for them, and are stuck with storing them. Pork By Congress is our Major Industry, most is called Defense Spending.
So they run some sideshows to distract the wrath of the Sex Activists, a group easy to troll. I, who does want to know how to spend $46 Trillion in ten years, get shouted out by holes yearning for freedom.
535 people will steal $4.6 Trillion next year, and do not care what you think.
So Mittens will lose, so we get House Seats from the small Districts, of hick idiots. We can still block the house, and finese the payoff system, for everyone gets a cut of the $4.6 Trillion. Everyone except the Holes.
Learn some Politics, it is not weather you win or lose, but how you play the game.
Congress makes and enforces the Laws, spends the money, and investigates Congress. They are immune from Grand Juries. Whatever it takes to become a Member of Congress is worth it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,835
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2012, 1:26 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In my humble opinion, that conservative rhetoric simply masks a hardheartedness. Try finding a job when there are none to be had - or employers that will only hire people already working - or won't hire the long termed unemployed. It's more often than not a matter that people on public assistance don't want to find work, but find themselves locked out of them. And then what happens if medical and housing coverage is cut off, then the job ends for whatever reason? Then what of the children? Are they supposed to suffer because their parents aren't working? That talk about self reliance and rugged individualism only hides the real intention of turning their backs on the needy. And the fact is, I've heard plenty of conservative journalists and politicians expressing contempt and even hatred for the poor, and use them for scapegoats for the country's financial woes. How is that caring?
And by the way, talk about buying into partisan BS. The Democrats have no intention of making people dependent on government - just to make life a little easier on the poor.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
And by the way, talk about buying into partisan BS. The Democrats have no intention of making people dependent on government - just to make life a little easier on the poor.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I will throw that right back into your face and say that I think these welfare programs are designed to keep people in poverty and dependent on Government handouts. Heck, people can get punished for getting a job under the current welfare programs...
Now that's just a paranoid conspiracy theory that the whole idea was to keep people in poverty.
And punished? How? By their benefits being cut off if they find work? How is that punishment? And if someone can remain on a social program after finding work, they only need report the new source of income to the agency giving them aid to avoid "punishment."
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Again, you're showing you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, for instance people on social security disability can get kicked off if they make over X amount per month for X number of months spread out over a 5 year period. Well if one's part time job only has you making over that amount in certain monthes of the year one can be kicked off anyways, despite the fact common sense would be to make an exception for that individual.
Then we have the fact that back when the welfare programs started, they broke up families because if a mother in poverty had any sign of having a husband living there they would be kicked off the rolls. In effect, the Welfare Programs are what wrecked a lot of traditional marriages and prevented thousands of children from growing up in a 2 parent household.
You know my dad had to fire a woman and rehire her because she got a raise and that raise pushed her over the limit where she could get welfare checks, and she was caring for a sick relative (don't give me the BS about Obamacare, because that person wouldn't be considered worth enough to be given anything other than a suicide pill under Obamacare). The facts are the facts.
And all that stuff you brought up about social security disability and welfare is supposed to mean people would be better off without it?!?! The system is hardly perfect, but it helps far more people than hurts.
And as far as that story of yours about the woman in Oregon and the suicide pill - be that as it may, there are far more people who have been left without medical coverage by private insurance companies - and plenty of them have died.
And I have to ask - have you seriously forgotten how bad things were just a few years ago for insurance company customers? It's that very reason why Obamacare - which in fact was originally a Republican plan - came into existence.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Sep 2012, 10:17 am
Tensu wrote:
If you feel you would do better, you have every right to complain.
If I was in washington, do I believe I would participate in the corruption? Past experience with my level of moral fiber says no. Thus when I hear of a politician being corrupt I am outraged.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would lie? Past experience with my level of honesty says no. Thus when I hear about a politician lying, I am outraged.
If I was in washington, would I make poor choices of words? Past experience suggests I mights, thus I cannot condemn Mr. Akins for this in good conscience.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would cite information from an uncredible source? I have done this several times in the past, but have made an effort to either A. make sure my sources are credible or B. make it clear that I'm uncertain if my sources are credible. However, I made these changes after the mistakes. Thus I feel I should wait to see wether or not Mr. Akins learns from this before passing judgement on him.
Akins is not a monster. That guy who said his statements "were not intended to be factual" is. I mean really? "yeah I lied, so what?" That's your response? Just because I'm anti-abortion doesn't mean I'm pro-deception!
If I was in washington, do I believe I would participate in the corruption? Past experience with my level of moral fiber says no. Thus when I hear of a politician being corrupt I am outraged.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would lie? Past experience with my level of honesty says no. Thus when I hear about a politician lying, I am outraged.
If I was in washington, would I make poor choices of words? Past experience suggests I mights, thus I cannot condemn Mr. Akins for this in good conscience.
If I was in washington, do I believe that I would cite information from an uncredible source? I have done this several times in the past, but have made an effort to either A. make sure my sources are credible or B. make it clear that I'm uncertain if my sources are credible. However, I made these changes after the mistakes. Thus I feel I should wait to see wether or not Mr. Akins learns from this before passing judgement on him.
Akins is not a monster. That guy who said his statements "were not intended to be factual" is. I mean really? "yeah I lied, so what?" That's your response? Just because I'm anti-abortion doesn't mean I'm pro-deception!
But if you were in Washington would you hold to a position in the face of contradictory evidence? Would you shape policy based on the best interests of the country, or based on maintaining your own funding base and reelection prospects? Would you make a judgement on each matter, based on fact and evidence--or would you simply remain true to your prejudices and biases?
I don't condemn Akin for a poor choice of words, I condemn Akin because his attitudes are retrograde and he refuses to acknowledge the substance of his error.
_________________
--James
12 Sep 2012, 11:50 am
2013 Recommended Discretionary Spending
60% military,vet affairs,nuclear weapons program
6%health and human services
6%education
5% state
4.5% other programs
4% homeland security
3% housing and urban development
2% agriculture
1.5% justice
1.5% NASA%
1.5% energy
1% labor
1% treasury
1% interior
1% EPA
1%transportation
Source: www.OneMinuteForPeace.org
12 Sep 2012, 7:28 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
And all that stuff you brought up about social security disability and welfare is supposed to mean people would be better off without it?!?! The system is hardly perfect, but it helps far more people than hurts.
Actually, it kinda does show people are better off without it, at least a charity from a church would be intelligent enough to encourage people for working, rather than punishing them for it.
Kraichgauer wrote:
And as far as that story of yours about the woman in Oregon and the suicide pill - be that as it may, there are far more people who have been left without medical coverage by private insurance companies - and plenty of them have died.
It is a lot easier to take legal recourse against and insurance company than fight against unelected government officials.
Kraichgauer wrote:
And I have to ask - have you seriously forgotten how bad things were just a few years ago for insurance company customers? It's that very reason why Obamacare - which in fact was originally a Republican plan - came into existence.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
What you failed to mention was the Republicans abandoned that plan because they recognized it was Unconstitutional (and Obama and his cronies in the media used intimidation to get John Roberts to switch his vote), and was a fundamental attack on our freedoms.
Obamacare was a powergrab, that's all it is.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,835
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2012, 9:22 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And all that stuff you brought up about social security disability and welfare is supposed to mean people would be better off without it?!?! The system is hardly perfect, but it helps far more people than hurts.
Actually, it kinda does show people are better off without it, at least a charity from a church would be intelligent enough to encourage people for working, rather than punishing them for it.
Kraichgauer wrote:
And as far as that story of yours about the woman in Oregon and the suicide pill - be that as it may, there are far more people who have been left without medical coverage by private insurance companies - and plenty of them have died.
It is a lot easier to take legal recourse against and insurance company than fight against unelected government officials.
Kraichgauer wrote:
And I have to ask - have you seriously forgotten how bad things were just a few years ago for insurance company customers? It's that very reason why Obamacare - which in fact was originally a Republican plan - came into existence.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
What you failed to mention was the Republicans abandoned that plan because they recognized it was Unconstitutional (and Obama and his cronies in the media used intimidation to get John Roberts to switch his vote), and was a fundamental attack on our freedoms.
Obamacare was a powergrab, that's all it is.
1) No church or private charity is going to have the reach or the means, or the unlimited sources of cash that the government has. So no, they couldn't come close to doing what the government does.
2) Again, far more people have been killed by private insurance companies than by the government. Who says it's easier to take legal action against insurance companies? They have a ton of lawyers to drag the case out in court till the customer is dead. Insurance companies exist first and foremost to make money, and they do that at the expense of their customers. I'd rather take my chances with the government.
3) Obama bullied Roberts? That's news to me. Just like the notion that the Republicans had opposed their own healthcare plan in order to protect freedom. That talk about protecting freedom rings pretty hollow when your child desperately needs medical care, and you have no means of paying for it.
By the way, Rick Santorum on the campaign trail stated he didn't want everyone to have equal health coverage if they couldn't pay for it. That's what's called hardheartedness, not anything about protecting anyone's freedom.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Sep 2012, 11:26 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
1) No church or private charity is going to have the reach or the means, or the unlimited sources of cash that the government has. So no, they couldn't come close to doing what the government does.
All the government is doing is spending other people's money it's easy to spend tons of money on something in an extremely wasteful fashion if it isn't yours.
Kraichgauer wrote:
2) Again, far more people have been killed by private insurance companies than by the government. Who says it's easier to take legal action against insurance companies? They have a ton of lawyers to drag the case out in court till the customer is dead. Insurance companies exist first and foremost to make money, and they do that at the expense of their customers. I'd rather take my chances with the government.
Only reason that the government hasn't racked up a much higher body count is lack of opportunity until Obamacare. You do realize that the family of that individual can force the insurance company to pay thousands if not millions of dollars in the end, plus in some states "loser pays" the court fees, if there is a strong enough case, the family walks away with nontaxable money, the insurance company gets hit with paying the family and the attorneys.
Though let's get real, insurance companies only pull these kinds of shannigans when they have some sweethart deal with politicians so they have a legal monopoly, if insurance companies could operate across state lines, a lot of the companies pulling the shannigans would be out of business in a matter of months.
Kraichgauer wrote:
3) Obama bullied Roberts? That's news to me. Just like the notion that the Republicans had opposed their own healthcare plan in order to protect freedom. That talk about protecting freedom rings pretty hollow when your child desperately needs medical care, and you have no means of paying for it.
It's called an emergency room, it's called charities, oh btw, I actually do know a family that went through insane healthcare costs for their son (this was back in second grade). It wasn't Government that came to their rescue, it was the other famillies at the school I went to, they set up a charity and each voluntarily contributed some money and you know what, that family got the money to pay for the surgery. Not only that, the kid and his entire family got to go to Disney World too!
So don't start with me about "only government is able to help those with kids that need medical care," that's a pile of garbage, I actually knew that kid, he was in my 2nd grade class (when I was a 2nd grader decades ago).
Stop drinking the liberal Kool-aid and learn to think for yourself!! !
Kraichgauer wrote:
By the way, Rick Santorum on the campaign trail stated he didn't want everyone to have equal health coverage if they couldn't pay for it. That's what's called hardheartedness, not anything about protecting anyone's freedom.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about you provide a source...
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,835
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2012, 11:46 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
1) No church or private charity is going to have the reach or the means, or the unlimited sources of cash that the government has. So no, they couldn't come close to doing what the government does.
All the government is doing is spending other people's money it's easy to spend tons of money on something in an extremely wasteful fashion if it isn't yours.
Kraichgauer wrote:
2) Again, far more people have been killed by private insurance companies than by the government. Who says it's easier to take legal action against insurance companies? They have a ton of lawyers to drag the case out in court till the customer is dead. Insurance companies exist first and foremost to make money, and they do that at the expense of their customers. I'd rather take my chances with the government.
Only reason that the government hasn't racked up a much higher body count is lack of opportunity until Obamacare. You do realize that the family of that individual can force the insurance company to pay thousands if not millions of dollars in the end, plus in some states "loser pays" the court fees, if there is a strong enough case, the family walks away with nontaxable money, the insurance company gets hit with paying the family and the attorneys.
Though let's get real, insurance companies only pull these kinds of shannigans when they have some sweethart deal with politicians so they have a legal monopoly, if insurance companies could operate across state lines, a lot of the companies pulling the shannigans would be out of business in a matter of months.
Kraichgauer wrote:
3) Obama bullied Roberts? That's news to me. Just like the notion that the Republicans had opposed their own healthcare plan in order to protect freedom. That talk about protecting freedom rings pretty hollow when your child desperately needs medical care, and you have no means of paying for it.
It's called an emergency room, it's called charities, oh btw, I actually do know a family that went through insane healthcare costs for their son (this was back in second grade). It wasn't Government that came to their rescue, it was the other famillies at the school I went to, they set up a charity and each voluntarily contributed some money and you know what, that family got the money to pay for the surgery. Not only that, the kid and his entire family got to go to Disney World too!
So don't start with me about "only government is able to help those with kids that need medical care," that's a pile of garbage, I actually knew that kid, he was in my 2nd grade class (when I was a 2nd grader decades ago).
Stop drinking the liberal Kool-aid and learn to think for yourself!! !
Kraichgauer wrote:
By the way, Rick Santorum on the campaign trail stated he didn't want everyone to have equal health coverage if they couldn't pay for it. That's what's called hardheartedness, not anything about protecting anyone's freedom.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about you provide a source...
Obamacare isn't going to kill anyone. And plenty of insurance companies drop people to avoid providing costly coverage. In fact that almost happened to my Mom after she had been severely burned bck when I was still in college. They had claimed my parents had not filled out all the proper paperwork, and so would not cover her medical expenses. The insurance company in fact relented - but not out of the goodness of their hearts. Rather, it was because my Dad had called his union, which worked with this particular insurance company to cover United Steelworker members. Fifteen minutes later, the insurance company called back, apologizing and saying that they had "found" the lost paperwork. Unfortunately, not everyone has organized labor looking out for them, like my parents did.
As for people being able to go to emergency rooms - are you aware how expensive they are? It's much cheaper to be able to make an appointment at a doctor's office. A patient would be stuck with huge bill, which would end up going to collections if hey can't pay, thereby ruining a person's credit. And while I'm delighted your friend from the second grade was able to rely on the goodness of his neighbors, that is in fact unfortunately very rare.
As for what Santorum had said - I heard him say it while discussing healthcare on a televised campaign stump.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
