On 08 Feb 2009 02:50:45 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:


Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world
ultimately leads

You copy and paste screed off the web as your own, that **** has a way of
revealing itself, wingnut.

Skeers ya, don't it moonbat.

That's how come you snipped it without trying to refute it.

On 08 Feb 2009 03:06:03 GMT, Robb wrote:

Kali wrote:


Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the
difference between socialism and liberalism?

No difference.


Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world
ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed
expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost,
modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism,
sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there
are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and
what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may
not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating
uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads
to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress,
only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has
having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where
you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s
center, is what modern liberalism is all about.

Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the
theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment
are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance."
Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some
quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more
than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the
circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is
unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational
truths.

While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy,
there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a
dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never
been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals
believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business
is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly,
however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals
believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the
conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of
production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up
of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such
things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality
made up of good-hearted people).

Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new
meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government
should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed
individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between
economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation
of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the
foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States
fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure
domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote
the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to
themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces
that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior
rights to the various states within the country and those who
distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate
every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise
to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and
the states superior sovereignty over a central government.

Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic
sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is
actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century,
everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to
mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism
(liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of
the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the
late 19th century came modern liberalism.

Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became
modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl
Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard
of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in
which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in
which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What
most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original.
All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same
revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria.
This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist
society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of
the power.

It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on
The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of
the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was
the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by
the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776,
barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of
Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only
a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society
for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of
Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century.

By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States,
the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism,
which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came
up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over
the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a
philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens
and a focus on individualism as opposed to community.

On 08 Feb 2009 02:43:43 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

The Founders wanted small govt.

"The Founders" were not gods.

Neither is your mulatto Messiah, twinks.

Their lives ended and the society they knew doesn't exist,
anymore. In the fullness of time we shall be just as dead
as they.

Another Ruth Bader Ginsburg disciple: Kill the Constitution; embrace
world law.


Today's so-called liberals want to


Shove NeoCon's under a bus? It must give you a sense of power to find
someone out there has already prepared the things you want to say.

"if only" is an excuse, "Looking-Way-Back".

NeoCons are social liberals who happen to like the bottom line.

Many are Jews.

Are you anti-semitic, puss?

In article , -
says...
Kali wrote:


Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the
difference between socialism and liberalism?

What did you expect?

I suspected it, now it's confirmed.

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your right
to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll fight for
your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as you want to be,
enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals, and other "pork" in
peace.

See wingnuts don't realize they can have Pork 'n Peace, they were raised
on Pork 'n War (I know, sounds crazy but wingnuts came from Somewhere!).

Pork 'n beans.

It would scare the death out of them if the US didn't have NASA and
wasn't "controller" of the sky, "Decider" - something - it's hard to keep
up with all of their re-definitions.

Patriot Act! Shock and awe! Operation Iraqi Liberation (spells out
oil, oops!) Make that Operation Iraqi Freedom! Freedom fries!

NASA is porky pie, you know. It just got cut out of the bill, along
with a heap of infrastructure spending. Roads, schools and colleges,
hospitals, police, fire, EMS, broadband, chopped right out. I wonder
if that levee in the Big Easy is in there. From what I've seen, that
is one of those necessities that is porky.
--
Kali

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and her fellow limousine communists Breyer,
Souter, and Stevens, along with retired justice Sandy O'Connor : "We
must rely more on International Law and less on the Constitution."



By the way, it might be a good idea to trim newsgroups. Cite the
newsgroup to which you're posting and I'll pick a more appropriate
politically-oriented group for my responses. That'll keep it to two
groups. Others aren't joining in anyway.

If you want to keep it as is, that's OK too.



On 08 Feb 2009 03:57:05 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

On 08 Feb 2009 02:43:43 GMT, Robb wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:

The Founders wanted small govt.

"The Founders" were not gods.

Neither is your mulatto Messiah, twinks.

Get a veg-o-matic. It slices and dices far more efficiently than any word
processor.


Their lives ended and the society they knew doesn't exist, anymore. In
the fullness of time we shall be just as dead as they.

Another Ruth Bader Ginsburg disciple: Kill the Constitution; embrace
world law.

Your man Shrub is the one who said it was "just a piece of goddam paper".

Please die on schedule, living too long will ****up the infernal system
of balances.


Today's so-called liberals want to


Shove NeoCon's under a bus? It must give you a sense of power to find
someone out there has already prepared the things you want to say.

"if only" is an excuse, "Looking-Way-Back".

NeoCons are social liberals who happen to like the bottom line.


You're equating hemlines and ass with fiscal responsibility?

I suppose - if you must go there.



Many are Jews.

So. I'm converting, does that prove anything about nothing or what?


Are you anti-semitic, puss?


What's the correct answer to that question, Pork-Pie?



--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

If you want to kill all the rich and take their wealth, I don't care.
It would finance Obamanation about three months.

Unless you include the limousine liberals like Soros, Gates, Kennedy,
and the Garbage that runs Hollywood. Then you could finance
Obamanation for a year.

By the way, it might be a good idea to trim newsgroups. Cite the
newsgroup to which you're posting and I'll pick a more appropriate
politically-oriented group for my responses. That'll keep it to two
groups. Others aren't joining in anyway.

If you want to keep it as is, that's OK too.





On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 22:45:52 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article , -
says...
Kali wrote:


Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the
difference between socialism and liberalism?

What did you expect?

I suspected it, now it's confirmed.

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your right
to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll fight for
your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as you want to be,
enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals, and other "pork" in
peace.

See wingnuts don't realize they can have Pork 'n Peace, they were raised
on Pork 'n War (I know, sounds crazy but wingnuts came from Somewhere!).

Pork 'n beans.

It would scare the death out of them if the US didn't have NASA and
wasn't "controller" of the sky, "Decider" - something - it's hard to keep
up with all of their re-definitions.

Patriot Act! Shock and awe! Operation Iraqi Liberation (spells out
oil, oops!) Make that Operation Iraqi Freedom! Freedom fries!

NASA is porky pie, you know. It just got cut out of the bill, along
with a heap of infrastructure spending. Roads, schools and colleges,
hospitals, police, fire, EMS, broadband, chopped right out. I wonder
if that levee in the Big Easy is in there. From what I've seen, that
is one of those necessities that is porky.
--
Kali

Gregory Hall wrote:

[snip]

Get with the program, Marcia. I'm brilliant and recognized as such by many.

socks.


--

"You know how long it would take for the court house to scan every
document and put it online. It would NEVER happen."

(Jamie)


"Of course I would never steal software by using cracks but some people
who are less than ethical might not mind using a crack which is licensed
to Trang Nguyen. He he!"

(Gregory Hall)


"Liberal men are too much like women and a relationship with them ends
up awfully boring."

(Gregory Hall)


"And, Gary also needs to offer to re-instate my DataBasux account as a
gesture of sincerity."

(Gregory Hall)

[adding m.s for my good friend Gummy]

Kali wrote:
In article , -
says...
Way Back Jack wrote:

The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides
were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side
can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye.

I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class
people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it
is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're
good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for
reelection in 2010.

[snip]

There really is a partisan shift in the nation towards the Democrats.
There's a short summary here, under the heading "Long-term Partisan
Shifts Analyzed":

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...s/Feb09-s.html

with a link to more specific data he

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do...?diaryId=11450

In short, outside the South the Democrats have made deep gains. The
South is the only region redder than 4 years ago, and not even the whole
South. Gummy's hoped-for Ragnarok looks even more kooky nowadays than
it did then.

--

"You know how long it would take for the court house to scan every
document and put it online. It would NEVER happen."

(Jamie)


"Of course I would never steal software by using cracks but some people
who are less than ethical might not mind using a crack which is licensed
to Trang Nguyen. He he!"

(Gregory Hall)


"Liberal men are too much like women and a relationship with them ends
up awfully boring."

(Gregory Hall)


"And, Gary also needs to offer to re-instate my DataBasux account as a
gesture of sincerity."

(Gregory Hall)

No health care for seniors.

EXCERPT:
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in
Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a
formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years
the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are
more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the
elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with
macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye
before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took
almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its
decision.
______

COMMENT: They factor in the senior's expected life span. If the
mandated cost is exceeded, no treatment for mama. Shucks, we might as
well put mom and pop out on an ice raft when they hit a certain age.

Another example of big govt. controlling your life.
__________

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether
President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax
breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health
provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the
handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the
Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because
they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH,
pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United
States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked
electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records
at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial.
It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National
Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments
to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems
appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and
“guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the
stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in
his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care
Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and
“learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important,
but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new
system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the
bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to
impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511,
518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the
electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or
you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In
his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make
the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating
Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal,
Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new
medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He
praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless
diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises
Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors
should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead
of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The
stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness
standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in
Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a
formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years
the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are
more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the
elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with
macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye
before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took
almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its
decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate
in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing.
Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years
and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical
and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much
hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this
bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined
(90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle
supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994,
and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle
wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount
an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the
federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be
stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible”
for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill
needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It
produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet
the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost
problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and
innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn.
This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an
adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed
are her own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aL zfDxfbwhzs









On 10 Feb 2009 22:38:46 GMT, Robb wrote:

Kali wrote:

NASA is porky pie, you know. It just got cut out of the bill, along with
a heap of infrastructure spending. Roads, schools and colleges,
hospitals, police, fire, EMS, broadband, chopped right out. I wonder if
that levee in the Big Easy is in there. From what I've seen, that is one
of those necessities that is porky.

This isn't quite up to PETA's level of stim, but 'maybe'.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...animation.html

Bloomberg - Economists who support legislation to stimulate growth say the
version passed in the House of Representatives would create at least half a
million more jobs than the bill the Senate votes on today. The key
difference: The Senate version provides less money than the House measure for
public works and aid to state and local governments. While the two measures
have similar price tags, the Senate’s includes bigger tax cuts and adds tax
breaks for auto and home buyers, part of a compromise to win some Republican
votes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...OG8&refer=home

Includes a $70BN AMT tax cut - one that guys like "Joe the everything" never
had to worry about.


Schools:
$16 billion in investments in school infrastructure that is in the House
legislation. Yet the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that
spending $127 billion to $268 billion is needed to bring school facilities
to a good condition. The projects these funds would pay for are among the
infrastructure investments that can be brought up to speed very quickly.
The construction sector, which would benefit most from this funding, has
enormous idle capacity and more idle workers than any other industry, having
shed 10 percent of its jobs over the past year, compared to 3.2 percent for
the private sector overall.

Weatherization:
On average, weatherization reduces heating bills by 32% and overall energy
bills by $358 per year at current prices. This in turn, spurs low-income
communities toward job growth and economic development. Average value of
weatherization services provided is $2,500, the value of the weatherization
is 2.2 times greater than the cost of the improvement:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/weather.../improving.cfm

LIHEAP Funding (Low income heating supplement) - The Bush Years:
01 $1,372,500,000 + $455,650,000 sup + $27,500,000 lev/REACH $1,855,650,000 + f
02 $1,672,500,000 + $100,000,000 sup + $27,500,000 lev/REACH $1,800,000,000 + f
03 $1,760,978,750 + $200,000,000 sup + $27,321,250 lev/REACH $1,988,300,000 + f
04 $1,762,042,250 + $99,410,000 sup + $27,337,750 lev/REACH $1,888,790,000 + f
05 $1,857,519,008 + $297,600,000 sup + $27,280,000 lev/REACH $2,182,399,008 + f
06 $2,452,775,000 + $600,000,000 sup + $27,247,000 lev/REACH $3,080,022,000 + f
07 $1,980,000,000 + $181,170,000 sup + $27,225,000 lev/REACH $2,188,395,000 + f
08 $1,980,000,351 + $610,677,759 sup + $0 lev/REACH $2,590,678,110 + f


--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

What does putting adverse health care for seniors in so-called
stimulus plan have to do with creating jobs?






On 10 Feb 2009 23:44:37 GMT, Robb wrote:

Vladimir wrote:

. 200 lines of bull**** snipped


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137245971962641.html

Greg, it's sorry commentary that you can't discern the modus operandi
of someone who deigns to promote themselves over and above everything
else.

"Ms. McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York state, is
a fellow at the Hudson Institute and chair of the Committee to Reduce
Infection Deaths".

What does a plethora of stylings from this woman have to do with
"anything" remotely related to economic stimulus?




--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet