"American people, quite simply, don't want defeat in Iraq...even if they don't like what is going on in Iraq at the moment, they are not willing to wreck and American cause just to get back at President Bush"

Amen.

a slight disagreement mark -

it's not that the loony left wing doesn't want us to succeed. rather, they don't want W to succeed -even at the expense of our military.

and they want a bluehat command, well...when the bluehats unlock their garrison gates after ONE MILLION RWANDIANS WERE SLAUGHTERED.

remember "war isn't the answer"...

...'cept to gain our independence, free the slaves, & shutdown the nazi deathcamps.

Orrin: you forgot who was in charge of the UN peacekeepers when the Rwandan massacres went down.

Kofi Annan. 'nuff said.

Mark,

Did you clear this post with Ann Coulter?
If you haven't you should. She is the new spokesperson for the GOP.
Ann isn't to big on the whole "love thing" so you might want to tone that down a little.

Mike

Mark,

Hatred is not even counting the people your bombs have killed.

Ask a woman screaming for retribution if her family was worth less than a woman screaming for retribution on 9/11, we may see this as an act of kindness and love, compassion for years of hell under a tyrant, but we have replaced one tyranny for another.

We see this war as a folly of a man too wrapped up in his own ego, and his legacy. We see this as the expression of American addiction to resources. The military has nothing to do with this, they are the hammer, the arm swinging it are the civilian leaders, and they have no control over how and where they are used.

Just because a man takes this country to war on incorrect intelligence doesn't mean we are stuck in that mistake forever, if we made a mistake then we are not obligated to keep making it. We have an opportunity to ask for international help, to leave a legacy that right now is not without repair. We have the opportunity to show the rest of the ME we want peace, but that doesn't happen when you ignore the mistakes and pretend they never happen.

"All you need is love","the love you get,equals the love you give". The Project for a New American Century, is disbanding. That's the "loving" group founded by Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz,Jeb bush,Libby,William Bennett,Khalizad,Dan Quayle and a guy named Philip Merrill who disappeared on saturday while sailing(the begining of the Rapture?). Love means Peace and not war. Peace is Christ and war is the anti-Christ. The Left Loves ya'll, but you must stop the violence. Peace

War is not fair. And yes. to me an American life is worth more. There, I said it. Other countries act the same way. They just hate us because we're better at it.

Funny thing is, they (the Muslims we're fighting against) don't even value the lives of their own women and children as much as you do. When you fire from a Mosque - you make it a target. When you fire from a childs bedroom, you make it a target. When you build bombs in the basement of a hospital, you make it a target.

Of course, liberals know none of this - because they aren't there. They refuse to serve in the military as enlisted people or officers. They mouth "support our troops" while undermining their every move. They say they want "better intelligence", but not if it means spying on anyone. They are the biggest bunch of arrogant, smug, and hate filled idiots on the planet.

And, it's going to get worse. How can they possibly run against war veteran Republicans for House and Senate seats when they did nothing? In fact worse than nothing, they actively worked for defeat? They are making a huge mistake for their long term viability based upon their hatred. And that is OK with me.

Been having trouble with typekey - sorry for any multiple posts.

War is not fair. And yes. to me an American life is worth more. There, I said it. Other countries act the same way. They just hate us because we're better at it. And no - I refuse to agree that "we should be better" based upon some nebulous and ill-defined value system.

Funny thing is, they (the Muslims we're fighting against) don't even value the lives of their own women and children as much as you do. When you fire from a Mosque - you make it a target. When you fire from a childs bedroom, you make it a target. When you build bombs in the basement of a hospital, you make it a target.

Of course, liberals know none of this - because they aren't there. They refuse to serve in the military as enlisted people or officers. They mouth "support our troops" while undermining their every move. They say they want "better intelligence", but not if it means spying on anyone. They are the biggest bunch of arrogant, smug, and hate filled idiots on the planet.

And, it's going to get worse. How can they possibly run against war veteran Republicans for House and Senate seats when they did nothing? In fact worse than nothing, they actively worked for defeat? They are making a huge mistake for their long term viability based upon their hatred. And that is OK with me.

Kahn,

It's exactly that kind of ameri-centric view that keeps the right from ever being percieved as anything more than self-serving leg-pissers.

Just remember it was the american value system that we have sacrificed the lives of our military for centuries; Those values are one of moral certitude in our actions, can you claim that the un-numbered deaths of civilians due to our actions is any better than the terrorists? I am not talking about someone setting up positions in a child's room or a mosque, im talking about entire neighborhoods layed to waste, and entire families destroyed to accomplish a mission we can never verify with any sort of certainty.

Lets ask ourselves one simple question: If Iraq was here, unknowingly blowing up your neighborhoods regardless of if they are, or aren't inhabited by indurgetns, would you leave, and go and cower in a refugee camp, being fed by the Red Cross and never knowing when or if you can go back to a home that may or may not still be there, or would you be prepared to die for your family and friends, guns in hand ready to shoot the first towel-head who came through, jibber-jabbering an unknown language, breaking into your house in the middle of the night to throw a sack on your head and interrogate you?

kahn, I'm somewhat confused by your comment. Are you saying "liberals" should be quiet until they join the army? You are aware the true left (ie not democrats) oppose war except when it is absolutely vital right? this is called having morals and standing by them, anyone who opposes war should come out and say so, they should never stand by and say "well maybe this one wont be so bad". As an example of someone standing by their morals I'll quote my idol. "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance - how violently I hate all this! How despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder"

I'm a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000, voted for and campaigned for Kerry in 2004 and have voted for dems in every election since I was 18. But there is something truly sickening seeing members of my party and liberals alike taking barely disguised glee in the various failures in Iraq. Barone is right on the money when he says "Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted." Liberals are so angry with Bush (rightly so in my opinion) that they are willing to sacrifice the mission in Iraq just to make Bush look bad. I understand the sentiment but the stakes in Iraq are now way too high to just sit back and take potshots.

TEO said "Its that kind of ameri-centric view that keeps the right from ever being percieved as anything more than self-serving leg-pissers"

Good one-LMAO!!! And remember the right doesn't get angry when lies are told about them-only when the truth is told about them! (slightly edited ann coulterism here)

TEO - You SAY your dad is there. If he was wounded and pinned down from a building that had women in it, would you want it shelled? Or, just let him bleed to death in the street?

kiwi. Would The Soviet Union have been considered "the left"? But you are right. You're confused.

War sucks. Yes. But it exists. In fact, I defy you to find one day in known history where there was not a war going on somewhere on the planet. So, once in it - I say survive. I say win. I want MY people to win. I want MY people to survive. Is that so hard to get? I mean really, is it?

Kahn,

I would be very upset about what had happened to my dad, but for every dad of an american kid over here, there is a father, brother, sister, mother, grandfather, child of an iraqi who I feel is my human neighbor over there. Don't forget that the americans in Iraq are all volunteers, they have weighed the choices of being there (supposedly), so the things that happen over there, while extrmely regretable are why they get paid to do what they do. True?

Kahn,

Marxist communistic economic theory is completely different from Stalin and Lennin-istic totalitarianism, please don't confuse the two, Marxism is peaceful in THEORY, Stalin-ism was a regime based on iron fisted, central control over all aspects of life, it takes a meglomaniacal madman to go from one to the other.

In 10,000 years of civilization we haven't figured out how to live peacefully without killing eachother, this is true; but that doesn't mean you can claim this as some sort of precident to go pre-emptively invading countries who have no connection to 9/11. You can't just say once we get there we have to finish it, that's like saying once you start beating an old man, you shouldn't stop until hes dead...i mean why do it half-way? Just because MY people bombed THEIR people doesn't mean I get to cheer my head off until it's done, infact I believe that we say our sorry's and get the hell out as quick as possible, and let them try and rebuild the bonds that the civil war we sat idly by and watched form, has wreaked.

Kahn, by no means, the soviet union was in no way left, anyone who says it was left is either very misinformed or know they are spreading one of the most evil lies ever madeup. No, I can't name a single moment in history mankind hasn't been at war, but this makes no difference, people who want war to end must stand up and say they oppose war. yes there are a few exceptions but iraq isn't one of them, iraq is a huge mistake, the only reason to have waged war with iraq would have been to remove a dictator, but in saying that I do not support any one country removing a dictator. Only a world effort can be effective in such a task, and if iraq was about removing a dictator (as mark claims so often), then why does bush support other dictators? ie china, bush doesnt seem to care in any way that the chineese government oppress its people, infact he tells taiwan they should accept chineese rule. But you are free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Mr. Noonan, you're right, but it comes off to me as corny and patronizing, esp. since there are times when all of us feel we have to be riled up and take a stand.

You have got to address the issue of Leftist motives on a narrower scale. I can show you plenty in the GOP who are consumed by hatred, and a simple hate/love dichotomy doesn't even begin, further, to address the lunacy we see from the Left daily.

So lame...

Lying about Democrats and Iraq

TEO,

The proof you are consumed with hatred is in your remark that we replaced one tyranny with another in Iraq - that is just about one of the most stupid, ignorant and foolish statements one can make...and only hatred of President Bush can possibly motivate you to make such an idiotic asssertion.

You need to let it go - President Bush leaves office on January 20th, 2009 and you'll never have to deal with him again....meanwhile, we've got an infant democracy in Iraq which we are morally obligated to see through to success...for the love of God, your country and your fellow man, get on the right side of this.

All humans are morally obligated to END wars, not propagate them. We also have a moral obligation to prosecute those who commit war. If the CIA is done with their renditions by then, maybe they can spare a plane in January 2009 to haul our former leaders to the Hague.

oops, it may take a few planes.

Who the heck is Michael Barone? Isn't he a relative of Ray Barone's. And why should I believe anything Raymonds cousin says?

My distaste for Bush comes from several things: his faux swagger. Anyone who dodged military service is denied the right to swagger. (It's a man rule). And certainly it is foolish to don a flight suit and declare mission accomplished. His inability to admit mistakes. His need to surround himself with yes men. The fact he refuses to even entertain the voice of his many critics.

And finally he speaks retarded. Very embarrasing to have this man speak for our nation. Heck the President of Denmark looked like a man next to a fraternity boy when he appeared with Bush.

Yep anything you can say Mark is probably true. I didn't even dislike Nixon as much as this clown.

Its pretty funny how they think the USSR wasnt on the left. If it looks like a moonbat, smells like a moon bat, and has all the same goals as a moonbat, it must be a moonbat. If the USSR were here today, I wonder would they be voting for bush or kerry? Would they be pro abortion? Would they be for socialist and communist goals, universal health care, removal of anything religious? Or would they be against them? hmmmm... I wonder.

And all these moonbat aligations of the US bombing and killing everybody in sight in Iraq is just retarded. They believe everytime a terrorist blows somebody up there, it was us who pushed the button.

Lets all bend the truth! It is fun to be a liberal!

Salvelinus - "morally obligated"? Based upon what? You guys are the ones who say there should be separation of church and state, that the "moral" religous argument has no place in the abortion debate and the gay marriage debate, and well ANY debate. So. Removing religion from the scene - what is your moral" justification for anything?

Isn't looking out for OUR citizens the prime concern of OUR government? If you have neighbors with kids or husbands, or daughters, or wives in Afghanistan or Iraq - why don't you tell that you'd rather let them die than defend themselves?

Aren't enemy soldiers bringing civilians into Harm's way when they use them as shields (a war crime, by the way). Are we to let this tactic work? But you know, they go further than that. They regularly kill civilians on purpse. They have killed men, women, and oh yes - children deliberately and to make a point. You don't think that is worth stopping? How? By making a sign that says "Can't we all just get along?"

Salvelinus - "morally obligated"? Based upon what? You guys are the ones who say there should be separation of church and state, that the "moral" religous argument has no place in the abortion debate and the gay marriage debate, and well ANY debate. So. Removing religion from the scene - what is your moral" justification for anything?

Isn't looking out for OUR citizens the prime concern of OUR government? If you have neighbors with kids or husbands, or daughters, or wives in Afghanistan or Iraq - why don't you tell that you'd rather let them die than defend themselves?

Aren't enemy soldiers bringing civilians into Harm's way when they use them as shields (a war crime, by the way). Are we to let this tactic work? But you know, they go further than that. They regularly kill civilians on purpse. They have killed men, women, and oh yes - children deliberately and to make a point. You don't think that is worth stopping? How? By making a sign that says "Can't we all just get along?"

Isn't looking out for OUR citizens the prime concern of OUR government? - Kahn

No, it is the prime concern of our government to look out for the welfare of other countries' people, who do not live under democratic rule. That was established with our invasion of Iraq to give them freedom. That was why we went into Iraq, and though 40% of American's don't have health care, Iraqi freedom is more important for me to pay for.

Ash,

As it turns out, I had dinner with Mr. Barone back in January along with some other people in DC - he's a walking encyclopedia of political knowledge. You may disagre with his conclusions, but you denigrate his knowledge at your peril. When he speaks, you should listen.

As for the rest - I find it interesting that President Bush is accused of dodging military service when, in fact, he was in the military...and a rather demanding and dangerous part of it.

Fact is the right-wing was wrong, is wrong, and continues to be wrong. It's time to get out of the way and let the grownups take charge and stop whining about irrelevant unsubstantiatable claims that some democrats "take delight" in the failures of our nation. It that absurdity were true then pray tell why are we so adamant about getting the right-wing losers out of power??

Hey Steve - Bringing Democracy into that hellhole IS in our best interest.

Steve, if every liberal would adopt the health care costs of ONE person - the health care problem would be solved. Multi-millionaire and billionaire liberals like the Kennedy's, Kerry's, Edwards, Clintons, Barbara Streisand, Ms. Huffington, Alec Baldwin and in fact ALL those Hollywood liberals, and the Rockefellers could maybe sponsor more.

Hey - stinkin' rich and selfish - I thought that was supposed to be us Republicans?

Steve, if every liberal would adopt the healthcare costs of ONE person - the healthcare problem would be solved. Multi-millionaire and billionaire liberals like the Kennedy's, Kerry's, Edwards, Clintons, Barbara Streisand, Ms. Huffington, and the Rockefellers could maybe sponsor more. Hey - stinkin rich and selfish - I thought that was supposed to be us Republicans?

-- Kahn, why is it that you conservatives are so dead set against universal healthcare again?

Are you aware that America is virtually the ONLY democracy on Earth that does not provide universal health care? The most wealthy on earth also and you can't even get that right, because conservatism is a HAVE idealogy, you believe that you have the right to healthcare only if you can afford it. If not, you can go die in a ditch for all they care.

Too stupid to realize that if you brought universal health care in, you would be paying a THIRD or less of what you are now in medical premiums. Here in Canada, the average family pays under $1000 a year for their entire family for full medical coverage. Many in the states are paying $5000-10 000 a year for the same thing.

Think of it as another tax cut, all that extra money in your jeans instead of a fat HMO. But you would give that up rather than chance an illegal mexican getting free treatment somewhere because of it.

Government intervention and regulation can be a really good thing, we have far lower health care costs and far lower insurance costs that you do because it is regulated and the insurance companies need to justify their prices. Unregulated provinces like Ontario, charge 500% more for auto insurance that we do here in British Columbia.

You should look around the world once in a while to see what other countries are doing, you might learn a thing or 2. Instead, your overall quality of life is rapidly declining and has been for over 30 years. There are far more countries that rank higher than the U.S. in the world.

Thanks Axis. We have also heard about the long waits for service in Canada and the fact that many people come here for important treatment and surgery they can't wait for.

But who said I was against anything? I simply point out that liberals are free to fix the problem right now if they want. All they have to do is use THEIR money to do it. It's not a foreign concept to us conservatives. The vast majority of charitable donations in the USA comes from conservatives. So, just set up the "liberal health care fund" and have all the rich liberals donate. Problem solved.

Alos, you can volunteer to donate more taxes if you wish. Something else I don't see rich Democrats doing.

But, you really just want to control OTHER peoples money - don't you?

We have also heard about the long waits for service in Canada and the fact that many people come here for important treatment and surgery they can't wait for.

-- I am not saying that it is perfect my friend, there are still hiccups, but it is FAR better than you have. Try being poor in the US and having a heart attack and dying in the ambulance while they figure out if you have insurance and they can take you to the good hospital, or if you don't and they take you clear across town to the free hospital.

The people that come there, are ones waiting for major operations, heart bypasses, transplants etc. Most are well off and will rather pay 100G for a new heart than wait for one.

Kahn, you may not be dead against it, but many Republicans are. Mark for example never wants a good health care system in the US, he wants a HAVE system where he can afford the best coverage and takes comfort in the fact that others are not so lucky. It is an elitest attitude that they always want to have better than the next guy and it bugs them to no end that liberals propose a system that would give equal coverage.

Kahn, a good health care system would cost you a FRACTION of the money you have spent on Iraq, likely less than 10%.

Unfair taxation is a problem, where the wealthiest 1% get all the breaks in America, those gaps and loop holes need to be patched because these people should be paying their fair share and they are not currently.

Axis,

Your example just doesn't happen - what you don't understand is that because we have private health care and voracious trial lawyers, everyone gets the best medical care possible in order to avoid lawsuits which could financially cripple a private medical provider. I don't like trial lawyers, but there is the law of unintended consequences...lawyers both drive up costs, and ensure that better care is provided (which means we need to find a better means of doing this, but there it is).

In Canada, as elsewhere with socialised medicine, you can theoretically be cared for no matter what is wrong with you - but the incentives are different. The government-paid providers get the same amount of money, and bear the same financial risk (zero) for curing you or not curing you. It is not in their best interest to go to the mat for you when you sick - only complete altruism could explain a Canadian health care provider really putting himself out for you if you are ill...without that, the whole incentive is to keep you out as long as possible, and get you out as swift as possible should you get in...and this leads to things like the much higher post-operative death rate in Canadian hospitals...Canada isn't dirtier than the US, but the health care providers just don't have the incentive to do it right.

And then there is the de-facto rationing - the bureaucrats in charge can either provide funds for a sufficient amount of ultra-sound machines, or they can provide funds for pay raises for the bureaucrats in charge. Now, a completely selfless and dedicated bureaucrat would pay for the ultra-sound machines...but the normal, human bureaucrats look out for number one. So, less machines, greater waiting lists for use of those machines - and de-facto rationing via death (people who don't get their ultra-sound fast enough and thus die of an untreated but completely curable disease; death certs are a lot cheaper to the health care system than medical care, don't you see?).

As in all socialistic ideal, socialised medicine is a great theory, but a horrific reality.

Mark,

Look at the numbers (all numbers of industrialized nations 2001):

Infant Mortality:

Maternal Deaths per/100,000: 17 Tied for worst, with France.

% of newborns with low birth-weight: 8% Tied for worst with UK, Japan, Belgium

Elderly:

Life expectancy at birth: 77.1 Worst

Life expectancy at 60: 81.6 Second to Worst under UK and tied with Germany

Avg. years spent in poor health: 9.4 Second worst to Canada at 9.6

So we are consistently at the bottom of all ranking of health for our younf and old, yet we outspend everyone, with about 13.6% of GDP, compared to roughly 7-9% for the rest of industrialized nations. Americans spend $5267/per capita which is about double the rest of the industrialized nations of the world, yet we still have the worst healthcare, even though medicare has lower overheads than HMOs and private-payer services. So how do you explain how we can spend so much, yet get so little?

*WHO numbers from 2002

It must be the lawyers who kill us so soon, is that it?

Your example just doesn't happen - what you don't understand is that because we have private health care and voracious trial lawyers, everyone gets the best medical care possible in order to avoid lawsuits which could financially cripple a private medical provider.

-- Mark, if you ever ventured out of your bubble like existance, you would see that that is exactly what is happening. People die everyday from not being able to afford medical care. People go bankrupt everyday from not being able to afford the $200 000 bill from the hospital when hubby had a heart attack.

People without insurance cannot sue for not taking them for free. You are speaking of HMO controlled hospitals, where people sue for malpractice. Poor people have no rights to sue for malpractice for not caring for them without payment.

The problem happened when you allowed CAPITALISM to infect basic core things, like medical industry. Doctors can charge whatever they like, so can hospitals. You have no cap on malpractice, so lawyers can sue for as much as they want. Doctors can make as much as they want.

Thats the problem mark. Regulate the industry, cap the doctor fees, cap the malpractice, cap the hospital fees.

Peoples lives have more value than the dollars it takes to care for them Mark. You, an anti-abortion nut do not see this? You are against abortion because life is sacred, yet have no issues with allowing people to die needlessly because of a greedy HMO?

In Canada, as elsewhere with socialised medicine, you can theoretically be cared for no matter what is wrong with you - but the incentives are different. The government-paid providers get the same amount of money, and bear the same financial risk (zero) for curing you or not curing you.

-- Partially true, but we can still sue for malpractice here as well, so there is the same incentive to treat you well.

only complete altruism could explain a Canadian health care provider really putting himself out for you if you are ill...without that, the whole incentive is to keep you out as long as possible, and get you out as swift as possible should you get in...and this leads to things like the much higher post-operative death rate in Canadian hospitals...Canada isn't dirtier than the US, but the health care providers just don't have the incentive to do it right.

-- Not without its hiccups, as I said, some things still fall through the cracks. But I would rather walk across the street knowing that if I got hit my a car, I would be treated in the nearest hospital, instead of worrying that I would be left to die on the street or in an ambulance driving an extra 50 miles to the free hospital.

I know many people that don't have proper medical coverage and they live in fear of something happening every day.

It must be the lawyers who kill us so soon, is that it?

-- No, its the media's fault always reporting on the dead man left to die in the ambulance while on route to the next county to the free hospital.

Show me the dead Canadians!
The U.S. healthcare system is a national disgrace -- to deny it just makes you look ridiculous.
As for the "long waits" for coverage we've all heard the same BS about the Brit's sytem too -- though Brits I know claim that is simply not true.
An aquaintance of mine who did his graduate work in England told me, "When I went to the doctor, they didn't even have a method to bill me -- 'I guess this one will just be on Mr. Blair' they told me." Contrast that to an American hospital that wants to see your insurance card while you are about to pass out from pain, oh and while you're at it -- "please fill out this form rating your pain on a scale of one to ten."

There is only ONE reason I can think of as to why the democrats have so much hate for America..........

Which of course is the ONE and ONLY Reason...Satan himself...........

Satan does not want to see ANYTHING GOOD to HAPPEN..........

Democrat's are just like satan, they are protesting against and trying to stop the fight for freedom of a tyrranized and oppressed country like Iraq, and that's what satan wants to happen, he wants tyranny by some insane dude like zarquawi...........

DEMOCRATS HAVE NO FAITH IN GOD, BUT IN MAN....

AND MAN WITHOUT GOD CAN DO NOTHING.........

BECAUSE- MANS" DEEDS- WITHOUT GOD- ARE WORTHLESS."

As long as the babies are being murdered,sodomy is condoned, and God is taken out, the democrat's are happy................

But I would send a message to the liberal democrats.....................

from the book of James-2:14-26, 1:19-27

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did When he offered his son Isaac on the Altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, And it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called Gods friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

(before and After you have received christ)

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. Therefore, get rid of* all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faltless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

1 peter 1:24,25-2:1-3

"For,"

""All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.""

"And this is the word that was preached to you."

"Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander* of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good."

So democrats! with these scriptures heard.

Stop the hatred!! and do like us christian's and President George Bush, by showing his faith by deeds, we don't hate you!!

!DEMOCRATS!
show a little kindness to the world by rescuing them from the hands of terrorists!

SHOW IRAQ THAT YOU CARE TOO!!!

!DEMOCRATS!
SHOW YOUR DEEDS THROUGH SOME GRATTITUDE & FRIENDSHIP TOWARD YOUR FELLOW CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVES!!!!!!

Jeremiah

Axis,

And why should a doctor have his fees capped?

You see, what you've got yourself mixed up on is whether or not health care is a commodity, or a right...its a commodity, axis.

You have no right to demand that a person - a doctor - cure you; he will if he wishes, but doesn't have to...and if he's to receive either no or a very limited reward for exercising his dearly bought expertise, then he's going to exercise that expertise minimally.

A right is something that you, as an individual, can do on your own - you can't do brain surgery on yourself, so brain surgery isn't a right...its a privilege...and its either going to be a privilege of wealth, or a privilege of political connections. I'd prefer it be a privilege of wealth - it being much easier to build wealth than to build political connections.

There are two ways to get good health care - have an altruistic doctor, or pay a good doctor to do well by you. It'd be nice if all medical professionals were altruistic, but they aren't and never will be - so, we have to flash some cash at them to get the care we want.

Salve,

You don't wait long to, say, have a cut stitched up...but when it comes to things like a trible bypass or a liver transplant, the whole system is designed to wait you out until you die. Heck, in some socialised medical systems they are actually moving towards denying care for people who don't meet what the health care bureaucracy considers a healthy lifestyle...eat too much fatty foods, go to the bottom of the list.

I can't get you to understand this unless you are willing to understand that a government employee simply will not care if you live or die - they are only interested in doing the least amount of work for the highest compensation possible. This is true of government employees worldwide and throughout human history - the incentives to perform well just aren't there. It is, in the end, why we have elections for the top officials...to make certain there is at least someone in there who has an incentive to make things work at least a little bit.

The longest I've ever waited for care is a couple hours - the most I've ever paid for a prescription or a procedure is $50.00. When I got a pain in my abdomen in November of 2003, I was able to get an MRI less than 24 hours after the first pang (it turned out to be a blockage in my intestine, but didn't require surgery to correct). Our health care is great, and I always feel that I'm dealing with people who have an incentive to treat me well.

Jeremiah,

I tried for over two days to post a reply to your question about Webster and democracy, but the B4B server would not and will not let me.

I also tried to catch up with you on some other threads where you had posted, but the B4B server said no to that too!

I'll wait until another thread where the topic is more appropriate to try posting my comments again.

I hope you are still checking in on this thread to get my message.

AAR

Hey AAR,

Just checked in. I read your post.

Good deal!

Jeremiah