hugo

Health Care Bill. Not a George Bush move. It was GW's expansion of Medicare that made Obamacare possible.

My choice is Rand Paul with Rubio as VP. Palin can be the village idiot.

Who is ‘Fascist’? By Thomas Sowell http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss. Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis. This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time — and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized. Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini. The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools. Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run. They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States. Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate. Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left. Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics." Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain. Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s. W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers. Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order." As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past." In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions. Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs. Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" — indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism. If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today. The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.

I might buy one and send it to merc for X-mas.

•91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs; Did not help much and given the increase in the national debt that may well be the longterm result •72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit; Yes, it will. If not in the first decade the second. •72 percent believed the economy is getting worse; Anemic growth, lprospects looking somewhat better after the November elections. •60 percent believed climate change is not occurring; Climate change is always occurring. Even before man was on this planet. •49 percent believed income taxes have gone up; Sooner or later deficits gotta be paid for. Right now we are throwing the burden on our kids. •63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts; They are wrong there •56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout; Dick (Tater) Cheney gets the blame here •38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP; 38% of people are stupid in any poll. •63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear). It is unclear from even mainstream media sources. This convinces me of his birth in Hawaii. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

Momma McCann better hope there is no God who punishes the wicked.

Too much information.

Life is too short for this BS. Can someone please PM me and tell me what is up with Neal. He is (was?) a damn decent human being which is more than I can say for some.

Why that is a bad idea, Walter Williams:

After further thought I gotta change my mind. Tax increases at the beginning of the year would have been a disaster. We must get spending under control in the next congress. This has to be the last stimulus package. Need to overhaul the whole tax system soon.

Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul Buzz up!0 votes ShareretweetEmailPrint AP – President Barack Obama pauses during a statement on the tax cut bill at the White House on Monday, Dec. … Slideshow:Health Care Play Video U.S. Courts Video:Judge strikes down federal health care law AP Play Video U.S. Courts Video:Cuccinelli: Health Care 'Overstepping' The Constitution ABC News By MARK SHERMAN and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Mark Sherman And Erica Werner, Associated Press – 2 mins ago WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled, agreeing with the argument of Virginia's Republican attorney general — and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January. Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration. "An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush. Nevertheless, the White House predicted it would prevail in the Supreme Court, although it may be a year or two before the health care law gets there. The next step for the Virginia lawsuit is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where Democratic-appointed judges hold a majority. In an interview with television station WFLA in Tampa, Fla., on Monday, Obama emphasized that other judges had either found the law constitutional or dismissed lawsuits against it. "Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," Obama said. "You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things." But in the short term, the latest court ruling hands potent ammunition to GOP opponents as they prepare to assert control in the new Congress with promises to repeal the law. Obama in turn has promised to veto any repeal legislation and appears likely to be able to prevail since Democrats retain control of the Senate. Republicans also have discussed trying to starve the law of funding. Whatever the eventual outcome, Monday's ruling could create uncertainty around the administration's efforts to gradually put into effect the landmark legislation extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. And it can only increase the public's skepticism, which has not significantly receded in the months since the law's enactment, defying Obama's prediction that it would become more popular as the public got to know it. Obama aides said implementation would not be affected, noting that the individual insurance requirement and other major portions of the legislation don't take effect until 2014. Underscoring the potential for Hudson's ruling to become a political cudgel for the new Republican House majority, incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly cautioned states against "investing time and resources in Obamacare's implementation now that its central mandate has been ruled unconstitutional." "Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that's what we're going to do," said Boehner. Calls to repeal the law were a staple of tea party campaign rallies this year. Other lawsuits are going forward, including one by 20 states that gets under way Thursday in Florida. That suit also challenges whether the federal government can require states to expand their Medicaid programs. The suit that was decided on Monday had gained a high profile because it was pursued by Virginia's outspoken attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. The two earlier cases decided in favor of the administration were brought by little-known legal entities. In his ruling, Hudson largely agreed with Cuccinelli's argument that Congress exceeded its authority, and he dismissed the Justice Department's argument that the insurance-buying requirement would come under the definition of regulating interstate commerce, a power given to Congress by the Constitution. The mandate for people to buy insurance "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," the judge said. Hudson limited his ruling to striking down the so-called individual mandate, leaving intact other portions of the law — something supporters cast as a victory. But administration officials and outside analysts agree that important provisions of the legislation could not go forward without the requirement for everyone to be insured. That's because insurers need to have large pools of healthy people, who are cheap to insure, or it is not financially tenable for them to extend coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or guarantee certain policies to nearly all comers. Some provisions of the law took effect in September, six months after its passage, including free preventive care, an elimination of lifetime limits on coverage and a requirement for insurers to allow adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Hudson recognized that his would not be the last word on the subject. "The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court," he wrote. White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges — in Virginia and Michigan — who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling. In contrast to Hudson's ruling, the judges in Michigan and Virginia, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the purchase requirement was allowable under the Constitution. ___ Associated Press writer Larry O'Dell contributed to this report

The bill is fiscally irresponsible. Noone should support it. The whole tax system must be overhauled.

Congratulations.

• American Indian---482/480 (962) • Asian American-----575/508 (1083) • African American-----426/431 (857) • Puerto Rican----457/448 (905) Other Hispanic----464/457 (921) • White-----534/529 (1063) • Other ----513/501 (1014) Us whiteys ain't doing bad.

Rank Country Science Reading Maths 1 Finland 563 547 548 2 Canada 534 527 527 3 Japan 531 498 523 4 New Zealand 530 521 522 5 Australia 527 513 520 6 Netherlands 525 507 531 7 Korea 522 556 547 8 Germany 516 495 504 9 United Kingdom 515 495 495 10 Czech Republic1 513 483 510 11 Switzerland 512 499 530 12 Austria 511 490 505 13 Belgium 510 501 520 14 Ireland 508 517 501 15 Hungary 504 482 491 16 Sweden 503 507 502 17 OECD average 500 492 498 18 Poland1 498 508 495 19 Denmark 496 494 513 20 France 495 488 496 21 Iceland 491 484 506 22 United States 489 .. 474 23 Slovak Republic 488 466 492 24 Spain 488 461 480 25 Norway 487 484 490 26 Luxembourg 486 479 490 27 Russian Federation 479 440 476 28 Italy 475 469 462 29 Portugal1 474 472 466 30 Greece 473 460 459 31 Turkey1 424 447 424 32 Mexico 410 410 406 33 Brazil1 390 393 370 In the era of globalization being poorly educated ain't good for individuals or nations.

Do the progressives realize that Queen Nancy is soon to be dethroned and that Obama has to deal with a Republican House? If he wanted to extend unemployment benefits it was his only choice. Sadly, it looks like we have returned to the Bush era of borrow and spend. The right gets their tax cuts and the left gets their government programs.

PC GONE MAD. Profiling is one tool. That is quite effective in identifyimg potential perpetrators. In our current era there is a civil war within Islam that we have stupidly decided to engage in this makes us a target of fundamentalist Muslims. Yes. we need to profile them and need to give them some extra attention. If they do not like it they need to combat the loons who are responsible for their plight, i.e. the terrorists themselves. Edited to add TJ style insult: So, junior, when you get out of you're diapers you might understand the importance of profiling.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/airport_security_108037.html The concluding paragraphs on the above link:

Bullshit, it is a fact, not a theory, that Arabic males are more likely to engage in terrorism, You have to keep a closer eye on them.

You really hate black people.

A nurse is probably responsible. Could be a Canadian.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted. You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not. What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet, Calm your heels there, Hugo. I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up. And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job. Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was. The kind of answer you would expect from a communist.

Sums up the problem:

There are two single veterans at work who are eligible for free government run healthcare. They both pay for health insurance. I wonder why? Probably the same reason people send their kids to private schools.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted. You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not. What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,