1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 23, 2014 8:37 AM
"They don't have evil intents..." It seems you have forgotten about abortion.
Thomas reports that Drs. are starting to withhold treatment based on cost. They apparently are doing this based on pressure from above them. The term for this is "death panels." Some bureaucrat somewhere up the food chain decides who lives and who dies. Sarah Palin warned of this long ago, but the progs keep telling us she's an idiot. Of course, Sarah didn't have to be Einstein to figure this out. It happens in every country with government health care. When you have only a certain amount of money to go around, not everybody can have everything. This is true under every system. The difference with government health care is that Barack Hussein Obozo (mm...mm...mm) gets to decide who gets the treatment and who doesn't, rather than the market and personal choice.
In response to:

Why Are The Poor, Poor?

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 19, 2014 10:16 AM
What a load of communist bee ess! Simple fact: poverty in the USA correlates almost completely with single-parent families. It is well-known that to avoid poverty in the US, you need to: (1) finish high school; (2) get married and stay married; (3) have no kids until you are married. Do those three, and you will not be poor. It is that simple. If poverty were the fault of our economic system (capitalism), as you claim, you could not avoid poverty by keeping your pants zipped until after you are married.
I suppose it would be even worse with abc if the kid was a Kennedy. They'd probably skip the royalty part and declare the kid a deity. But this is extremely offensive. It isn't just a gaffe. Not that it would ever happen, but the Klintons should call out abc on this one. We don't have royalty in this country. Of course, abc is doing two things by proclaiming the baby as "royal": they are looking fondly back to the days of stained dresses in the Oval Office, and looking forward to the Hildebeest's election in 2016, which the consider assured. And that is even more offensive than calling the Klintons "royalty."
In response to:

Overtaxed and Underpaid

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 1:22 PM
Good ideas, I suppose, but unless I missed it, Santorum missed the single most important thing that could be done to help the economy: repeal Obozocare. No one is hiring anyone (at least not for full-time work) because of the bloated cost of Obozocare. That should be put into the context of getting rid of a huge part of all federal regulations. I'm not a libertarian who opposes all regulation, but a great part of fed regulations are far out of date, and another huge part is far past the point where diminishing returns make them worthwhile. As bad as our tax code is, I believe that the regulations are even more destructive.
You apparently don't get the meaning of "Congress shall make NO LAW." All of the rules that determine whether churches can act politically or not are unconstitutional because they infringe on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The IRS code does not trump the Constitution, Get it? When the IRS code is used to determine what can be said from the pulpit of any church, synagogue, mosque, you name it, it's unconstitutional. Period.
No. Period. The IRS rule that forbids politicking in churches is blatantly unconstitutional. It openly and directly violates the first amendment twice: it violates freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Under the first amendment, if a pastor wants to say from his pulpit that the congregation must vote for candidate X or spend eternity in Hades, he might be a fool, but he has every right under the constitution to do so. The first amendment begins with ":Congress shall make NO law..." "No law" means NO law. This IRS rule was pushed into law in the 1950's by an astoundingly corrupt member of Congress from Texas named Lyndon Baines Johnson, who wasw mad that a certain clergyman back home opposed him.
In response to:

The Great Divide in America

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 13, 2014 2:21 PM
Bialosky: " He went on to invoke the two issues that burn in every liberal’s heart – global warming and abortion..." Bialosky is right, those two issues seem the heart of the prog agenda. Abortion has been there at least since the 60's, and global warming has joined their short list in the last 25 years. Abortion is nothing more that the murder of innocent unborn human beings. As such, it is evil, and irredeemably so. (Note that I did not say that abortionISTS are irredeemable.) Global warming is a lie in the simplest sense: there hasn't been any for 16 or 17 years, when one looks at average global temps. So the computer models that the Algorians rely on for their doomsday positions are wrong. And lying is EVIL. So, the prog agenda is evil. And some might wonder why I oppose progressivism or liberalism or whatever they want to call it these days.
In response to:

Will China Dominate the 21st Century?

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 12, 2014 2:52 PM
China's economy will stagnate when their one-child policy causes their population to age to the point where the primary purpose of their economy is taking care of the elderly. The same thing happened in Japan, though not by government fiat. The Japanese have so few children that recently the sale of adult diapers (Depends, etc.) exceeded the sale of infant diapers. In the '80's lots of people were saying that the Japanese would take over everything. They were sunk by demographics: the primary purpose of their economy is now taking care of the elderly. Such an economy does not grow.. What happened in Japan will also happen in China, only more quickly and more violently, as the population ages even more quickly. So I don't see China dominating the 21st century.
In response to:

A Republican Vision for Health Reform

tgwWhale Wrote: Apr 12, 2014 2:04 AM
By the way, if you don't think these reforms would reduce costs severely, take you dog or cat in for some serious surgery and see how much cheaper it is. In December my cat had her spleen removed. The entire cost -- including all tests and medications -- was about $1K. It would have been many times that if she had been a person instead of a cat. Part of the reason pet healthcare is cheaper than human healthcare is that we most properly use more safeguards when dealing with people. But far more important is the fact that most people do not sue over a cat.
1 - 10 Next