Who's fault is it that "they" cant afford insurance?
All theirs obviously. It's their fault if a private equity from wall street came in and bought the company they worked in. After all, it was the equity's right to start juicing the revenue, taking on the company lots of debt to increase the return on the investment, maybe even to pay themselves a generous "management fee". It's a pity that now the company has to "trim down all the fat" to keep up with intrest payments and all healthcare benefits can no longer be afforded. It's their fault if they went in a bank to ask for, well paid for, financial advice. It is not illegal for a bank to make all that hard-earned money disappear if they operate in "good will". On the bright side, incidentally, the bank was betting against them in all of those complex financial assets, so they made lots of money! After all, if you don't have an MBA it is the duty of any true capitalist to exploit your financial illiteracy.
edit: Joking aside it is not the place to start a new public healthcare flame. But, I have to say, it really is funny from an european prospective to see that some americans don't really know what freedom is. Or, to be more precise, what policies free the "common man" and what policies enrich only the wealthy.
On October 09 2011 02:11 Holey wrote: Ron Paul! we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol
I don't know. Some thing he says are good, but he always goes so far. In addition if he still maintains positions he holds back in the 80's (and I suspect he does as he's pretty consistent on small government), the I have some serious disagreements with his ideas and even his argument methodology.
There's this debate/discussion between Ron Paul and William Buckley F Jr, where Paul was discussing how he wanted to close down the FBI and the CIA. But his reasons for it where that the FBI wasn't needed for the first century and shouldn't be needed now (completely ignoring the issues that led to the creation of the FBI- modern transportation making hopping out of individual state jurisdiction super easy.) And the reason for rolling the CIA into military intelligence is that it does terrible things. And Buckley kept noting that Paul had problems with the implementation and policy of the current organizations, but what's to stop the military intelligence from enacting the same policies? That is Paul's reasons are on policy/ management, but concludes that the actual issue is the organization.
Love em or hate em, I do wish there'd be more discussion like between Buckley and Paul.
On October 09 2011 02:11 Holey wrote: Ron Paul! we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol
I don't know. Some thing he says are good, but he always goes so far. In addition if he still maintains positions he holds back in the 80's (and I suspect he does as he's pretty consistent on small government), the I have some serious disagreements with his ideas and even his argument methodology.
There's this debate/discussion between Ron Paul and William Buckley F Jr, where Paul was discussing how he wanted to close down the FBI and the CIA. But his reasons for it where that the FBI wasn't needed for the first century and shouldn't be needed now (completely ignoring the issues that led to the creation of the FBI- modern transportation making hopping out of individual state jurisdiction super easy.) And the reason for rolling the CIA into military intelligence is that it does terrible things. And Buckley kept noting that Paul had problems with the implementation and policy of the current organizations, but what's to stop the military intelligence from enacting the same policies? That is Paul's reasons are on policy/ management, but concludes that the actual issue is the organization.
Love em or hate em, I do wish there'd be more discussion like between Buckley and Paul.
Buckley? You mean the guy who was on the payroll(CIA)? Just got home couldn't resist!
Ron's speech at the National Press Club recently featured a Q+A after the speech. I support his ideas. It's tough to not respect a pol who believes what he says, not what he's been told.
Buckley? You mean the guy who was on the payroll(CIA)? Just got home couldn't resist!
Which means absolutely nothing... Buckley is responsible for the regeneration of intellectual conservatism after the war (WW2).
Ron Paul would be an obscure Congressman from Texas at best, if even that, if it wasn't for William F. Buckley. There would have been no ideologically libertarian Goldwater revolution without Buckley. So please don't shit on the man just because he dared disagree with the Great Doctor Paul.
I think Chris Wallace may have just driven a dagger into the heart of Rick Santorum this morning on Fox News Sunday, not that Santorum was going anywhere anyway. Santorum was awful during the interview.
Buckley? You mean the guy who was on the payroll(CIA)? Just got home couldn't resist!
Which means absolutely nothing... Buckley is responsible for the regeneration of intellectual conservatism after the war (WW2).
Ron Paul would be an obscure Congressman from Texas at best, if even that, if it wasn't for William F. Buckley. There would have been no ideologically libertarian Goldwater revolution without Buckley. So please don't shit on the man just because he dared disagree with the Great Doctor Paul.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think is the primary driver of intellectual conservatism today? I think of all of the people at National Review, The Weekly Standard, and even Krauthammer, and none of them strike me as being the mantle bearer. For better or for worse, the name that does come to mind is Rush Limbaugh.
On October 09 2011 02:11 Holey wrote: Ron Paul! we all know why we want him to get elected ^^ lol
So that sick people will die untreated in their homes because they can't afford healthcare ^^ lol
If that is what you wish, then you will have the freedom to do so.
If not, buy insurance.
How much is American insurance anyhow?
Depends. Typically it starts at around 200/person and goes up from there. If you have something pre-existing, such as hypertension or diabetes, forget about it. No one will insure you or if they do, it'll start at ludicrous prices like 1500/month.
That's why having a job that provides healthcare is so important because then you can get covered with pre-existing conditions as well as pay much less per month in premiums. For a family of 4, you'll pay about 100/month with your employer picking the rest up. That's far better than the 800-1200 it normally would be.
Buckley? You mean the guy who was on the payroll(CIA)? Just got home couldn't resist!
Which means absolutely nothing... Buckley is responsible for the regeneration of intellectual conservatism after the war (WW2).
Ron Paul would be an obscure Congressman from Texas at best, if even that, if it wasn't for William F. Buckley. There would have been no ideologically libertarian Goldwater revolution without Buckley. So please don't shit on the man just because he dared disagree with the Great Doctor Paul.
Buckley is a paid troll, my opinion. as far as being responsible for the resurgence. Arguable till the cows come home.
Russell Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post–World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.
Buckley's job was as a media hitman. Call him the terminator of idea's that threaten the establishment.
@BioNova- and his involvement in the CIA has really nothing to do with his argument which was that Paul is confusing policy for organization. And more generally, that if Paul was ever elected if he really could create the sort of changes he talks about, the changes would be far too drastic and deep- losing the FBI would be a big step back in law enforcement. However, somehow I think that Paul just like Obama would find Washington a little too difficult to change.
@xDaunt You're probably right, which is really unfortunate that Buckley has been replaced by the likes of Limbaugh.
On October 10 2011 02:07 Falling wrote: @BioNova- and his involvement in the CIA has really nothing to do with his argument which was that Paul is confusing policy for organization. And more generally, that if Paul was ever elected if he really could create the sort of changes he talks about, the changes would be far too drastic and deep- losing the FBI would be a big step back in law enforcement. However, somehow I think that Paul just like Obama would find Washington a little too difficult to change.
@xDaunt You're probably right, which is really unfortunate that Buckley has been replaced by the likes of Limbaugh.
Such a dated interview is hardly relevant in today's scene. It's not that world anymore. In terms of clarification. In today's world Ron Paul= current granddaddy of conservatism Buckley = Neo-conservatism. A big big difference.
Paul's most controversial positions could NOT be enacted without congressional support. His best positions, such as bring our boys home? I guess we'll never know. Buckley was one the smartest, well equipped writers the world has seen in the modern age. I'm not foolish, but Buckley was a political mutant. Conservatism blended with liberalism. He almost demolished pure conservatism as it was known. Kirk's ten commandments.
Buckley near the end of his life shifted quite a bit. Drug legalization and such. Just hard for me to ignore the taint.
Edit: Taint- for example Peter King's hypocrasy and his terrorist witch-hearings. Hello!!!
The next debate is tomorrow night and will be hosted by Bloomberg and the Washington Post. My understanding is that this debate will be 100% devoted to economic issues.
On October 11 2011 01:22 xDaunt wrote: The next debate is tomorrow night and will be hosted by Bloomberg and the Washington Post. My understanding is that this debate will be 100% devoted to economic issues.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think is the primary driver of intellectual conservatism today? I think of all of the people at National Review, The Weekly Standard, and even Krauthammer, and none of them strike me as being the mantle bearer. For better or for worse, the name that does come to mind is Rush Limbaugh.
Are you sure you're really a conservative when you say something like that
Rush Limbaugh is a talk radio show host
Meanwhile you have places like CATO, Reason, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the University of Chicago (economics school), etc.
Honestly
Buckley is a paid troll, my opinion.
Yes well Mr. Buckley is first of all deceased and second of all it is statements like the one above that strip you of credibility.
as far as being responsible for the resurgence. Arguable till the cows come home.
I'm sorry but no. The question has already been answered. It is not a matter of opinion for you to be petulant about. The question was raised in the forties and answered in the fifties and sixties by Mr. Buckley. It is not arguable at all as to what he did.
Now if you want to talk about the situation today by all means feel free to do so, but the question of whether Buckley caused a rebirth of intellectual conservatism 50 years ago. starting with God and Man at Yale, is one that has a definite answer.
Russell Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post–World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.
George H. Nash, a historian of the modern American conservative movement, believed that Buckley was "arguably the most important public intellectual in the United States in the past half century... For an entire generation, he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure."[6] Buckley's primary gift to politics was a fusion of traditional American political conservatism with laissez-faire economic theory and anti-communism, laying groundwork for the new American conservatism of U.S. presidential candidates Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan.
Kirk didn't define what were the respectable boundaries of the movement the way Buckley did with National Review, either. Kirk also did not have 33 years on Firing Line, which undoubtedly helped raise Buckley's position to a preeminent one on the Right.
Buckley's job was as a media hitman. Call him the terminator of idea's that threaten the establishment.
Oh dear. It appears that you don't know that Buckley was the one questioning the New Deal establishment. Up to and including the day he died.
Such a dated interview is hardly relevant in today's scene. It's not that world anymore. In terms of clarification. In today's world Ron Paul= current granddaddy of conservatism Buckley = Neo-conservatism. A big big difference.
roflmao
Buckley was a lukewarm neo-conservative at best, I suggest you go re-read his commentaries of the last decade.
In today's world, Ron Paul = claimed grandaddy of conservatism and true patriotism. Everyone else is a traitor to freedom.
No wonder people resist him when anyone who does not 100% support the Good Doctor Paul and his personality cult is presented with a Rand-style Manichean ultimatum, where we can be absolved of all our sins and become Holy Warriors for Freedom if we choose Ron Paul, or we can be warmongering fascist slavemasters if we don't.
This is America, we are not of a people of personality cults or One True Paths to Anything.
Paul's most controversial positions could NOT be enacted without congressional support. His best positions, such as bring our boys home? I guess we'll never know. Buckley was one the smartest, well equipped writers the world has seen in the modern age. I'm not foolish, but Buckley was a political mutant. Conservatism blended with liberalism. He almost demolished pure conservatism as it was known. Kirk's ten commandments.
I'm sure that's what Lew Rockwell says.
Buckley near the end of his life shifted quite a bit. Drug legalization and such. Just hard for me to ignore the taint.
Then why is it so easy for you to ignore the racist, homophobic taint of the Ron Paul Freedom Report / Political Report / "Survival Guide"?
I'm just wondering. Is it because he's the granddaddy of the one true conservatism and the one true patriotism, that it was okay for him and Lew Rockwell to pander to white supremacists?
Just out of curiosity, who do you think is the primary driver of intellectual conservatism today? I think of all of the people at National Review, The Weekly Standard, and even Krauthammer, and none of them strike me as being the mantle bearer. For better or for worse, the name that does come to mind is Rush Limbaugh.
Are you sure you're really a conservative when you say something like that
Rush Limbaugh is a talk radio show host
Meanwhile you have places like CATO, Reason, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the University of Chicago (economics school), etc.
Honestly
None of those think-tank entities are particularly visible or have any members who strike me as being "drivers of the debate."
Yes, Limbaugh is a talk radio host, but he is incredibly visible, definitely drives the debate, and, perhaps most importantly, articulates conservatism in a way that is very easy to understand. If Limbaugh isn't Buckley's successor, who is?
- Chris Christie has endorsed Romney, which is unsurprising to me. We'll see if this helps Romney get more than the 20-25% of the vote that he's been consistently garnering thus far.
- Most polls show Cain running competitively with Romney. At some point, the candidates are going to turn their guns on Cain. We'll see if it starts tonight.
- Perry's poll numbers have slipped significantly over the past month, largely as a function of his poor debate appearances. He's been "all hat and no cattle." Perry has been laying low the past couple of weeks, likely preparing for tonight's debate. If he has another poor showing, it may be curtains for him. That said, tonight's debate will be devoted entirely to economic issues, which should be right in his wheelhouse. Presuming that the immigration issue does not come up, Perry should be able to get away from his major baggage at least for tonight.
Is this the Rich Lowry that Herman Cain was talking about? http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56473/bio to me he looks like a pundit, I haven't found anything about him being an economist
EPT
