Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Hey, fb.......why don't you ho ahead and PROVE that $5.6 trillion dollar number? Come on......put up or shut up. Show us all these credible sources that disagree with the the governments own websites.

Come on, hotshot.....show us what ya got.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

"But even so that would not be enough because they would next be calling for nationalized Healthcare which would shift another 20 cents of each dollar to the government leaving the private economy with only 30 cents or so."

Amazing that anyone would complain about the fear of nationalized health care, when lack of it is what makes ours the most expensive in the world by far, and the least effective among advanced nations. The increase in federal spending would be more than offset by a greater drop in healthcare spending paid to current the pay-or-die healthcare system. If that does not happen, as inevitably Blurry will claim, it will be the first time socialized health care has failed to reduce costs. It will buck the trend set in every other country.

fbluhm Loc: San Antonio, TX

Bush used the WMDs excuse to go to war.

fbluhm Loc: San Antonio, TX

If Bush got on here and admitted to it, you still wouldn't believe it.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Please, tell me it is a Michael Moore movie, I guess that you would like to forget that even before Bush took office that Clinton was telling us that Hussein must be stopped. I guess that you would also care to forget that the congress authorized Bush to use Military force against Hussein. You would probably also like to forget the size of the international coalition that Bush was able to put together to execute that war.... Having said all that the war was a mistake and it was not the only mistake that Bush made during his presidency, but lord please, I thank my lucky star, the one I keep right here in my pocket that it was Bush in the Oval office and not Obama..... I will concede that given the spending that Bush was incurring that he should have done something about revenue sources, not only was he prosecuting the two wars and creating a new entitlement in Medicare but he also created the Department of Home Land Security but greatly expanded the NSA..... Personally I have a lot of problems with all of this.. but that is another topic all together.

I would love to hear more about this $5.6 trillion dollar surplus, I have given a fair amount of study to the federal budgets spending more hours than I would care to admit reviewing information from the CBO and other governmental sources regarding the Federal budget and somehow this surplus has escaped me....

So please, provide us with some of your sources to back up your claim or can we assume that you are spouting off about something that you thought that you knew.

The best thing about a debate such as this one is when you leave them with knowledge that you did not have before the debate started so I am very interested in learning more about this surplus.

pjferrante, I would love to hear you speak up on this topic as you seem to so wholeheartedly agree with him.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

Marbclear: "Talking to Mr. Blurry is a waste of time for a reasonable person. Anyone who has spent as much time as he has on these conversations obviously needs to get a life."

Nagy: This is not fair. One can say the same about anyone with whose statements he does not agree, or who makes a large number of posts. As a matter of fact, Blurry seems to have been silent on UHH for a while, only breaking out prolifically today. Besides, if that is how he chooses to spend his time, how can you say that is not a life?

Marbclear: "I have not found anything he says to be either truthful or enlightened."

Nagy: While I share your frustration with the man, this is also not a fair statement. Blurry knows history exceptionally well. If that were not the case he could not post as proliferously as he has, yet still make many historical references. Moreover, when the truth suits his conclusion, he has no issue with invoking it. As a matter of fact, he admits to the truth even if it does not suit his conclusions, but is ingenious at crafting rhetoric pretending it shows the opposite of what it does.

Marbclear: He is stuck in some sort of time warp where he thinks what he says is informed. I suspect he is a very unhappy person and we should all probably feel sorry for him rather than try to engage him in any kind of reasonable dialogue.

Nagy: I regret you descended to this statement. Blurry's brand of right wing punditry shows no more or less about how happy he is than anyone else making posts on either side of any issue. We are not justified in making a psychiatric evaluation based on his fierce defense of all right wing atrocities. I would feel sorry for the man if he believed his right wing swill, even though he does not benefit from it. It appears, however, that he is or has been a business owner who indeed does benefit from most of the agenda he espouses. I therefore feel sorry for the ordinary people whom he sways because they believe that he is for the common good, instead for the good of the economic elite.

Marbclear: I have to admit I have given in to my baser instincts and responded to his foolishness too many times. He is infuriating to say the least and completely ignorant about anything outside his own realm of self absorbtion.

Nagy: Completely ignorant? Hardly. He is one of the most knowledgable UHH-ers on either side of the political spectrum. That is what makes him so annoying; it takes work to point out the flaws in his arguments, because doing so requires knowing about or finding out about the plethora of facts he uses in support of his ideas. It is far easier to deal with thinly supported speciousness. Blurry presents very heavily supported speciousness.

ceallachain Loc: Cape May, NJ

I put my responses in RED and enlarged the print in case UHH doesn't pick up the colored font.

So lets go through your post, and remember mine was in response to another post so we may find that you are a little off base even if what you said was true.

What I said about Ike, conservatives have no problems investing in our country, what we do have a problem with is a broken system that spends trillions with poor results and the left instead of working to fix the system they simply call for more taxes and more spending to fix a broken system... Ike was a republican president and he did authorize the interstate highway spending and he also created NASA there is no half truth about that. The fact that you state that Ike was I guess not conservative enough to be considered a conservative is baseless. Why is it baseless. Do you really think Ike would support what is happening today. This is the man who brought DeGaulle and Monty together to fight a war. The man who sent troops to Little Rock AK. The same man who sent Earl Warren to the Supreme Court. Conservatives will spend money and raise taxes if it advances the country. Only if it also increases the wealth of the already rich. I as a conservative have no problem with the GI bill even though I am unsure why you bought it into the discussion as it was FDR who was responsible for the bill. It was part of the Depression discussion as to why things improved.
As a conservative I don't claim Kennedy who did challenge us to go to the moon, just reminding liberals that it was not Kennedy who had the foresight to start NASA, it was Ike. Again, Ike did it mainly as a strategic effort within the real of the Cold War. According to the premise of this article maybe I should claim Kennedy because if you read some of his speeches it is very clear that he was fiscally conservative, much more so than George W Bush. You allude to him spending billions in the blink of an eye... things were different back then and the country's budgets were in much better shape, Not really there was a recession going on during the mid-50s. But your point about “things we’re different is important, and we all need to keep that in mind.Kennedy was able to reduce taxes while spending all those billions you elude to and still lower our debt.

WWII. You state "Again you’re half right. It wasn’t just the war itself that got us out of the depression. It was more the aftermath. The Marshal Plan saving Eastern Europe (Greece, Turkey.) The GI Bill providing for the education and home for veterans and their families. Again nothing conservative about the billions spent in either of those ventures." Good for you. You got it!

My response was to a liberal claiming that FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression, he did no such thing, it was the build up and the aftermath of the war that turned the US economy around and allowed us to become a superpower, you correctly point to the Marshall plan as we rebuilt Europe and Japan, Your thinking in this statement is good. Your prior statement seemed to argue that it was the war itself that was responsible for bring us out of the depression. Not the aftermath. I was born in Japan because my father was a West Point/Purdue Engineer serving out the time he owed the military for his education.

You call me gullible yet it is people like you who want to claim the progressivism of the civil rights era yet you fail to recognize that the strongest opposition came from your very own party, I guess that the party platforms that appealed to these southern democrats were conservative as well? I actually stayed away from that term “racist” purposely. I wanted to call them whar they were called during that era, Dixiecrats.” They were liberal racists, you can't simply separate your party from them, they voted democrat because they were liberals, they were racists because they were racists, They were not and would never make a claim to the term “Liberals” They were southern conservatives in name as well as in their voting habits. And, yes they were racist. But thats another discussion altogether. Johnson had stronger support from the republican party all identified as moderate republicans i.e., Sen. Perry R, Illinois. than he had from the democrats, the final vote does not tell the story, because as amendments were made and the dems saw the writing on the wall they better supported the bill, in the end the republicans voted for it with a larger percentage of their makeup than did the dems....

So, you tell me where I am telling my half truths as you call them, yours are no better than are mine. The difference is mine are supported by historical facts and yours are feeding the gullible to the water trough and unlike the horse thy’re actuallt believeing it as the “Truth.”

Doesn't pick up the font or the enlargement. Oh well, read it through you'll know what's yours and what's mine it should be easy. Our thoughts are so different. But at least we're civilized.

FrumCA

- If I like my plan I can keep my plan
- My premiums will save me $2,500
- And some green visored beaurecrat with likely only a high school education is telling me what sort of insurance coverage I need.

Yes - this truely is a nightmare!!!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You have to use the brackets as outlined on the side of the page.... they will be there whenever you click on reply or quote reply, the legion is not there on a quick reply. I will read this in a little bit and maybe respond, right now I am making supper.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

Rocketride: Well, yes. If they are required (forced) to teach for less pay than they would be willing to teach for otherwise, or under degrading conditions, etc., then they are being enslaved to that extent. It seems that you have the wits to make the generalization, but not the wits to understand why it's not ridiculous.

Nagy: This is not about my wits at all. To be totally fair to you, I will not further generalize about yours, if indeed I ever did. I will observe, however, that you are inventing your own definition of slavery. Here is how the New Oxford American Dictionary defines a slave:

1' a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

2. a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation: by the time I was ten, I had become her slave, doing all the housework.

Obviously the second definition is the one you would grab, even though it is a figurative use. Still, the conditions under which medical doctors work in socialized medicine do not qualify for that definition, either. They make a very comfortable living; a far above average income, just not the obscene amounts that American medical specialists make. If that is slavery, then just about all of us are slaves, whether or not I have any wit at all.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

rockeride: "The point is that a moral transaction involves 2 or more parties exchanging goods, services and money (which is basically a token for the other two things) without anyone being coerced. (Any time a government or other similar group of brigands intervenes, somebody is getting coerced. Most likely, everybody legitimately involved in the transaction is. Of course, you wouldn't care about that so long as you get your cut of the proceeds of the robbery, would you?"

Nagy: Your morals are very twisted. Essentially you are saying that there is nothing immoral about a provider charging so much for a necessary service that he bankrupts the client, or allows him to die. That is exactly what is happening in the American system, wherein a majority of foreclosures and personal bankruptcies medical hardship is a factor. Others die by the tens of thousands per year of treatable conditions left untouched because of no medical coverage or inadequate medical coverage. That is why the US is so low in life expectancy; many who are treated in other countries just get to die in the US.

I do not profit from the price of medical care, except to the extent that I would pay less and receive better care if it were socialized. I am amazed that a person who puts the obscene profits of others above the lives of everyone would dare to question my morals. It is you who has no morals.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Yeah, man!!!!like I said, he was the only knew dude, and he manipulated everyone with his spooky Texas genius, man. We were lucky to get out alive, like, wow!

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

rocketride: "If they didn't, they wouldn't be liberals. Ever notice that people over on the left need to re-label themselves every so often? Could it be because they don't have the brains to not repeatedly foul their own nests."

Nagy: You are indeed a disingenuous person. The reason liberal became a dirty word is that the Republicans deliberately made it so through propaganda ploys. Your Saint Ronald Reagan pretended it was so dirty a word he could not even say it. He called it the "L-word." Amazing that the word survived for centuries until then without gaining any negative connotation, but when it finally did as a result of Orwellian tactics promoting against it, the perpetrators and beneficiaries of those tactics blame the victim. You are disgustingly mendacious.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

There's nothing for him to admit, man! It's a simple matter of public record.

Let me be very clear:

YOU ARE WRONG, YOU LIED, THERE WAS NEVER A $5- Anything BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS!!!!

Did I leave room for any ambiguity? I thought not.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Autocorrect:
Let me be very clear:

YOU ARE WRONG, YOU LIED, THERE WAS NEVER A $5- Anything TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS!!!!

Did I leave room for any ambiguity? I thought not.