I certainly agree with the Florida issue but the problem was the Florida Dem Party broke the rules and changed the primary.
As for the Dems becoming a party of ideas instead of running on contrarian doctrines. They are only contrarian to the fundie right. To many folk they are very mainstream, socially responsible doctrines. We will see in November if that is a Majority opinion.
The Democrats ARE a party of ideas, just not the ones you are used to with Bush and the NeoCon majority that ran things for years. Of course the ideas you are used to include 1/7 Americans without health insurance. Ideas like America being 41st in the world in Infant Mortality Rate. Ideas like 38 Million Americans [13 Million of them CHILDREN] living below the Poverty Rate.
.
The reason Democrat ideas don't compute is because of errors in fact--like yours, McBare. You repeat your lies about health insurance, infant mortality and poverty throughout this forum. Only about 10 million citizens and legal residents are without health insurance, none are without health care, the USA is in the lowest 5 on infant mortality and there is no abject poverty in this country (ala Africa). Incomes below the poverty line do not include all the Federal and State benefits for these folks, from health care, food stamps to free school lunches.
Prove your numbers or quit lying, liberal.
__________________
The problem with the younger generation is they didn't read the minutes of the last meeting..
I certainly agree with the Florida issue but the problem was the Florida Dem Party broke the rules and changed the primary.
Whose rules? The national Democratic Party or the State Democratic Party?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
As for the Dems becoming a party of ideas instead of running on contrarian doctrines. They are only contrarian to the fundie right. To many folk they are very mainstream, socially responsible doctrines. We will see in November if that is a Majority opinion.
That's all the Democratic party has been is a party that runs against whatever the conservative party stands for. Bring up some real issues for a change instead of always accentuating the negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
The Democrats ARE a party of ideas, just not the ones you are used to with Bush and the NeoCon majority that ran things for years. Of course the ideas you are used to include 1/7 Americans without health insurance. Ideas like America being 41st in the world in Infant Mortality Rate. Ideas like 38 Million Americans [13 Million of them CHILDREN] living below the Poverty Rate.Some of us prefer different ideas.
What ideas? The Democratic party won 8 years in the White House on every issue you just listed and they didn't do a damn thing about it. So why should any good liberal believe anything will be done, now? Why is the Democratic party worried about the infant mortality rate, for, anyway? The abortions they sanction, alone, dwarf that figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
And as for "raise taxes on the rich" concept you like to point out. Reagan/Bush/Bushie raised taxes on EVERYONE by overspending the budgets and providing over 80% of the total National Debt in the history of the Republic. The INTEREST on that debt is 25% of the ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET. That is a tax! So when you talk about the Democrats raising taxes, remember that 25% of those taxes are to pay INTEREST on Reagan/Bush/Bushie Deficits.
Who controlled the SPENDING during the entire 8 years of Reagan's presidency?? Don't say it was the Republican controlled congress because ol' Tippy O'Neil overseen some of the worst deficit spending, when adjusted for inflation. You and I both know tax cuts don't work when increased spending is rolled into it. The deficit is NOT existent because of tax cuts, which YOU so conveniently blame, it's out of control SPENDING.
__________________ Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.- Mark Twain
Again, Liberals don't listen to talk radio, no matter who is on. Liberals don't need the self affirmation of someone "telling" them what to think or what the real scoop is. Liberals, from nearly every broadcast and media survey ever done just don't do talk radio.
And sorry to burst your bubble but Rush and Beck don't piss off every liberal from coast to coast as we are not part of the listening audience to hear what is said, other than when the media covers it. Only reason I know what they say is I read the transcripts of much of their shows so I have a feel of that side of the debate. I can read a 3 hour transcript in about 15 minutes or less.
Are you rooted in reality? I can't believe I seen that comment posted by you, who I consider to be quite intelligent. I would venture to say at least 1/3 his audience is liberal listeners who stew and boil over his comments. Where do you think the Democratic Party gets half their talking points from? You confirmed what the others do with his radio show and they read his transcripts. Same thing as listening, except you don't get the drama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
As for Book sales, have you actually read any of the O Really, Coulter, Rush books? Besides inability to write well and deep need for an editor, they are nothing more than long editorials and rehash of previous material. Sorta the TimeLife NeoCon Series.
The stuff sells and tops New York Times best sellers.
The reason Democrat ideas don't compute is because of errors in fact--like yours, McBare. You repeat your lies about health insurance, infant mortality and poverty throughout this forum. Only about 10 million citizens and legal residents are without health insurance, none are without health care, the USA is in the lowest 5 on infant mortality and there is no abject poverty in this country (ala Africa). Incomes below the poverty line do not include all the Federal and State benefits for these folks, from health care, food stamps to free school lunches.
Prove your numbers or quit lying, liberal.
Sorry to burst your bubble Skippy but my numbers come from the Government's own calculations as previously posted as reference. The infant mortality rate is what it is - 41st in the World. No amount of obfuscating Bullshit can hide from those WHO and UN Statistics.
And the Poverty Rate is set by the Department of HHS, not the Democrats or me. The line is a statistical reality.
Do we have abject poverty like Africa? Is that really what you want to compare the US to?
Come up with real numbers that show quality of life that is better than what I have published for those folks on the bottom rungs. Those living in Poverty, those without health insurance.
I have provided REAL LINKS for each and every number I have provided. You have provided JACK SHIT. I have shown statistical support for each assertion that I espouse, you have whined that it is wrong [with nothing to back it up]. I have provided LINKS to Dept of Commerce, Dept of Health and Human Services, WHO and Dept of Labor. You have provided, well NOTHING.
I believe the proof to show my numbers are incorrect would be in your court. Good luck with that.
Are you rooted in reality? I can't believe I seen that comment posted by you, who I consider to be quite intelligent. I would venture to say at least 1/3 his audience is liberal listeners who stew and boil over his comments. Where do you think the Democratic Party gets half their talking points from? You confirmed what the others do with his radio show and they read his transcripts. Same thing as listening, except you don't get the drama.
Yep, I am rooted in reality. While YOU might "venture to say" 1/3 of his listeners are liberal, his demographics from arbitron prove otherwise. I know that some do listen, Political wonks might listen but that is not your normal "liberal".
"Same thing as listening, except you don't get the drama." That is the good part of reading the transcripts. You DON'T get the drama. That is much of the issue. And again, it would mainly be the Political wonks like me that would even do that. Most folks on the left go to Weekly Standard, WSJ or other sources if we want to hear what the right has to say.
The stuff sells and tops New York Times best sellers.[/quote]So do Garfield books. That doesn't mean they are good. It simply means there are a certain number of people who will buy everything they write, not matter the quality. Just like there are so many people that will watch FoxNews, or American Idol, or Lawn Mower Racing, no matter what the quality is.
I certainly agree with the Florida issue but the problem was the Florida Dem Party broke the rules and changed the primary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
Whose rules? The national Democratic Party or the State Democratic Party?
The Democratic National Committee made national rules that state Committes could NOT hold primaries prior to the Super Tuesday date. Michigan and Florida, wanting to jump ahead and be players, scheduled their contests early. ALL candidates signed documents saying they would not campaign in those states and would respect the decision of the DNC to withhold their delegates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
As for the Dems becoming a party of ideas instead of running on contrarian doctrines. They are only contrarian to the fundie right. To many folk they are very mainstream, socially responsible doctrines. We will see in November if that is a Majority opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
That's all the Democratic party has been is a party that runs against whatever the conservative party stands for. Bring up some real issues for a change instead of always accentuating the negative.
All ANY opposition party does is run at least part of their campaign against the current occupant [see 2000 election]. Otherwise, see below
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
The Democrats ARE a party of ideas, just not the ones you are used to with Bush and the NeoCon majority that ran things for years. Of course the ideas you are used to include 1/7 Americans without health insurance. Ideas like America being 41st in the world in Infant Mortality Rate. Ideas like 38 Million Americans [13 Million of them CHILDREN] living below the Poverty Rate.Some of us prefer different ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
What ideas? The Democratic party won 8 years in the White House on every issue you just listed and they didn't do a damn thing about it. So why should any good liberal believe anything will be done, now? Why is the Democratic party worried about the infant mortality rate, for, anyway? The abortions they sanction, alone, dwarf that figure.
Actually, during Clinton, the Poverty rate moved, fewer folks were on welfare and the US improved its standing in IMR. Nothing was done about Health Insurance as a Republican Congress was not very interested.
As for abortions, Democrats sanction CHOICE, not abortions [which are going down I might note] and are not a result of a poor healthcare and health provider system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
And as for "raise taxes on the rich" concept you like to point out. Reagan/Bush/Bushie raised taxes on EVERYONE by overspending the budgets and providing over 80% of the total National Debt in the history of the Republic. The INTEREST on that debt is 25% of the ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET. That is a tax! So when you talk about the Democrats raising taxes, remember that 25% of those taxes are to pay INTEREST on Reagan/Bush/Bushie Deficits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
Who controlled the SPENDING during the entire 8 years of Reagan's presidency??
That should have been Reagan's VETO pen if he was concerned with spending. Remember, however, he presented the budgets to Congress, demanded a 600 Ship navy AND raised taxes in 1986.
My opinion, NO ONE controlled spending during the Reagan Administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
Don't say it was the Republican controlled congress because ol' Tippy O'Neil overseen some of the worst deficit spending, when adjusted for inflation. You and I both know tax cuts don't work when increased spending is rolled into it. The deficit is NOT existent because of tax cuts, which YOU so conveniently blame, it's out of control SPENDING.
I have never blamed the deficit on tax cuts. I ALWAYS blame the deficits on piss poor fiscal policy that overspends it's budgets with rampant deficit spending while handing out taxcuts to a small percentage of people at the same time. The confusion is probibly because I point to the false success of the tax cuts, pointing out that the deficit spending and excessive credit card activity of the consumer [with unlimited re-fi ability] is what really propped up the economy during that "tax cut boom".
Sorry to burst your bubble Skippy but my numbers come from the Government's own calculations as previously posted as reference. The infant mortality rate is what it is - 41st in the World. No amount of obfuscating Bullshit can hide from those WHO and UN Statistics.
And the Poverty Rate is set by the Department of HHS, not the Democrats or me. The line is a statistical reality.
Do we have abject poverty like Africa? Is that really what you want to compare the US to?
Come up with real numbers that show quality of life that is better than what I have published for those folks on the bottom rungs. Those living in Poverty, those without health insurance.
I have provided REAL LINKS for each and every number I have provided. You have provided JACK SHIT. I have shown statistical support for each assertion that I espouse, you have whined that it is wrong [with nothing to back it up]. I have provided LINKS to Dept of Commerce, Dept of Health and Human Services, WHO and Dept of Labor. You have provided, well NOTHING.
I believe the proof to show my numbers are incorrect would be in your court. Good luck with that.
As the grandfather of a baby boy who died two hours after birth, I'll tackle both the numbers and your implications about our poor health care indicated by the Infant Mortality Rate. The UN population division has the US ranked 32nd in global IMR. What's important is that is out of 195 countries, 163 had worse records. The global average is 49.4 deaths per 1000 live births; ours is only 6.3--that's any infant who died within the first year of life , including dehydration, pneumonia and SIDS, as well as deliberate neglect and abuse.
I regret your using our infant mortality rate as a measure of our inadequacy as a nation. Here's a reason why even the above ranking is suspect:
"While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, many other countries do not. For example, a 2006 artilce in U.S. News & World Report states, "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."
Your implication is that the US doesn't cut it in health care by your citation of a IMR ranking. Just more blame America first to serve a political agenda. You should be bragging about our IMR, but that wouldn't meet your needs, would it?
Linear Mode
