Life in y2s country where govt #1

“As soon as they were on our borders - LOL.

That's not what I'm talking about, anyway. Deceitful.”

“You're talking gibberish.”

“Only for a person who refuses to follow context.”

“Mutt - I'm not saying there hasn't been a reduction and a decline in the Royal Navy - I'm saying the article is badly written, has little in the way of content (where are the numbers of surface ships for example, let's see the entire procurement list) and makes some assumptions and uses examples that are clearly wrong.

Also where's the comparison to other world and European navies? There's no context to this either.

During the cold war the role of the Royal Navy was essentially to patrol the UK Greenland/Iceland gap for Russian subs, and spending was shifted away from global operations to this ASW role for many years pre-1982.

The procurement programs he writes about here (without offfering any details of what they actually will be able to do) represent enhancing the capacities that the story frets about the UK losing.

I'd start questionning that subscription I think.
last edited: 3/04/08 8:37:34 AM”

“As soon as they were on our borders - LOL.

No. As soon as they attack us.

That's not what I'm talking about, anyway. Deceitful.

What are you talking about then?”

“LOL, welcome to America and it's funny antics.”

“No, I'd start questioning your lack of comprehension, knowledge of your own naval history, and understanding of "scope".”

“No. As soon as they attack us. - Sarge

Oh okay, good to know he'll wait for them to attack us! *snort*

What are you talking about then? - Sarge

Good grief, you're hopeless this morning.”

“Come on Mutt, nothing more to add? If you're going to troll me then at least know something about what you're talking about - though that doesn't seem to stop you any other time.”

“Mutt, I'll put it simply. You've dumbed down your rhetoric when Ron Paul entered the scene because you really don't have anything substantial against him other that insults and FALSE claims. Of all the political trolls on here, you USED TO insist on at least providing facts, rather than just the typical liberal story-telling and inaccurate grasping of reality.

It boils down to you don't like Ron Paul because he would pull out of Iraq, so you hurl insults at him, regardless of their basis in reality, because you want to defend the war. In doing so ... and this is my purpose of writing this to you ... you are sacrifising some of your CORE beliefs.

Now, I know you'll knee jerk react to that and whatever, but you really need to sit back and think about what this country is founded on, and what made it great at one time.

You are not thinking at all like a conservative. You think you are, and that's because a lot of conservatives support the war, and Ron Paul doesn't, so you assume he's not conservative. The fact is, he is expressing an extreme conservative viewpoint. YOU are the one acting like a liberal, but you've been so swayed by all this mess that the Republicans have gotten themselves into with their liberal ways, that you've lost your way.”

“Whackan Ego, there's one and there and one more....”

“Come on Mutt, nothing more to add? - Y2

I already responded to your bleatings about writing style and limited scope. If you offer anything else, I'll respond. Otherwise, the article speaks for itself.”

“Of all the political trolls on here, you USED TO insist on at least providing facts - Sarge

USED TO meaning I already did provide his direct quotes.

it boils down to you don't like Ron Paul because he would pull out of Iraq - Sarge

Are you reading minds now? Nice ASSumptions.

You are not thinking at all like a conservative. You think you are - Sarge

More inaccurate ASSumptions. Yawn.”

“lol, you really don't have anything do you? You pitch yourself as this geopolitical expect but there's really nothing backing it up.

The author of the story couldn't even be bothered to find out what the UK procurement budget is, what defence spending is, what the wars in Iraq and Afganistan have cost, about the history or the Royal Navy, about the history of Royal Navy spending, about the role of the Royal Navy, about the events leading to the Falklands war, about how the UK defence budget is divided ........ the list goes on.

Lazy writer and an even lazier trolling effort by you.”

“Now you're just repeating your empty rhetoric I already discredited. BORING!

Forget what the article is about, focus on what it's NOT about. LOL - Y2's strategy.

Sarge's too, apparently.”

“Hey someone get the garden hose so we can unattach these two!”

“Mutt

Ludwig von Mises Institute check it out if you would like to know more about Ron Paul.”

“Mutt - you're not really this dumb Muttly are you? - I'm telling you that you can't look at procurement in isolation.

The credibilty is undermined - just like your is - by a failure to offer any context to the procurement issues and implications, while the historical examples he uses are just plain wrong.

Do you ever get anything right? The examples you use on this thread alone demonstrate you really have no clue what you're talking about.”

“More baseless just-so's. Typical.”

“Apart from the specific elements I listed that were missing from the story.
Apart from the historical points he misses.

Why you so blindly defend Stratfor when it puts out crap like this is beyond me.

It really says a lot about you Mutt - as long as it fits in with your views you don't care how crap the source or evidence is - get some standards.

I hate to tell you this, but that piece of crap would never be put out by most of the 'MSM' you're so eager to dismiss.
last edited: 3/04/08 10:03:52 AM”

“Incredible...government health care at work (LOL)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=530374&in_page_id=1799

He is only two, but Oliver Sherwood regularly takes Viagra - to keep him alive.


The toddler has a rare condition that causes chronic high blood pressure. Something as simple a chest infection could kill him.

The pulmonary hypertension, as it is known, can be controlled with four doses of Viagra a day.

(the most popular kid in Preschool no doubt)


..."Viagra is an expensive drug but it's actually one of the cheapest to treat pulmonary hypertension.


.............As he grows up he will need to switch to more expensive treatments called Epoprostenol and Iloprost to control his condition.

But the Government's drug rationing agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is considering whether to continue prescribing them.



Oliver's mother has started a petition calling for the Health Service to keep funding the treatments.

Mrs Sherwood, 34, of Hucclecote, Gloucestershire, said: "The only hope we had was that he would be maintained through medication but if anything-happens in the future that hope may be taken away." ”

“Or....he could be uninsured and not even have received the medicine to start with in which case he would be dead and this discussion is moot.


Me....I would prefer to be in Plan A and still alive to fight city hall.”

“Gee Chili...how many kids have you know who have DIED from not getting the medication they needed in this country? Truthfully....give me a case where the parents actually petitioned the drug company in quesition and were denied.

See this is the strawman the left throws up. The 'JIMMY WILL DIE because the EEVIL drug companies charge too much."

The truth is that say they (the Evil DRUG Companies) do provide the drug "gratis" as they often do. And ten or so years down the road the people discover it kept them alive but did something to them (side effect). They can still hire a shyster and sue the crap out of the company who gave them a free drug to save their lives.

I say FREE LEGAL CARE. If I get a speeding ticket and I want the top in the world to defend me...I should be able to go to them, and get their care and have the government Pay.”

“gee, youre awfully entitled”

“XL, the drug companies are not carrying the burden of "those who cannot pay" on their backs. They don't step in and pony up anytime someone can't pay. The times they do, I can assure you they get maximum public exposure out of it.

No, the burden of taking care of the uninsured falls to the private AND public charity/assistance sector.

Do you for a second think that bateaux drives son would be receiving the kind of care he is without the massive amount of charitable contributions to St Jude? Are you even going to attempt to convince me the government would step up to the plate or that the medical community would "chip" in to ensure he has decent care?

No, I don't think so. Why wouldn't the most prosperous nation on Earth take care of its citizens? Why wouldn't we ensure that every man, women and child has adequate and inimpeded access to proper medical care? I hear the Doctors (and the Right) howl about it's all the "lawyers fault". What an unabashed crock of sch!t. The Doctor who is making $500K isn't pissed about paying malpractice, he is pissed because he doen't have the money for that premium on top of the half mil already in his pocket. THAT, bubba, is the reason people can't afford medical care if they are uninsured. A medical malpractice case is the absolute hardest case to present and the vast, vast majority never get to court. DEFENSE laywers HIRED by the INSURANCE companies make most of the money.

Somehow, in all this, the Right has been convinced that it is an evil left wing conspiracy to try to reform medical care in this country. Funny as hell how they don't hesitate to SCREAM tort reform at every corner. Most of the people I hear ranting about litigation reform, couldn't define Tort if they had a Black's Law Dictionary in their f* ucking hands.

Don't give me the "oh, the drug companies will take care of little Jimmy crap". The drug companies, have, and will take care of the drug companies. The medical community isn't going to do a friggin thing to slow down the "cash cow". In the mean time, the less fortunate will get by any way they can.

And BTW, I won't even demean myself by attempting to compare getting a ticket with contracting cancer.”

“Xl one of my wifes biggest complaints is that her patients can't afford the prescriptions they need. They even have a person on staff to apply for hardship coverage. Seldom does it happen. Where is your info from?
last edited: 3/12/08 7:31:04 AM”

“The Doctor who is making $500K isn't pissed about paying malpractice, he is pissed because he doen't have the money for that premium on top of the half mil already in his pocket. - chillli

Chilli wants doctors to make minimum wage. NOBODY SHOULD PROFIT OFF SICKNESS!!!! [/Michael Moore]”

“Well, vote in Hillary and we will have that system here.”

“No you won't Manuka - Hillary isn't recommending that system at all.

Mutt - unfortunately for your point Doctors earn great salaries in almost every country in the world - just not the amount they earn in America.”

“Chili..here is a simple thing to do with meds a patient cannot afford...and don't freaking TELL ME YOU CAN'T. I helped a public housing resident do it not two months ago.

Find out the company that MAKES the drug and CONTACT THEM...I know its calling for these people to be RESPONSIBLE..but it WORKS EVERYTIME. They will receive (if they are financially in need that is) free MEDS EVERY MONTH.

Secondly where in the Heck does the Constitution say we will "take care of you" thats not a right? Rights as enumerated in the US Constitution are those things that DO NOT require someone else to give up something for you to get. They are things not GRANTED by the Government. They are those things we have by virtue of our birth.”

“XL see my above post.
Remember my wife sees upwards of 20+ patients daily.”

“Health care stocks are falling like rocks. I guess health care is gettttttting soooo expensive they have nothing left to steal.

The solution of course is beyond the scope of this TT thread ,because it deals with things like population control,caused by lack of natural predators and government subsidies.
last edited: 3/12/08 8:38:51 AM”

“WHO DO WE WANT TO BE ?

A NATION OF PERPETUALLY DEPRIVED AND OUTRAGED WITH AN ALL PERVASIVE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT

OR

A NATION OF SELF MOTIVATED, SELF DRIVEN, RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS WHO LOOK TO THE STATE ONLY TO SECURE THE BORDERS AND TO ENFORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND NOTHING ELSE.”

“OR IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND!”

“OR

DEAD BECAUSE I LOST MY JOB AND INSURANCE THEN GOT SICK.

OR

BANKRUPT BECAUSE I GOT SICK.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— —The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies, July 4, 1776


These words of our founding fathers succinctly congeal the aspirations of all Americans. Although the reference to freedom is unambiguous, the reference to "life" has both figurative and literal interpretations. Was the intent an entitlement to healthcare services? In a country based on free enterprise driven by market forces with an emphasis on consumer choice, was the intent of our forefathers to define health care as unalienable right? Support for this intent may have been provided by the US Congress in 1965 when "first-dollar coverage" was introduced with the inception of Medicare. And yet, in virtually all other sectors of American life (except health care), financial responsibility enables freedom of choice. In buying a house or car, choosing a hotel, or dining at a restaurant, consumers choose what they are willing to pay, and market forces determine the price. This free-market, consumer-driven process implicitly values the quality of goods and personal services provided. Hence, the common adage, "You get what you pay for."”

“As a result of that open-ended policy, entitlement spending has soared from $32.3 billion in 1962 to $711.2 billion in 1992 and will reach a projected $1.36 trillion by 2002. From 30 percent of the federal budget in .1962, this spending is now just over half of all outlays and will approach 60 percent in just nine years. The Medicare/Medicaid outlays, nonexistent in 1962, totaled nearly $200 billion last year, and they will exceed $600 billion in 2002 if present trends are unchecked.”

“GEORGE BUSH claims that he agreed to raise taxes in 1990 in return for "serious controls on spending." The second part of that deal never materialized: led to entitlements, domestic federal spending (excluding the S&L bailout) will increase more during Bush's first four years than during Ronald Reagan's eight:

DOMESTIC FEDERAL SPENDING
(Billions of 1992 $)
Mandatory Discretionary
Entitlements Spending
% of % of $
$ Budget $ Budget Total
1970 226.0 31.1 143.6 19.8 369.6
1980 442.4 43.7 220.8 21.9 663.2
1988 563.6 45.2 185.4 14.9 749.0
1991 617.2 45.3 201.4 14.8 818.6
1992E 675.5 45.7 216.2 14.7 891.7

The 1990 Budget Act "controlled" entitlements by requiring new spending to "pay for itself" via offsetting tax hikes or reductions in other entitlements. Congress easily circumvented this rule by putting automatic spending increases into existing legislation. Indeed, by their very nature, entitlements are difficult to control. Social Security and Medicare--which together account for 60 per cent of all entitlement spending--are available to anyone over age 65, whether needy or not. Congress has steadfastly refused to impose a means test for Social Security, or to modify its annual cost-of-living adjustment. Unemployment benefits are paid to wealthy executives and poor laborers alike.”

“capslock stuck?

Did somebody choked on that compassionate conservatism?”

“Spending, Spending, Spending somebody's got to pay !!!!!!”

“I don't have all the answers but I do know I don't want my son paying my bills.”

“Unless it's on Iraq right - what's the bill now, is it $2 or $3 trillion?”

“The 1986 Immigration Amnesty had a bunch of promises that were all smoke also. spending will be cut when people stop paying the tax man and not until they then. Rep. or Dem. liars all.”

“And all-of-a-sudden the New Minority Party thinks earmarks are evil.   They certainly took their time coming to that stunning realization.

Jeeeez, Iraq was going to be over in three weeks and pay for itself.”

“It's spending all around hell both parties are guilty it's time to hold government period responsible and make sure we balance our budget no matter who has power.”

“Instead we have a country where Big Pharma and the AMA are in control ---- the best gov't money can buy.   Ask Billy Tauzin.”

“Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Yep more spending !!!!”

“I wish I still had the link..... But you know how drug companies are always boo-hooing abut how they wouldn't be able to do research if they had to negotiate prices with Medicare.

About three years ago there was a study by HHS (Bush's HHS.... Health & Human Services) that drug companies spend four times as much on Marketing as they do on research.   From the continuous drug commercials I see every time I switch on the boob tube I don't doubt it.

The one that took the cake was how Tauzin was pushing the Medicare Drug Plan through Congress and simultaneously negotiating his compensation package as Big Pharma's chief lobbyist.   Incredible.”

“The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill.

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval. Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, an influential Republican working as Chairman of the limited government group FreedomWorks, wrote an op-ed the day of the vote in the Wall Street Journal opposing the bill.[10]

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with David Wu (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (U.S. politician) (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea," but later recanted.[11]

About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.

The Democrats cried foul, and Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means committee, challenged the result in an empty gesture to satisfy the minority. He subsequently voted to table his own challenge; the tally to table was 210 ayes, 193 noes.

The Senate's consideration of the conference report was somewhat less heated, as cloture on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29.[12] However, a budget point of order raised by Tom Daschle, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.

For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[13] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[14]”

“Tauzin gets a pay package reportedly worth at least $2 million a year, making him one of the highest-paid lobbyists in Washington.”