patrick.net

AdHominem says

Kevin says

2ndClassCitizen says

Do you also believe that a loss of purchasing power in your dollars of roughly 97% over 100 years is a in your best interest? (and please don’t argue against saving money, not everyone can preserve wealth on investments as last fall reminded us all) Do you think that having two parents working outside the home and sometimes two jobs where one used to suffice a generation ago is a good thing? Do you believe that Goldman Sachs needs a bailout (tax transfer from you to them) to protect it from big bad YOU? I hope so because if these things are not in your best interest then YOU ARE BEING ROBBED!

Please cite some real examples of a place in the world that is now, or has been in the past, more prosperous for the “average joe” because of a sound monetary system than what we have today.

Simple Kevin,
It was in my previous post. A family with one worker outside the home could provide for his family, and pay the bills even with no health insurance.
Nearly everything that was essential was more affordable and wages compared to cost of living had a much more favorable ratio. People in the seventies and eighties bought houses and paid them off in 5-10 years! That is practically unheard of now.
Over the course of roughly 100 years the unsound monetary system has eroded away the savings and prosperity of a growing number of US citizens. It really began to accelerate in the 1980’s. We are now so far in debt as individuals and a nation that it is very likely we will end up bankrupt. The empire is crumbling in debt. Who will bail us out? The “new” world order?
Please cite some real examples of how much better things are now. How much less dependent on government the average joe is now. How much more affordable the essentials like food, energy, housing and health care are now. How much more freedom and prosperity there is now in the post 9/11 post crash/bailout world.

Again, you're attributing to the monetary system things which have nothing to do with it.

Do both parents need to work because of inflation or because there are a billion chinese and indian workers? Do both parents need to work because, prior to the 1960s, women were essentially barred from performing any decent paying job in the first place?

If we went on the gold standard, is it going to make american labor more competitive? Is it going to increase american wages? Is it going to lower the cost of goods? HOW?

Your assertion about people paying off homes in 5-10 years in the 70s and 80s is pure and utter bullshit. 30 year mortgages were the norm then and they're the norm now. They've been the norm since the great depression.

And you can't go back to the 70s and 80s and compare it, because we *DID NOT* have a sound monetary system then. We haven't had a sound monetary system since Nixon.

Your blanket assertion that things were "better" in years past is bizarre. We're freaking out about 10% unemployment rates now, but they were 15+% into the 1940s (when we had "sound money"). Our homes were built with aesbestos and hollow drywall. Our cities were full of polluting factories. non-white, non-males were treated as, at best, second class citizens.

Do you even have parents or grandparents? Life was NOT easy in the last generation (the 60s/70s/80s), nor in the generation before it. Selectively ignoring things that were much, much worse (like becoming homeless when you were no longer able to work, or dying in your early 60s because you can't afford to see a doctor) and citing things which are subjectively "better" is a weak argument.

If you want to point the finger at any single thing that has caused life to become more difficult for regular folks since the 1970s, you need to look to Asia. In the period between WWII and the rise of china (really, the *only* time where you can objectively say that things were "better"), we were really the only productive economy on the planet. All the jobs were here, Europe was undergoing reconstruction, and Japan hadn't yet hit its stride.

We're nowhere near that any more.

The only real alternative would be to go back to our pre WWII isolationist policy, and keep everything we do domestic (few imports, few exports, no foreign ownership, no foreign employment). There's little reason to think that life would be any better in this mode of operation though, because we can see exactly what life was like then, and it wasn't very good. Unemployment was high, and the rich controlled even more than they do today.

There is *NO* going back to the post WWII environment, no matter what policy we implement.

Kev,

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago? I'm glad you feel that way. But you are wrong. The FED has not caused all our problems, but it has caused more than it has solved. And it is the primary factor allowing deficit spending. If we could not create money out of nothing we could not continue to spend ourselves into debt. No FED, no ballooning national debt. It is that simple.

We have not had sound money since 1913. However the FED did not kick their machine into high gear until the 1970's.

Now we have nearly one in 10 Americans on Food stamps. 100 years ago that number was zero. And how many people died of homelessness or starvation back then? I am sure the number is greater today.

How come during the past 50 years government workers have increased at a rate much greater than the increase in population? How come the average government employee receives salary and compensation worth over $110,000?

Who is paying for that? Not just tax payers but everyone who holds dollar bills. Dollar bills that are losing value at a mind boggling rate. If we stay on our present course we will be bankrupt in less than 20 years, perhaps as few as 4.

I could go on, but this is a straw man argument anyway. The purpose of this thread is to point out how the proposed "health care" reforms are going to increase the deficit, increase dependency on the government, limit choices, and result in greater fraud, waste and abuse.

AdHominem, don't waste your time with facts, logic and common sense. You are doing what I've tried to do... argue with idiots. The policies they support have brought America to her knees. Big government, liberal policies, labor unions, greedy lawyers, over regulation, weak money, The Fed, over spending and crushing debt,etc is what has crippled our economy. YOU know that, and I know that. But they refuse to acknowledge it.

And their solution? To attack your ideas. They offer no solutions of their own. Why? Because it would be too damaging for them to come right out and say " YES, our policy is: MORE deficit spending, LESS freedom, MORE taxes, MORE regulation, MORE job-killing laws, MORE unions, MORE
thought crime regulation, LESS privacy and MORE government control. But those are their policies...the ugly truth.

Pointing out the ugly truth to a statist is a waste of both our times. Todays book: 1984 by George Orwell. Cheers.

AdHominem says

re you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago? I’m glad you feel that way. But you are wrong.

AdHominem says

Now we have nearly one in 10 Americans on Food stamps. 100 years ago that number was zero. And how many people died of homelessness or starvation back then? I am sure the number is greater today.

You are joking right. Lots of people died of homelessness and starvation 100 years ago. We had child labor (down to age 5 or 6) in factories 10 hours a day 6 days a week. Food processing was done totally unsupervised under disgusting conditions resulting in untold numbers of deaths, average life span was 50 years, blacks were killed simply because they were black with total impunity, toilets in the cities and towns consisted of dumping a bucket in front of your house along with the diseases it brought, dental work was done with hammers and chisels with no anaesthesia of and kind, surgery was done with carpenters saws with no anaesthesia of any kind, how about the 1918 influenza pandemic, polio with people in iron lungs (the last person in an iron lung died this year), smallpox, children with rickets from malnutrician, 20% infant mortality rate, no electricity, no running water, lots of mother and child graves with one women in 4 dieing in from childbirth, the list goes on and on and on.

How are we not better off than even 50 years ago? Longer life span, much much cheaper food costs, the fall of communism, civil rights, better health care, better houses of 2800 sq ft vs 1200 sq ft with garages central heat/ac, better cars, better roads (especially the interstate highway system), jet air travel,, computers, internet, , instant communications worldwide ( I live overseas and manage to do all my domestic business over the internet and with voip can call anywhere in the world for 5 cents a minute), cities that are clean and livable, cleaner air, cleaner water (remember the Cuyahoga river through cleveland actually caught fire in the 60's), etc. etc. etc..

If you wanted to go back to a 1950's lifestyle with a 1200 sq ft house, 1 car, no internet, no cable, no going out for dinner, no ipod, no computer, no xbox where mom stays home and cooks, cleans, shops (for FOOD at the best price not clutter and junk) , and sews all the clothes it is possible to do on one income.

Sorry but these are facts and common sense. The aspect where we are the worst off compared to the past is debt, both public and private. That was a very poor choice to fund lifestyles that were not sustainable. That is what has crippled the economy.

YES the government has grown too big and intrusive, BUT some of the money was used to pay for vast improvements in daily life which you seem to enjoy but don't want to pay for. A huge amount the national debt was from money spent on the military which no one seems anxious to be point out while ranting against government spending. A very curious omission on the part of Honest Abe and Adhominum. Can you say hypocrisy??? I am pretty conservative but am willing to freely admit that conservatives can and do waste government money just as well as liberals. Conservatives are also frequently embarrassingly anxious to trample all over privacy and civil rights for the sake of power and control cloaked in the guise of national security.

So cut the liberals are responsible for all evils crap and start looking in a mirror. I don't agree with the liberal agenda, but if the conservative movement hadn't screwed the pooch under George Bush it wouldn't be an issue.

BOB,

Technology has made many aspects of life in 2009 "better" than 8 or 50 years ago, but during that time freedom, constitutional government have been mocked and destroyed on a regular basis. But this is just straw man. The thread is about health care "reform."

By the way you never answered how you could claim to NOT be advocating tax increases and yet two sentences later claimed it was necessary. Not interested in explaining yourself, but rather attacking your own ranks?

I agree, we need to drastically cut military spending. Thanks for bringing it up, but I was primarily discussing health care reform.

George Bush was just one in a long line of traitors to the "conservative" movement. What about the Republican majority in Congress a decade ago that squandered their opportunity for real change? "Conservatives" and "republicans" aught to be ashamed, outraged or both. But this too is straw man.

You are wasting our time with straw man. If you really are a "conservative" please consider directing your energy against the true enemies of freedom. But then again you could just be another Bush, posing as a conservative but really a big government collectivist.

@Ad

Seems like you are the one who keeps changing the subject.. About the time when other posters have proven your postings to be completely false. Now all the sudden you want to go back to the original topic of this thread?

fyi--the biggest threat to freedom in the US in the last 50 years was the Patriot Act.

OK--let's get back to it then. Are you for reform at all? Or do you just not like the bills currently in the House and Senate? How would you fix Health Care?

AdHominem says

As a matter of fact I do have some ideas on how to make health care more affordable. Starting with removing the tax breaks to employers who buy insurance and instead giving those tax breaks to individuals. Let us all write off 100% of our health care expenses and insurance premiums. Allow people to have the same tax breaks employers have now except that individuals buy their own health insurance (and thus will not lose it when they change jobs or move to a different state).

Second we need to drastically reduce government involvement in health care. Medicare, medicaid are driving up costs due to fraud, waste and abuse. This will be true of every government program. Instead we could offer qualifying beneficiaries a health care account. They can use the money in this account for health expenses only. This will encourage competition among health care providers as well as encouraging beneficiaries to seek out the most bang for their buck by choosing providers who do not overcharge (funds would be limited in these accounts so both patients and providers must be wise stewards of the money so that it will last them all year).

Insurance should be restricted to what it was meant to be: for unexpected and relatively infrequent events like car accidents, broken bones, cancer etc…
This would drive insurance costs down and give the consumer more money in their pocket for health maintenance like regular check ups, maintenance blood pressure meds etc..

We also need to remove the onerous regulations that have driven non-profits and churches out of the health care business. There is too much red tape and much of it has to do with medicare. In my home town alone two hospitals have closed in my lifetime. At the same time the city has grown to nearly double. So people have to drive farther to wait in longer lines.

We need to encourage the establishment of more minute clinics and such for simple illnesses like yeast infections, sinus infections and ear aches. Allow people to visit a nurse practitioner or PA for less than half to cost of an ER or Walk in Clinic with an overpaid and overworked MD. Allow qualified beneficiaries to use their medical accounts mentioned earlier for these visits to make their health care dollars last longer. The PA and nurse practitioners are qualified professionals and they know when they are out of their league and need to refer people on to a specialist.

These are just a few ideas that will make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone.

AdHominem says

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago?

We didn't have "sound money" 8, 10, or 20 years ago. We also didn't have two nations of a billion+ people to compete with.

50 years ago we were absolutely worse off.

Again, I ask you to prove that things were "better". Running around claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is not a way to win an argument.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago?

We didn’t have “sound money” 8, 10, or 20 years ago. We also didn’t have two nations of a billion+ people to compete with.
50 years ago we were absolutely worse off.
Again, I ask you to prove that things were “better”. Running around claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is not a way to win an argument.

Straw man. Premise is health care reform will result in higher deficits etc... as posted earlier.

Start a new thread if you want to argue about "better off"

AdHominem says

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago?

We didn’t have “sound money” 8, 10, or 20 years ago. We also didn’t have two nations of a billion+ people to compete with.

50 years ago we were absolutely worse off.

Again, I ask you to prove that things were “better”. Running around claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is not a way to win an argument.

Straw man. Premise is health care reform will result in higher deficits etc… as posted earlier.
Start a new thread if you want to argue about “better off”

You're the one who turned this conversation into "sound money" and how we were being "robbed", because you didn't really have any sound arguments about health care reform other than "the government is out to get you".

AdHominem says

By the way you never answered how you could claim to NOT be advocating tax increases and yet two sentences later claimed it was necessary. Not interested in explaining yourself, but rather attacking your own ranks?

Poorly worded is all. Should have said I am NOT an advocate of tax increases BUT they will be necessary. Hardly an earthshattering inconsistency.

AdHominem says

But then again you could just be another Bush, posing as a conservative but really a big government collectivist.

What the heck is a big government collectivist? I am willing to put up with a level of government to achieve a level of public services. What we had in about 1956 is within my comfort zone. The great society isn't. Quick quiz, where on a scale between total lack of government Somalia and total control by government in communist Russia do you see as the correct level of government? Are you one of those people who rants and raves there should be no government while using lots of government services (internet, highways, air traffic control, children in public schools, parks, safety from police/fire), etc., etc., etc.? Your positions seem to sway in the wind.

The biggest enemies of freedom in the US in the last 50 years were named George Bush and Dick Cheney.

AdHominem says

Straw man. Premise is health care reform will result in higher deficits etc… as posted earlier.

Straw man also. The only real question would be if the cost of health care would be reduced or not. It doesn't matter what pocket the money comes out of. If you company is holding down you salary to pay for health care or there is a higher tax to pay for health care or you are paying for health care out of pocket it doesn't matter at all. You pay in all cases. So the bottom line is how do we reduce the $5,000+ per year per person cost of health care, which is about double the rest of the first world.

Your suggestions are to let people write off medical on their taxes (very good for the 20% that itemize, useless for everyone else) and eliminate all government involvement in health care. You don' explain how this will reduce the costs.

Oh yes I forgot, we will eliminate fraud and waste in medicare. Just out of curiosity do you know the administrative cost of medicare? Surprise, it's 3%. Do you know the administrative costs of the medical system overall? With over 1,500 different companies, each offering multiple plans, each with its own marketing program and enrollment procedures, its own paperwork and policies, its CEO salaries, sales commissions, political lobbying costs, advertising, and other non-clinical costs -- and, of course, if it is a for-profit company, its profits, the cost of billing and administration for doctors offices and hospitals? Surprise it's 25%. One dollar out of 4 gets eaten up in the billing process with medicare's really low costs included in the number. Take out medicare and the cost is even higher. WOW, that's really great how private industry is keeping our costs down.

Oh my that terrible medicare. It costs $8500 per person per year. That's outrageous. Obviously a horrible government program that wastes tons of money. Oh wait, it's for people over 65, many that are way over 65. Maybe they are sicker than other people. DUH! What about the part of medicare that covers low income households that are under 65 (mostly children) one might ask if one were interested in a truly fair evaluation instead of demagogary. Hmmm, that only costs $1500 per person per year. WHAT? How can that be with all the fraud and waste??

NO I am not a "big government collectivist". I am a pragmatist. Whatever works. The current system of paying for medical care doesn't work very well at all. I used to write software for medical billing and medical office management so I really do know how bad it is. I have lived and worked in France, Canada, and currently New Zealand. People there are very satisfied with their medical care (and their death panels) at half the cost of the US despite the horror stories people manage to dredge up. There are, of course, no horror stories about medical care in the US. Anyway, it can be done. My solution, which Obama has not solicited, would be to study what works best, and conversely what works poorly, from each system around the world and implement it. We should be cribbing what works rather than reinventing the wheel. It worked great for Microsoft.

elvis says

Americans are becoming more and more dependant upon government (dependency is not a good thing). Dependency breeds bondage (bondage is not a good thing). Bondage is slavery (slavery is not a good thing). Any questions?

Juts one.

Where do you get the good weed that makes you think that health care is slavery? Because I'd like to smoke some of that.

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

Me paying for YOUR roads is slavery!

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

There's good, free healthcare in prison. Just sayin'

elliemae says

AdHominem says

Me paying for YOUR health care is slavery if I have no choice but to pay or be fined or imprisoned.

There’s good, free healthcare in prison. Just sayin’

Not what I hear. But feel free to check it out if you feel so inclined.

I guess is it benefits AH it's a government investment in infrastructure, if not it's wasteful government spending. If you want to be totally free of the yoke of government then move to Somalia or Zaire. Lovely places.

Nobody wants that. Just to be free of violence coercion by anyone. INCLUDING "government."

elvis says

Kevin, with the proposed HC costs, the legacy to our children will be a lifetime of involuntary financial servitude to our country’s creditors. Wouldn’t that be a type of slavery? A debt slave?

Why do people keep dishonestly pretending that any government portion of health care payments will be in addition to the costs we already have? Any government health care plan, if it comes, won't double down. The costs will be reduced somewhere else. The trick would be reducing the total costs while shifting the payer. Obama's plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

Why are people so adamant that the status quo is so great? I think it sucks. Cost are huge, inefficiencies are unbelievable, and lots of people don't get any kind of health care at all.

I know, I know. All we need to do is get government out of health care and let the health care companies experience the joys of pure capitalism. Like Bear Stearns, Aig, and Lehman Brothers perhaps? Maybe we should have an adult in the room just in case.

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

I have to point this out here:

There is no such thing as "Obama's plan". If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it's Harry Reid.

Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO's projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.

Obama will get "credit" for all of these "reforms". He made them all possible.
Yes WE CAN!

Kevin says

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.

I have to point this out here:
There is no such thing as “Obama’s plan”. If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it’s Harry Reid.
Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO’s projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.

I made a typo. I meant to say that the current proposed health plans ARE NOT going to manage to reduce costs enough in other areas to balance things out. They aren't even trying to reduce costs very much. The thrust of the plan is to get everyone covered by some type of insurance. A laudable goal but without meaningful legislation on things like malpractice (it will never happen as long as the trial lawyers own the democratic party) or requiring negotiation on drug prices we are just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic.

What part of government run health care is authorized by our constitution?

in your opinion.
in mine, secured boders and a fair trail followed by hanging for capital punishment are important components of society.

Honest Abe says

What part of government run health care is authorized by our constitution?

The constitution authorizes very little -- it's not supposed to. *laws* do that.

The constitution:

1. Outlines the basic structure of government.
2. Enumerates rights that lawmakers may not infringe upon.

There's a LOT of stuff that isn't in the constitution. Most countries (at least democracies) have them, and they all generally work this way (hell, most democracies have far more rights in their constitution than we do -- the right to privacy in particular).

Do you really want the constitution to contain every law? California essentially does that. How's that working out?

bob2356 says

Obama’s plan is going to manage that or even come close, but it would be possible to do.
I have to point this out here:
There is no such thing as “Obama’s plan”. If any single person can be said to own any of the plans currently being debated, it’s Harry Reid.
Although with the Republicans trying their hardest to defend the broken financing system that makes up Medicare, the CBO’s projections that the plan will save us money are probably doomed.
I made a typo. I meant to say that the current proposed health plans ARE NOT going to manage to reduce costs enough in other areas to balance things out. They aren’t even trying to reduce costs very much. The thrust of the plan is to get everyone covered by some type of insurance. A laudable goal but without meaningful legislation on things like malpractice (it will never happen as long as the trial lawyers own the democratic party) or requiring negotiation on drug prices we are just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic.

He has to own these policies as the leader of our nation, just as Reagan, Clinton and Bush did with policies that passed while they were in office. If he doesnt want to own it, then he has the right to veto otherwise his approval is implied

....plus he has to follow through on campaign promises.

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

Nomograph says

No offense, but your arguments are quite juvenile and you have absolutely no idea what slavery is. You enjoy more freedom and access to prosperity than 99.99999% of all humans who have ever walked the face of this earth, yet you squander these freedoms by wallowing in a victim mentality. What a waste. It’s like taking a child to an ice cream store with 31 flavors and watching him throw a tantrum because his rights and freedoms are violated by not having that 32nd flavor. Grow up.

Ad Hominem is your style. How many hours a day do I have to work to pay for someone elses, health care, mortgage, bankrupt business, abortion? Please explain why this is not slavery? We are not talking about ice cream. We are talking about the right to my own labor and property.

How many hours a day do I have to work for your highways, air traffic control, internet, military protection, etc., etc., etc.. Please explain why this is not about slavery for me for your benefit. If you accept government services for yourself then don't complain about others doing the same. It's all about balance. There are some things that can be done better through government and many things that can't.

If and only IF government healthcare reduced the total cost of healthcare substantially I would be in favor of it. The proposed plans don't do that so I don't agree with them.

Abortion???? What the f are you talking about? As far as I know, it's been a long time since any government agency has paid for an abortion.

right on mr presley

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the "opt out" part of the public option).

bob2356 says

Abortion???? What the f are you talking about? As far as I know, it’s been a long time since any government agency has paid for an abortion.

You don't know very far, obviously. Tax-payer's pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Kevin says

The constitution authorizes very little — it’s not supposed to. *laws* do that.

Exactly! STATE laws. 10th Amendment.

The 10th amendment simply says that state laws overrule federal laws on all matters not explicitly granted to the federal government (hint: this is the reason for the “opt out” part of the public option).

So if my state does not want to "benefit" from a government program we can "opt out" as long as we continue paying for it? Funny.

And what powers are explicitly granted to the federal government? Wiretapping? Water boarding? Bail outs? Abortion on demand? GovmintCare?

Let me guess these are all for our "general welfare." Funny.

Bap33 says

Tax-payer’s pay for the murder of innocent babies daily through forced wealth transfers.

What does that even mean? "forced wealth transfers?" Like when the capital gains tax was cut under Bush? That transfered my wealth to top 1%. Republicans are the redistributors of wealth--they take it from the poor and give it to the rich. Look at any chart showing the distribution of American wealth and it will be painfully obvious...

Looks like all one must do is throw out some big words and a couple of inflammatory ones, sound passionate, and you're right.

Unfortunately, it's 7am in my neck of the woods, too early to play. I'm famished. I intend to masticate a counter-located mechanically heated frozen pastry which I decorate myself, as well as to consume a hot beverage.

I'm doing it for all of the innocent dead babies.

Foreced wealth tranfers ... the law demands we hand over our taxes to the Gov who then hands our wealth to non-producers inorder to create consumers and competition and obedient Obama-etts. lol

Taxes from individual productive worker "A", used by the Gov to increase the buying power of individual non-productive, non-worker "B", by rule of law, without any means to "oped out" for worker "A", is a "forced wealth transfer". So, when a (hypothetical) non-worker, non-tax-payer, goes and gets an abortion it is paid for by tax payers through forced wealth transfers. Right? ANd you are right, it ends up in the rich doctors and lawyers pockets, but it is at the expense of working folks.

Nomo ... sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you're still an idiot. I'm not on housing welfare yet.

Ellie, not trying to be rude or mean. I know so few big words, I just jump at the chance! lol

Nomograph says

It’s bad for the soul and breeds dependence.

so, you are saying welfare is a bad thing? Dependence on Barry and Co is bad too? lol

Bap33 says

Nomo … sticks and stones, may break my bones, but you’re still an idiot

Not polite. He's not an idiot (although I don't personally know him, so I'm making a huge assumption here), he's just someone who disagrees with your point of view and yanks your chain in the process.

Not polite .. true, but done mostly in-jest, I assure you. My chain is yankable. lol (sorry - that was bad)

I don't see the difference between calling nomo an "idiot" and the shitstorm that was created by the guy who brags about ripping off credit card companies and "laughing all the way to the bank." I guess that some of those comments were so bad that Patrick deleted them.

I disagree with many people here - especially those who continually blame everything on the president, as if he is out to get them personally. I also disagree with people who think he's our savior. I have my own beliefs and value system, as do many of the readers and posters here.

I have no problem with people stating their opinion - I would prefer that it's theirs and not the message that comes through the cracks in their tin foil hats, but that's just my own bias. I'm thinking that everyone here has the ability to think for themselves, even though they often don't exercise it.

People have the right to regurgitate what they've heard from the pundits, without spell check, and that's cool. They can expect a comment of mine from time to time about their inability to formulate a coherent sentence or use a spell check. IMHO, posters who don't take the time to ensure their message or "rant" is easily understood is writing to see their message online and not really contributing to discourse.

But calling names? It's childish and detracts from your message. Hopefully we're all adults here and have learned that somewhere along the way.

Just sayin...