Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5168 Mar 25, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for that documentation.
Otherwise it's simply creating a Straw Man and attacking him. That tactic that gets you an "F" in high school debate class, and as a result not persuasive at all.
It always comes back to those pesky facts, and not including facts simply demonstrates none exist to support the argument.
Here is an example of pesky facts.
I have a copy of the progressive platform of 1912 and quotes directly from the U.S.A. Communist Party website. Compare them and anyone can see that they are still the same. Even with the passing of time the ideals and big government control over everyone's lives are the same. There is always a cause for so called justice and anti-capitalism always with the government taking charge and getting bigger and bigger.
Of course they have enacted some good laws, they have to to give validity to their cause.
Anyone that has ever been to Communist countries or where Communist are trying to take over knows that they lie and kill to get what they want. Only a tiny step from Socialism to full blown Communism.
I say that the progressive Party as gone through name changes from the Progressive Party, to the Socialist Workers Party, to the Communist Party, and now back to and intertwined again with the Progressive Party. Anyone that can read will see the uncanny resemblances between them. Nothing to changing a name and calling yourself something else. You still look the same.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/in...

http://www.cpusa.org/faq/
Man in Plaid

Anniston, AL

#5169 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>y'know ,if I could take this serious,then I would LOL,the SOUTH was in reconstruction at the time.carpetbaggers ran Dixie,and you're tryin' to tell us that Marxism was was was our concern.where are you from?
I simply disagreed with your assertion that the Progressive Farmer magazine is an example of the term "progressive" that lacks the leftist connotation that an earlier poster suggested.

My post states that the Progressive Farmer did in fact have a political agenda in its early years, and it leaned toward the left. It also points out that populism, which was very popular in Southern politics, and the progressive liberalism of T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and F. Roosevelt worked from a similar leftist foundation. In this regard, left wing ideologies were indeed a Southern concern because of the populist tenor of much of the region's politics during the period I mentioned. In fact, the three most famous political figures associated with the South, Bryan (though he was born in Illinois), Wilson, and Long were all three considered stellar examples of liberal politicians But, many current leftists would likely disagree with Bryan's fervent Christian fundamentalism. In fact, I'd say that one can find discussions of Long's "Share Our Wealth" initiatives on progressive, liberal, and socialist political sites. There might even be a few parallels drawn between Long's wealth sharing and Obama's desire to spread the wealth around.

Also, by mid 1877, which is around two and a half years before the publication of the Progressive Farmer, the Democrats regained power in every Southern state government, so most sources will declare the period of reconstruction over by then, and in some states reconstruction ended earlier. Although you can argue that the effects of reconstruction were felt afterward, Southerners had political control of the region by the 1880s. By the early 1900s, Southern states had overturned reconstruction constitutions and began to implement disenfranchisement laws against black citizens. The carpetbaggers and radical abolitionists were gone by the mid 1870s. Hence, they did not "run Dixie" during the time I mentioned in my previous post.

Finally by the end of the twentieth century, throughout the WWI era, and beyond Marxism was viewed as a major concern to the American government as a whole, especially with the influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. And, with the recent success of progressive democrats, I would say the threat is as vibrant as it has ever been.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5170 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>what are you talkin' about,dave? I just said that I was kiddin' ya about your sense o humor(dry,or lack of).man, do y'all ever ease off?good grief!!y'know it's not like we are deciding national policies here.
Don't be so serious. I was just making the point that if you should not agree with me, its O.K. You can go after me. Make your point but make a good one. I could write something stupid, but I probably won't. lol
Farrell Landon

Washington, DC

#5171 Mar 25, 2013
Tallywhacker playin with has become an epidimic in america. Gotta propse leguslation to try and slow the playin of tallywhackers in this country. We need to apooint a tallywhacker czar and study and try to stop all the tallywhacker playin with

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#5172 Mar 25, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>the theory that will never die.if one falls,then the rest are sure to tumble,too.did'nt prove true in nam or anywhere else,but still has its' believers.Cyprus,a tiny island nation(@ the size of Atlanta,ga.,is the prototype of what we should soon expect here.logical I guess,in a way.new York,LA.and Miami-stand aside.Cyprus rules.
Yes, there are those that wish to dip into American workers retirement plans. Especially 401k's.
http://www.examiner.com/article/401k-plans-an...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5173 Mar 25, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an example of pesky facts.
I have a copy of the progressive platform of 1912 and quotes directly from the U.S.A. Communist Party website. Compare them and anyone can see that they are still the same. Even with the passing of time the ideals and big government control over everyone's lives are the same. There is always a cause for so called justice and anti-capitalism always with the government taking charge and getting bigger and bigger.
Of course they have enacted some good laws, they have to to give validity to their cause.
Anyone that has ever been to Communist countries or where Communist are trying to take over knows that they lie and kill to get what they want. Only a tiny step from Socialism to full blown Communism.
I say that the progressive Party as gone through name changes from the Progressive Party, to the Socialist Workers Party, to the Communist Party, and now back to and intertwined again with the Progressive Party. Anyone that can read will see the uncanny resemblances between them. Nothing to changing a name and calling yourself something else. You still look the same.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/in...
http://www.cpusa.org/faq/
And many of the progressive goals were laudable, while some were unrealistic, but it is the method of attaining those goals that is the problem. Frankly, their proposed pathway sounds more like fascism than anything.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5175 Mar 26, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so serious. I was just making the point that if you should not agree with me, its O.K. You can go after me. Make your point but make a good one. I could write something stupid, but I probably won't. lol
you are okay with me,dave.ivwill try not to be so serious.lol
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5176 Mar 26, 2013
Man in Plaid wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply disagreed with your assertion that the Progressive Farmer magazine is an example of the term "progressive" that lacks the leftist connotation that an earlier poster suggested.
My post states that the Progressive Farmer did in fact have a political agenda in its early years, and it leaned toward the left. It also points out that populism, which was very popular in Southern politics, and the progressive liberalism of T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and F. Roosevelt worked from a similar leftist foundation. In this regard, left wing ideologies were indeed a Southern concern because of the populist tenor of much of the region's politics during the period I mentioned. In fact, the three most famous political figures associated with the South, Bryan (though he was born in Illinois), Wilson, and Long were all three considered stellar examples of liberal politicians But, many current leftists would likely disagree with Bryan's fervent Christian fundamentalism. In fact, I'd say that one can find discussions of Long's "Share Our Wealth" initiatives on progressive, liberal, and socialist political sites. There might even be a few parallels drawn between Long's wealth sharing and Obama's desire to spread the wealth around.
Also, by mid 1877, which is around two and a half years before the publication of the Progressive Farmer, the Democrats regained power in every Southern state government, so most sources will declare the period of reconstruction over by then, and in some states reconstruction ended earlier. Although you can argue that the effects of reconstruction were felt afterward, Southerners had political control of the region by the 1880s. By the early 1900s, Southern states had overturned reconstruction constitutions and began to implement disenfranchisement laws against black citizens. The carpetbaggers and radical abolitionists were gone by the mid 1870s. Hence, they did not "run Dixie" during the time I mentioned in my previous post.
Finally by the end of the twentieth century, throughout the WWI era, and beyond Marxism was viewed as a major concern to the American government as a whole, especially with the influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. And, with the recent success of progressive democrats, I would say the threat is as vibrant as it has ever been.
I guess my point was that the south has always been the most conservative region in the country.i think it would be the last place Marxists or communists would try to gain a foothold.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5177 Mar 26, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're just being kind. There are some for whom the term "conservative" is synonymous with knuckle dragging neanderthal, bigot, religious fanatic, etc.(Just so there is no confusion, I myself am a Christian, but somehow in the Left's dictionary to be a Christian who actually thinks that faith should impact your decisions means you're a fanatic.)
I think that most of those were just humorous attempts to respond to equally ridiculous descriptions of dems and libs.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5178 Mar 26, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeb, why is that so difficult for you to believe? Financially, Obamacare will not be sustainable and it hasn't been funded. People are already feeling the sting of higher rates and businesses are trying to determine ways to avoid paying for it. Obama INTENDS for Obamacare to get him into the history books and he'll stop at nothing. I can absolutely see the day when this could happen to us.
I am saying that I support obamacare in its' entirety.most people seem to think that is does have some good points.how many attempts have reps made trying to repeal it,and all have failed.it just seems to me that if they want it changed,the easiest way to change it would be to get a republican elected president in 2016.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5179 Mar 26, 2013
sorry, I meant to say that I am "not"saying that I.........
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#5180 Mar 26, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>Here is an example of pesky facts.
I have a copy of the progressive platform of 1912 and quotes directly from the U.S.A. Communist Party website. Compare them and anyone can see that they are still the same. Even with the passing of time the ideals and big government control over everyone's lives are the same. There is always a cause for so called justice and anti-capitalism always with the government taking charge and getting bigger and bigger.
Of course they have enacted some good laws, they have to to give validity to their cause.
Anyone that has ever been to Communist countries or where Communist are trying to take over knows that they lie and kill to get what they want. Only a tiny step from Socialism to full blown Communism.
I say that the progressive Party as gone through name changes from the Progressive Party, to the Socialist Workers Party, to the Communist Party, and now back to and intertwined again with the Progressive Party. Anyone that can read will see the uncanny resemblances between them. Nothing to changing a name and calling yourself something else. You still look the same.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/in...

http://www.cpusa.org/faq/
Damn do Right Wingers love to be afraid. Having been scared to death Saddam Hussein was going to send missiles to Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and dragging us into a $6,000,000,000,000.00 debacle, we are now supposed to fear "Socialism".

The boogeymen never stop on Right Wing Planet.

What a shame American education has deteriorated to the point where the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism and the continuum existing between and linking them, is so difficult for so many to grasp.

If you truly are a capitalist in its pure form, you want America to duplicate Somalia, or Syria, or Lebanon, where government, for all practical purposes, cannot regulate private property or its use.

True Capitalism means:

- No Social Security
- No Medicare
- No V.A.
- No TVA
- No public hospitals
- No public schools
- No police departments
- No public libraries
- No employment laws
- No Anti-Trust laws
- No banking regulations
- No gov't insured banks
- No fraud laws
- No public roads
- No public schools
- No child protection laws
- No anti-corruption laws
- No firearms laws at all
- No vehicle safety laws
- No food safety laws
- No medicine safety laws

And 1000's of other laws that protect the powerless from the powerful.

This inevitably leads to tyranny by oligarchies.

Pure Communism means:

The "people", a/k/a the "Party Elite own all means of production and completely control all economic transactions.

This inevitably leads to tyranny by the party elite.

Mixed Exonomy:

If you support regulated capitalism, or capitalist socialism, you support America - a mixed economy regulated capitalism with social programs asserted to promote the general welfare somewhere in between the two extremes of pure Capitalism and pure Communism.

Moderates, Progressives, and all reasonably intelligent persons understand only countries utilizing mixed economies have avoided tyranny by either the political elite or the oligarchy.

History is a great teacher.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#5181 Mar 26, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>I guess my point was that the south has always been the most conservative region in the country.i think it would be the last place Marxists or communists would try to gain a foothold.
I agree the South has been the most conservative (or reactionary depending on your definition of what a conservative is), on social issues,

but when it comes to government spending, the South has routinely been extremely anti-conservative. The South, more than any other largw geographical section of the country,(except for Alaska), routinely takes more government funds than the rest of the country.

It's typically American, government spending that benefits us is good, and therefor not a violation of "Conservative" principals, and government spending that benefits anyone else is "waste, fraud, and abuse", and so violates "Conservative" principals.

At least it fun to watch.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#5182 Mar 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn do Right Wingers love to be afraid. Having been scared to death Saddam Hussein was going to send missiles to Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and dragging us into a $6,000,000,000,000.00 debacle, we are now supposed to fear "Socialism".
The boogeymen never stop on Right Wing Planet.
What a shame American education has deteriorated to the point where the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism and the continuum existing between and linking them, is so difficult for so many to grasp.
If you truly are a capitalist in its pure form, you want America to duplicate Somalia, or Syria, or Lebanon, where government, for all practical purposes, cannot regulate private property or its use.
True Capitalism means:
- No Social Security
- No Medicare
- No V.A.
- No TVA
- No public hospitals
- No public schools
- No police departments
- No public libraries
- No employment laws
- No Anti-Trust laws
- No banking regulations
- No gov't insured banks
- No fraud laws
- No public roads
- No public schools
- No child protection laws
- No anti-corruption laws
- No firearms laws at all
- No vehicle safety laws
- No food safety laws
- No medicine safety laws
And 1000's of other laws that protect the powerless from the powerful.
This inevitably leads to tyranny by oligarchies.
Pure Communism means:
The "people", a/k/a the "Party Elite own all means of production and completely control all economic transactions.
This inevitably leads to tyranny by the party elite.
Mixed Exonomy:
If you support regulated capitalism, or capitalist socialism, you support America - a mixed economy regulated capitalism with social programs asserted to promote the general welfare somewhere in between the two extremes of pure Capitalism and pure Communism.
Moderates, Progressives, and all reasonably intelligent persons understand only countries utilizing mixed economies have avoided tyranny by either the political elite or the oligarchy.
History is a great teacher.
Boring as usual, with no definitive answer.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#5183 Mar 26, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the South has been the most conservative (or reactionary depending on your definition of what a conservative is), on social issues,
but when it comes to government spending, the South has routinely been extremely anti-conservative. The South, more than any other largw geographical section of the country,(except for Alaska), routinely takes more government funds than the rest of the country.
It's typically American, government spending that benefits us is good, and therefor not a violation of "Conservative" principals, and government spending that benefits anyone else is "waste, fraud, and abuse", and so violates "Conservative" principals.
At least it fun to watch.
Boring.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5184 Mar 26, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>I am saying that I support obamacare in its' entirety.most people seem to think that is does have some good points.how many attempts have reps made trying to repeal it,and all have failed.it just seems to me that if they want it changed,the easiest way to change it would be to get a republican elected president in 2016.
What are the good points? The concept of universal healthcare for everyone is a great idea, but define it. Does it mean everyone will get all medication and treatments and surgeries they need regardless of their situation and regardless of their ability to pay- No. No country can support that and survive economically. So there MUST be guidelines that will be set in place as to who gets what treatment when. The "death panels" that Sarah Palin was excoriated for will exist. It was Obama himself who, when asked by a woman about her 100 year old mother whose doctor said the only option he had for her was to install a pacemaker, said "maybe surgery is not the best option, maybe she would be better off taking a painkiller." There will be rationing and anyone who says there won't be is either delusional or lying, take your pick.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5185 Mar 26, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the good points? The concept of universal healthcare for everyone is a great idea, but define it. Does it mean everyone will get all medication and treatments and surgeries they need regardless of their situation and regardless of their ability to pay- No. No country can support that and survive economically. So there MUST be guidelines that will be set in place as to who gets what treatment when. The "death panels" that Sarah Palin was excoriated for will exist. It was Obama himself who, when asked by a woman about her 100 year old mother whose doctor said the only option he had for her was to install a pacemaker, said "maybe surgery is not the best option, maybe she would be better off taking a painkiller." There will be rationing and anyone who says there won't be is either delusional or lying, take your pick.
I just know that when someone goes to the hospital,they have to be treated,regardless of their ability to pay for the treatment.when they don't pay,then who ends up covering the cost of their treatment.i think the answer is that we all(taxpayers)do.i readily admit that I don't that much about obamacare.i do know that all doctors hate it.anyway,i think that (depending on what happens in the next 3 1/2 yrs),the dems will probably try to move more to the right or center and may even nominate someone who is not closely tied to the current admin.what do you think the republican strategy will be?
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#5186 Mar 26, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an example of pesky facts.
I have a copy of the progressive platform of 1912 and quotes directly from the U.S.A. Communist Party website. Compare them and anyone can see that they are still the same. Even with the passing of time the ideals and big government control over everyone's lives are the same. There is always a cause for so called justice and anti-capitalism always with the government taking charge and getting bigger and bigger.
Of course they have enacted some good laws, they have to to give validity to their cause.
Anyone that has ever been to Communist countries or where Communist are trying to take over knows that they lie and kill to get what they want. Only a tiny step from Socialism to full blown Communism.
I say that the progressive Party as gone through name changes from the Progressive Party, to the Socialist Workers Party, to the Communist Party, and now back to and intertwined again with the Progressive Party. Anyone that can read will see the uncanny resemblances between them. Nothing to changing a name and calling yourself something else. You still look the same.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/in...
http://www.cpusa.org/faq/
it is just hard for me to imagine t.roosevelt as being either Marxist,communist or fascist.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5187 Mar 26, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>I just know that when someone goes to the hospital,they have to be treated,regardless of their ability to pay for the treatment.when they don't pay,then who ends up covering the cost of their treatment.i think the answer is that we all(taxpayers)do.i readily admit that I don't that much about obamacare.i do know that all doctors hate it.anyway,i think that (depending on what happens in the next 3 1/2 yrs),the dems will probably try to move more to the right or center and may even nominate someone who is not closely tied to the current admin.what do you think the republican strategy will be?
I have no way of knowing what the Republican "establishment" will try and push on this next time. We have had two failures with McCain and Romney. McCain is a wishy washy moderate - but I will give him credit for pushing the questions on Benghazi. Romney was a very decent man, but also a moderate. My dream candidate would be a conservative who is neither ashamed of being a conservative nor timid in espousing conservative ideas and goals. I think the Republican "establishment" has convinced itself that to nominate a conservative would be to invite defeat. To which I would respond, yeah, and those moderates you pushed on us did so well. I think the American public would respond well to conservative ideas that were well articulated and supported.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5188 Mar 26, 2013
jeb stuart wrote:
<quoted text>I just know that when someone goes to the hospital,they have to be treated,regardless of their ability to pay for the treatment.when they don't pay,then who ends up covering the cost of their treatment.i think the answer is that we all(taxpayers)do.i readily admit that I don't that much about obamacare.i do know that all doctors hate it.anyway,i think that (depending on what happens in the next 3 1/2 yrs),the dems will probably try to move more to the right or center and may even nominate someone who is not closely tied to the current admin.what do you think the republican strategy will be?
Partially correct.

If someone is in an "emergency situation", they must be treated and stabilized, that is the law. If they're not in an emergency situation, no such requirement exists. A good example is a pregnant woman about to deliver, without insurance or on Medicaid, presenting to the ER at a for profit (investor owned) hospital. They must stabilize the patient(s) before they can transfer (if they desire, it might be a good idea for publicity purposes) to a county facility.

As far as the unpaid bills, it would take too long to explain, but many consider it to be a cost of doing business. It's one of the reasons why charges are so high for hospital items, the anticipated revenue has to help cover losses from non-paying patients.

Some people mistakenly believe that hospitals don't need a profit to survive. A pet phrase I've heard many times is, "Without a margin, there is no mission".

At a public hospital (like Grady in Atlanta) the taxpayers are expected to fund anticipated shortfalls, so to that extent, you are correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) Sep 15 The WB 2,055
Sex Offender works for Culligan...in and out of... Sep 7 Lady Glock 5
GA Who do you support for Attorney General in Geor... (Oct '10) Sep 5 faisha 186
TV, Internet and Phone (Nov '13) Aug 29 oking09 6
Sorry Neighbors (Mar '13) Aug 29 Lady Glock 4
Search continues for missing Guyton man Jul '14 Just me 1
Make money from home Jun '14 antonio wiggins 2
•••
•••
•••

Springfield Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Springfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Springfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Springfield
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••