Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Change or delusion?

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4433032]Depends...

    If I told you this...



    Then told you that in March of 2000, the publicly traded Internet companies made up a whopping 8% of the market itself... To the tune of meager $1.3 trillion...[/QUOTE]

    9-11 had a lot to do with those numbers.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=cr726;4433087]9-11 had a lot to do with those numbers.[/QUOTE]

    Of course... But the burst had already occurred and the damage was already underway...

    Even after the initial meltdown, there were still companies throwing good money after bad...

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4433106]Of course... But the burst had already occurred and the damage was already underway...

    Even after the initial meltdown, there were still companies throwing good money after bad...[/QUOTE]

    The new legislation is getting rid of the regulations which were put in place after the dot.com meltdown. Boiler rooms may be popping up again.

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4433032]Depends...

    If I told you this...



    Then told you that in March of 2000, the publicly traded Internet companies made up a whopping 8% of the market itself... To the tune of meager $1.3 trillion...[/QUOTE]

    Those are both accurate, but I guess what I'm wondering, and assuming, is how much bigger was the 08 crises?


    [QUOTE=OCCH;4433040]This is a fair statement, but let's not forget he had a democratic majority and still couldn't get anything passed.

    I agree it's "stupid" to place unreasonable blame on Obama, but it's just as ignorant to assume things would be better if he'd "gotten his way". Many people feel his policies will not benefit this country in the long run, and the fact that he's only been a one-term President doesn't change that fact . . .[/QUOTE]

    He got healthcare, the repeal of DADT and the stimulus with that majority. Whether you like those or not, it's not like they did nothing. After the midterm elections though? Nothing got done.

    There were cuts in spending, coupled with investment in infrastructure on the table and the GOP refused. We'd be better off right now if we had done that.

  5. #25
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,974
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4432895]"Mentors" is always my issue with this statement.

    It's like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright have influence on policy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Semantics.

    I aint playin.

    -

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433175]
    He got healthcare, the repeal of DADT and the stimulus with that majority. Whether you like those or not, it's not like they did nothing. After the midterm elections though? Nothing got done.

    There were cuts in spending, coupled with investment in infrastructure on the table and the GOP refused. We'd be better off right now if we had done that.[/QUOTE]

    Kind of a circular argument, as Dem policy decisions played a role in the Republican victories.

    The point is, if one side can't hold Obama accountable for things that occurred during his watch, the other shouldn't praise him for what "coulda been" . . .

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4433206]Kind of a circular argument, as Dem policy decisions played a role in the Republican victories.

    The point is, if one side can't hold Obama accountable for things that occurred during his watch, the other shouldn't praise him for what "coulda been" . . .[/QUOTE]

    Where did am I praising him for what could have been?

    I'm saying the GOP can't blame the bad economy on the guy who inherited it and can't b*tch about a slow recovery or the deficit, if they just say No to every proposal.

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=32green;4433198]Semantics.

    I aint playin.

    -[/QUOTE]

    Ok

    I'd love to see where you think Ayers and Wright have influenced Obama's governance, obviously not directly because they haven't been called in for advice, but show me where you see the 'spirit' of those two in his governance or character.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433275]Where did am I praising him for what could have been?

    I'm saying the GOP can't blame the bad economy on the guy who inherited it and can't b*tch about a slow recovery or the deficit, if they just say No to every proposal.[/QUOTE]

    If they believe those proposals would make things even worse, then they most certainly can.

    Perhaps I misread you, but it appeared you were saying we can't critique Obama because he was stopped from doing what he wanted to do. My point was we may have ended up in an even WORSE position if he had . . .

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4432957]What was racist about his response to the Boston professor incident or his mention of Trayvon?

    Reporters asked those questions both times and he said "I think the police acted stupidly" and "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon".

    Furthermore, the phrase "speeches to black groups" is far too vague. Be specific. And what proof do you have that his wife is a racist?

    And finally, even if you were right, and all of these delusions were in fact reality, and if you don't see it in his policy, then you'd have to concede that he doesn't govern like a racist.[/QUOTE]


    He immediately sided with the Boston prof. Immediately sided with Trayvon's position. The police (white) acted stupid. Black sympathy - white hatred. Trayvon (my son) thereby elevating the borderline criminal to a higher status.
    His speeches lately have been in front of black dominated auidences where he is talking about economic equality. That's racism BTW.
    His policies are clearly socialist/communist. Taking rights away to make the gov ernment more intrusive. He wants us like Europe AND HAS STATED SUCH.
    And don't try to make a point that Michell and Wright are noy majot league racists. They have as much as admitted it.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4433546]He immediately sided with the Boston prof. Immediately sided with Trayvon's position. The police (white) acted stupid. Black sympathy - white hatred. Trayvon (my son) [B]thereby elevating the borderline criminal[/B] to a higher status.
    His speeches lately have been in front of black dominated auidences where he is talking about economic equality. That's racism BTW.
    His policies are clearly socialist/communist. Taking rights away to make the gov ernment more intrusive. He wants us like Europe AND HAS STATED SUCH.
    And don't try to make a point that Michell and Wright are noy majot league racists. They have as much as admitted it.[/QUOTE]

    Zimmerman was a criminal long before he killed Trayvon. There is no such thing as a 'borderline criminal'. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon after telling the 911 operator he would not do so and that 'they' always get away.

    Zimmerman is responsible for his current position, not President Obama

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4433546]He immediately sided with the Boston prof. Immediately sided with Trayvon's position. The police (white) acted stupid. Black sympathy - white hatred. Trayvon (my son) thereby elevating the borderline criminal to a higher status.
    His speeches lately have been in front of black dominated auidences where he is talking about economic equality. That's racism BTW.
    His policies are clearly socialist/communist. Taking rights away to make the gov ernment more intrusive. He wants us like Europe AND HAS STATED SUCH.
    And don't try to make a point that Michell and Wright are noy majot league racists. They have as much as admitted it.[/QUOTE]

    You have not explained anything.

    Yea he "sided" with the professor from his alma mater who got arrested for no reason and the 17 year old kid that got shot with skittles and iced tea.

    "Sided" as in, when asked about it by reporters, gave a brief opinion.

    I'm white and I'm for greater economic equality in this country. Taxes are at their lowest since the '20s, income inequality is at its highest since the '20s and the Citizens United Ruling shot down all hope of campaign finance reform. The very rich are dominating right now. It's not racial, it's socioeconomic.

    He's a socialist and a Euro!

    I think we need to swing the pendulum back a little more towards socialism like say... Ronald Reagan's tax rates. And oh my god, he thinks government is the answer to healthcare costs! Yea, he didn't go far enough in my opinion. It's been proven the world over, and in Hawaii btw, that universal healthcare covers more and brings costs down.

    Everything with you is about labels: commie, socialist, racist.

    And you end with "And don't even try to tell me that Michelle and Rev Wright aren't racist"...

    classic grouping there! two real equivalents!...:rolleyes:

    I already stated Rev Wright is a racist in this thread... How is Michelle Obama a racist?

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4433599]Zimmerman was a criminal long before he killed Trayvon. There is no such thing as a 'borderline criminal'. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon after telling the 911 operator he would not do so and that 'they' always get away.

    Zimmerman is responsible for his current position, not President Obama[/QUOTE]


    Trayvon was in that ara why? Tossed out of school. He had multiple offenses. Posted about punching a bus drivedr also. On the fast track to serious issues.
    Zimmerman had a right to stalk. Obama stoked up the heat. Personally with his involvement and getting Eric Holder involved.
    Has Obama commented on white kids killed by blacks? Ever?

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433681]You have not explained anything.

    Yea he "sided" with the professor from his alma mater who got arrested for no reason and the 17 year old kid that got shot with skittles and iced tea.

    "Sided" as in, when asked about it by reporters, gave a brief opinion.

    I'm white and I'm for greater economic equality in this country. Taxes are at their lowest since the '20s, income inequality is at its highest since the '20s and the Citizens United Ruling shot down all hope of campaign finance reform. The very rich are dominating right now. It's not racial, it's socioeconomic.

    He's a socialist and a Euro!

    I think we need to swing the pendulum back a little more towards socialism like say... Ronald Reagan's tax rates. And oh my god, he thinks government is the answer to healthcare costs! Yea, he didn't go far enough in my opinion. It's been proven the world over, and in Hawaii btw, that universal healthcare covers more and brings costs down.

    Everything with you is about labels: commie, socialist, racist.

    And you end with "And don't even try to tell me that Michelle and Rev Wright aren't racist"...

    classic grouping there! two real equivalents!...:rolleyes:

    I already stated Rev Wright is a racist in this thread... How is Michelle Obama a racist?[/QUOTE]

    Lots of poinhts here to counter.
    He had ZERO business getting involved with either the prof or Trayvon situation. Local issues. He made both racial.
    Ineqauality? LMAO. Get out and WORK harder. You'll have more money. That applies to everybody complaining they have no money. Perhaps less booze, vacations and laziness.
    He has expressed he wants things like in Europe. High gas. More gov control. More required programs.
    Health care and insurance. You want issurance - buy it. No one is stopping you.
    Labels. Adds commonality. Easy to understands. He is a socialist and racist.
    Michelle. " I was never proud to be an American until today". When he got the nom.
    At Princeton she expressed suspicion about the white people there. At Princeton? One of the most accepting places.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,242
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433681]You have not explained anything.

    Yea he "sided" with the professor from his alma mater who got arrested for no reason and the 17 year old kid that got shot with skittles and iced tea.

    "Sided" as in, when asked about it by reporters, gave a brief opinion.

    I'm white and I'm for greater economic equality in this country. Taxes are at their lowest since the '20s, income inequality is at its highest since the '20s and the Citizens United Ruling shot down all hope of campaign finance reform. The very rich are dominating right now. It's not racial, it's socioeconomic.

    He's a socialist and a Euro!

    I think we need to swing the pendulum back a little more towards socialism like say... Ronald Reagan's tax rates. And oh my god, he thinks government is the answer to healthcare costs! Yea, he didn't go far enough in my opinion. [B]It's been proven the world over, and in Hawaii btw, that universal healthcare covers more and brings costs down. [/B]

    Everything with you is about labels: commie, socialist, racist.

    And you end with "And don't even try to tell me that Michelle and Rev Wright aren't racist"...

    classic grouping there! two real equivalents!...:rolleyes:

    I already stated Rev Wright is a racist in this thread... How is Michelle Obama a racist?[/QUOTE]

    LOL, check out England, they can't pay their bills and universal healthcare is killing them. France and Greece are buried under entitlements and the Greeks continue to riot if anyone wants to reduce any entitlement.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=Trades;4433884]LOL, check out England, they can't pay their bills and universal healthcare is killing them. France and Greece are buried under entitlements and the Greeks continue to riot if anyone wants to reduce any entitlement.[/QUOTE]

    The 08 financial collapse was global and the economic problems in England, Germany and France were from that crises - and not because they have universal healthcare. It's a complete fabrication to argue otherwise.

    And Greece, well, they did everything wrong - from discouraging the collection of taxes to absurdly early retirements, vacation time and crazy pensions.

    I, nor anyone I know, support using Greece as a model for our healthcare system.

    I do say we should be looking at Germany, Norway, France and the UK. All of which pay less % of their GDP and have a greater degree of coverage.

    Their financial problems are the same as ours, and in Germany's case, they were far better off than most after the 08 collapse - their problem arose out what to do about Greece, not because Germany itself was in such bad shape.

    Scapegoating universal healthcare as the cause for the 08 crises is erroneous and absurd.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,793
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433975]The 08 financial collapse was global and the economic problems in England, Germany and France were from that crises - and not because they have universal healthcare. [/QUOTE]

    Still Barney Frank's fault.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,242
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4433975]The 08 financial collapse was global and the economic problems in England, Germany and France were from that crises - and not because they have universal healthcare. It's a complete fabrication to argue otherwise.

    And Greece, well, they did everything wrong - from discouraging the collection of taxes to absurdly early retirements, vacation time and crazy pensions.

    I, nor anyone I know, support using Greece as a model for our healthcare system.

    I do say we should be looking at Germany, Norway, France and the UK. All of which pay less % of their GDP and have a greater degree of coverage.

    Their financial problems are the same as ours, and in Germany's case, they were far better off than most after the 08 collapse - their problem arose out what to do about Greece, not because Germany itself was in such bad shape.

    Scapegoating universal healthcare as the cause for the 08 crises is erroneous and absurd.[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't scapegoating universal health care for the econ problems of 08. I was replying to your rediculous claim that "[B]It's been proven the world over, and in Hawaii btw, that universal healthcare covers more and brings costs down. " [/B]which I bolded in my quote of your message.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,222
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4434097]Still Barney Frank's fault.[/QUOTE]


    Guy gives fruitcakery a bad name.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,242
    [url]http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/20/why-the-uk-is-ditching-socialized-medicine/[/url]

    [QUOTE]Why the UK Is Ditching Socialized Medicine
    Posted By [U]Arnold Ahlert[/U] On February 20, 2012


    There is more than a little irony attached to the Obama administration’s determination to pursue socialist, EU-style “solutions” to America’s problems, even as the European Union is coming to grips with the bitter realities such socialism produces. And while Greece and its financial problems receive some media coverage in the United States, there is a much bigger story flying under the mainstream media radar: in Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has introduced a bill seeking to [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/as-obama-pushes-new-regulations-uk-eyes-privatizing-its-health-care/"]partially privatize[/URL] the National Health Service (NHS). Why? Because the British government is “hoping to avoid a Greek-style financial meltdown.”


    The system’s defenders are upset. The [I]Times of London[/I] is [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9066483/Downing-Street-does-not-want-Andrew-Lansley-taken-out-and-shot.html"]reporting[/URL] that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is in the eye of the storm. “Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot,” said an unnamed “Downing Street source.” “He’s messed up both the communication and the substance of the policy.” The source further contended that Lansley was “a disaster” and “a law unto himself.” The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing also want the bill [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17083357"]withdrawn[/URL], as do members of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, the Royal Medical Colleges, including the Royal College of GPs. Unions, including the Royal College of Midwives, want to “kill the bill” as well, while Labor Party leader Ed Miliband accused Mr. Cameron of failing to listen to the experts.


    Cameron [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2100219/Health-social-care-Why-Dave-risking-ill-feeling-health-reform.html"]refuses[/URL] to back down, insisting there’s too much bureaucracy in the system, and that it interferes with patient care. “If we were as good at treating cancer as the average European country, we would save 5,000 lives a year,” he contended. He further noted that reform will create “a fair system that stops the private sector from picking off contracts and the public sector from providing an inflexible monopoly.” Yet he insisted that “health care for all, free at the point of use, unrelated to the ability to pay” will remain the animating features of the system.


    Such euphemisms are at odds with reality. Last November, the NHS’s Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, running at a loss of $8 million a year on revenues of $143 million, was [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/hinchingbrooke-hospital-nhs-2011-11?nr_email_referer=1"]given over[/URL] to Circle, a private health care company. Circle was brought in to cut bureaucracy and improve efficiency, and it is the first private company to take over an entire British hospital. Earlier this month, an NHS “watchdog” at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ruled that a breakthrough drug used to extend the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer was too expensive to be included in the system. NICE makes calculations based on the “cost of the drug to the NHS according to the number of men likely to be treated.” NICE [I]will[/I] pay for some end-of-life drugs for rare diseases. But the current, though unofficial, threshold for QALY (quality-adjusted life year) drugs has been $80,000 for renal cell carcinoma. “Therefore the £63,200 ($101,000) cost per QALY for abiraterone would still not be deemed a cost effective use of NHS resources,” said a NICE statement.
    Such rationing–and it is rationing–is nothing new. A 2011 [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/13/private-healthcare-boosted-by-nhs-rationing"]report[/URL] revealed that independent medical providers were experiencing a growing number of patients choosing to pay for their own care after having treatment delayed or denied altogether by an NHS primary care trust (PCT). A survey of 101 influential industry figures revealed that 34 percent believed “budgetary pressure in the NHS” was the principle cause. At the annual [URL="http://www.csp.org.uk/news/2012/02/08/arc-2012-rationing-cutbacks-are-affecting-patient-care"]meeting[/URL] of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) earlier this month, members contended that they were “increasingly being asked to make decisions based on financial rather than clinical reasons and to ration their care,” further noting that such rationing “was on a scale that had never been seen before across both acute and non acute NHS services.”


    Last November, such rationing reached a scandalous level. A study by the Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP) [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/14/nhs-bosses-face-sack-cost-cutting_n_1091820.html"]revealed[/URL] that Primary Care Trust (PCT) heads were imposing arbitrary spending caps, denying patients treatment for procedures such as hip replacements and cataract removals–and that waiting times for services were being deliberately extended “so that patients would go private or die before they were seen” to slash costs. Secretary Lansley was furious. “For too long, Labour turned a blind eye to unfair practices within the NHS which harmed patients,” he said. “No right-thinking person could possibly understand how anyone could delay a patient’s treatment unnecessarily. If patients need treatment, they should get it as soon as possible, and where they choose.”


    “As soon as possible” is yet another euphemism.

    Brits have a legal right under the NHS Constitution to start their hospital treatment–within 18 weeks after a referral by a GP. Yet referrals require diagnoses, and the wait for those is increasing as well. The Guardian [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/05/nhs-waiting-times-increase-tests"]reports[/URL] a 92 percent increase compared to last year in the number of people waiting more than the NHS’s recommended six-weeks for a diagnostic test at an NHS hospital. In other words, even under [I]optimum conditions[/I], people suffering from afflictions such as heart disease and cancer will face more than a [I]five-and-a-half month[/I] wait before getting the treatment they need.


    Such waiting times have their consequences. A London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study [URL="http://www.metro.co.uk/news/865874-britain-has-lowest-breast-cancer-survival-rate-study-shows"]released[/URL] last June revealed that British women have the lowest breast cancer survival rate among Europe’s richest nations. Furthermore, cancer survival rates in general [URL="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press_releases/cancer_performance.html"]continue to lag[/URL] behind other EU nations, despite ten years of efforts to improve them. And for some cancers, such as lung cancer, the gap is actually widening.


    All of the above is what is currently driving David Cameron towards outsourcing medical services to private providers. He has [URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-snubs-doctors-and-nurses-690856"]convened[/URL] a healthcare summit taking place today, and he is currently under [URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-snubs-doctors-and-nurses-690856"]attack[/URL] for not inviting several of the professional medical societies and other health workers to the meeting. In a bit of unintended irony, left-wing newspaper The Guardian has a headline claiming the Health and Social Care Bill currently under consideration will spell the end of “health care services as we know it.” Shadow Health Minister (the opposition party’s counterweight to the acting Health Secretary) Andrew Gwynne is apoplectic, noting that no national healthcare standards could lead to “variations in every part of the country in terms of what care you actually receive,” that Brits “could even find ourselves in the horrendous situation of people having to pay for services that are completely free in other areas,” and that reform will take the country back to the “failed free-market ideology of the 1980s…”


    Better to be equally miserable, apparently.


    UK healthcare costs are [URL="http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2012UKbn"]currently[/URL] $194 billion per year and consume 18 percent of the UK’s budget. The projected “cuts” in spending for 2013 that have people up in arms? As of now, a $6 billion [URL="http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2013UKbn"]increase[/URL] in spending to $200 billion. Much of the animus likely stems from the fact that Britain has grown used to massive amounts of healthcare spending that can no longer be sustained: between 2000 and 2010, the NHS budget [URL="http://www.reform.co.uk/pages/4198/view"]doubled[/URL] in real terms. Furthermore, British debt as a percentage of GDP was [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt"]almost[/URL] 80 percent in 2010.


    Which brings us across the pond, so to speak, where America’s debt level reached 102 percent of GDP last year, long before the full effects–and true costs–of our own stab at government-run healthcare have yet to be realized. Joseph A. Morris, a former Reagan White House lawyer who now serves on the board of the American Conservative Union, explains what Americans should infer from Britain’s travails. “Europe’s message to the world is no longer that the socialist dream of the cradle-to-grave welfare state is an easy achievement,” he said. “Rather, it is the shouted warning that it is a fool’s paradise. The bills are coming due and the only real alternatives–serious financial reform of government or national bankruptcy–are not pleasant.”


    The president isn’t listening. The total dismissal of such “unpleasantness” was epitomized by Mr. Obama’s release of a $3.8 trillion budget, a document so unserious that Senate Leader Harry Reid won’t even [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/13/analysis-politics-trumps-policy-in-obama-budget/"]bring it up[/URL] for a vote this year. As for the “revenue-neutral” healthcare bill this administration has long touted, the Heritage Foundation found $700 billion in [URL="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/obamacares-top-three-budget-busters/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%252BBell"]additional[/URL], guaranteed costs. As for “unanticipated costs” (progressive-speak for costs that should be anticipated)? If a large number of businesses choose to cancel coverage and dump their employees into the public exchanges, another [I]one trillion dollars[/I] could be added to the cost of the bill.


    Furthermore, it must be noted that one part of it, the CLASS Act, has already been dumped, due to its fiscal unsustainability.


    So why would we continue to pursue such an approach to healthcare, even as the latest cautionary tale from the European Union emerges? Sally Pipes, an American health policy expert who leads the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco put it best. “They [President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi] are ideologues,” said Pipes. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.” One this troika seems doggedly determined to pursue, even if it drives the country bankrupt in the process.


    That’s not ideology. That’s insanity.
    [/QUOTE]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us