Senate passes historic health care reform legislation 60-39

That balance swings both ways. I have thought of a political model that looks more like a circle.
Freedom is on top. If you go too far to the right - or too far to the left, you slip around quickly to the despotic totalitarian, - bottom.
I was showing a Karate guy something about swords, and martial arts. He was going to the full out punch - all forward. -With his weight all extended, I just tapped the back of his leg and he went straight down. -You have to have balance. "Go-Ju", hard and soft. All hard is brittle, like glass, all soft is like bubblegum.

Strength comes from a little hard with soft. The two have to go together - or you go down.

....Why not respond within the comment thread where the original quote and this particular discussion came from?

neh, the incumbents have the disadvantage -- they don't see the storm aproaching, to them it is just business as usual and looting our money and forcing unwanted policies on us.I guess they're under the illusion that once they got a progressive in office they just keep riding the wave all the way to total power over the people.
NOT!
There will be wailing and nashing of teeth, the angst of the people is boiling over --- never before has washington seen the wrath which is to come.

There's no such thing as incumbents. There is only different looking people with different slogans, hired by the exact same people. If you place your hope in "your side" you lose cause it's a set-up job. Your side is bought and paid for - just like the other side.

The people on the radio are bought and paid for. The whole thing is bought and paid for.

What? You believe in the Constitution? - Well that's where they got you. It's their game, the cards are completely stacked. You're a loser going in.

"You also think all 80 year olds are bitter?"

Of course not, but some of your remarks remind me of the hatred spewed by my old racist great grandmother who was bitter about having a long hard life. She was also very spiteful and disgusted with her black nurse and said the nastiest things, but could only bequeath love on the things she loved (her family).

"I didn't use vulgarity, I spoke plainly based entirely on my observations."

I know you weren't vulgar and I didn't accuse you of such. I called you bitter because you're rude and it seems like you can't have an argument with someone without pointing out personal flaws or ridiculing them! It's clear you haven't noticed but I never find you and pick fights with you, I read stories and when I read the comments, I come across your little nugget of unpleasantness directed at someone you don't like or disagree with. It taints the entire post with negativeness and ill will.

"Sad to see young people who have no respect for those who actually have lived some life and know of what they speak"

I may be young, and for my lack of years, I am naive, but I know a jerk when I see one. I know what unwarranted disrespect looks like.

Don't think you're being a horrible person?

"since you are so "important" and have so many "friends""

There was NO REASON for you to say something like that. You taunted him because of what he does and made an unfair accusation that had no bearing on the message he was trying to convey. Instead of making an educated comment that would actually point out your ideas, you make fun of him and draw the attention away from the topic at hand. You're like a bully! I'm not in grade school any more, so I'm not going to put up with your immature bullshit.

I would bet you to try to have civil discourse with other members for a week, but you'd probably turn me down. But I will politely ask you to use the golden rule when you engage others in debate. Speak to others the way you want to be spoken to.

I agree with Jan, we need a complete overhaul of the food system in this country. The FDA is not doing their job and the safety of food is not being considered. The FDA is allowing food monopolies to develop that are ruining out biodiversity with their GMO's and killing our bees. We have some serious problems with the food supply that is affecting people's health. Therefore I agree with Jan that in order to create a healthier nation we need to take a serious look at all the health threats.

Preeeecisely! And the corporate lawyers wrote the bills. OR made sure that they had everything the corporation wants.

It's all about dropping another big wad of money somebody's way.
The people that got republicans in had them do this for years. They had to pay for all radio talk hosts to rile up the backward working men to get their people in.
But now, after Bush ruined everything, we got big spenders in - but hey! What do you know?! Those same people are in there again.

And when it all turns around, they'll be back, backing the next group that guarantees their livelihood.
Because there's a group that gets the money -your money- and the political system is their shell-game.

YOU - ARE - the pigeon. And they got over laughing at you a long time ago.

In my own thinking, because that's how we all operate, I deduct lots of points from someone's IQ when they speak of evolution as a reason to hope. Please. If evolving really matter, let alone was real, then why is it that Pompeii (I believe the city that was destroyed by a volcanic eruption) was far more advanced than people had believed. They had ways of doing things archeologist didn't think such people knew how to do. If they are part of the evolving of "us" getting better how is it that they were better prior to people actually getting better? That time seemed far better than the "dark ages" with knights and whatnot.

Let alone the FACT that humans are inherently greedy. It takes much attention for those that are not to keep on being selfless. To remind themselves that others are important. If they were not up on their maintenance to do so they'd fall and be as dumb as those that run around lying and taking.

People may continue to try, but it's like hoping to grow feathers to fly. It ain't going to happen.

Regarding the Pompeii bit -
Yes, it was more socially & technologically advanced than the dark ages because Europe stepped back socially and technologically after the fall of Rome. I would've thought you'd be aware of that.
Be careful about judging peoples 'IQ' lest yours be called into question.

Also, don't confuse the notion of biological evolution, compared with social and technological progression. Evolution terms often get used casually in the wrong context. Those colloquial uses shouldn't be compared in the same category as evolution in the more proper sense. Thus there's no contradiction, as you suggest.

Finally, remember that we have a fairly potent capacity to resist our more primal impulses. Social conditioning and indoctrination goes a long ways towards this. For example, we are generally quite good at resisting our violent or sexual impulses, we redirect our emotions towards more constructive things, etc.
To me, this indicates that we can also curb our greedy tendencies as well. It wont work so well over night, but over time perhaps we could be very different?

Over-coming greed cannot happen inside this social construct. It only happens with people who have more to accomplish.
You get females going after artists, scientists, astronauts - the great accomplishers, well maybe.
But still, they know in their bones, they want a partner who takes care of business.

It comes down to, if you aren't bringing home the beacon, you're coming home to an empty flat.

Rearrange the pay scales. Otherwise: zero improvement.

i see your point @cztheday, its akin to the getting your foot in the door argument. However other countries didn't have to go through much trouble 50/60 years ago for socialized healthcare either, and to be cynical if I may... Can I expect the legislative branch to really implement a radical healthcare reform against the industry that contributes to their individual politcal campaigns? I feel thats leaving things to chance a little much for the same government that produced nafta, the patriot act, the no child left behind act which is still in effect.

but ammended and improved for the citizen or the corporation? I know I am becoming more and more cynical everyday, but if you have been paying attention to the workings of Washington, it's getting very difficult not to be cynical. If this bill goes the way of nearly every other bill that has a financial component, the taxpayer's dollar goes for less and less of what the taxpayer needs, and more and more towards the special interests of large multi-national corporations.

Bare in mind, the ants/bees comparison was likely a rough analogy, not to be taken in detail. Thus the queen bit may not be entirely relevant.

Heh, and yeah, he's not the easiest person to read. It's not so much his words as his sentence structure. Very dry.

Why do you think his thought is impossible, though? Not to say I entirely disagree - I simply don't know. However, you haven't said why you believe so. Aside from a vague, ambiguous, from-the-hip assumption about history.

I think what he wanted is great, but with humanity what he wants cannot happen. It cannot happen because 1% of humanity is infested with vile and that is enough to make that dream impossible. A dream that would be great to have, but at all something that'll happen.

He was a smart man with a good heart. He was not, however, socially knowledgeable or he would realize what he was stating was not ever going to happen with how people are now.

Great response, thank you.

@RaceBannon, I just read the article of Albert Einstein. There are so many things he wrote that rang true to me. His clarity of vision and the steps through which he takes you to the ultimate answer are so masterfully crafted. I am going to be re reading this essay several times, because it is packed with so many good examples that could easily be broken down into talking points.

I completely agree with his conclusions, and it was very eerie to think that he must have written this back when McCarthy was on his witch hunt in Hollywood and other areas of social influence.

Socialism is about society and how it interacts. Socialism could almost be described as a science as much as it can be described also as a philosophy. In all representative systems there are going to be demagogues whose moral compass is clearly pointed in the direction of avarice and greed. But allowing those who profit from rule making to also control the money system, and the means of production, enslaves all humanity into a privately owned system where the common person is devalued to the point of being disposable.

Socialism strives to guide social interactions into a more pragmatic and benevolent system of organization that values all human beings and protects them from the intolerable cruelty that economic slavery inflicts.

Yeah, well you have to come up with a different name. New name, new ideas and perhaps newly re-examined.
Most people have come to associate the word 'socialism' with a lack of individuality. Changing minds starts with new concepts - even if they used to have an unpopular name.

i got a new name for you --- imbeciles

They do have to come up with a new name. Get what you want, but under a different title. Same with many things that people try to push on others. They try to use the same word that inflicts suffering or annoyance and wonder why it's not working.

The name or title of something is like the clothes of a person. First impressions matter. Someone looks at someone else and even though they claim not to judge, they do. They look at the clothes and they judged the person. Someone hears a title and they've judged the concept. Whether you like it or not....people judge and if you want to avoid their claws of condescension to an idea of old....wrap it new.

How about this for a name, common decency and humanity.

Sounds too pretentious.

How about solicitous. Solicitousism. haha.Try saying that without tripping.

Very difficult to argue against Mr Einstein . ; )

Einstein was a physicist not an economist. He was born into socialism, no surprise that he would rationalize it, but he could have done well to provide some historic examples as evidence that socialism does not implode on itself and have to be altered or replaced with something else in order to prop it up.
The american colonies experimented with the socialisim which turned out to be a monumental failure, and then our forefathers came up with a better idea -- you reap what you sew(PROPERTY OWNERSHIP). From this sprang the realization that a man was endowed by his creator with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness(SELF DETERMINATION).
Limits were placed on government intrusion(BILL OF RIGHTS).Since this time Government has struggled to wrestle it's way out of the box it was put in.
Progressive government traitors found that by using the ploy of pitting the people against an real or imagined enemy or putting Government on the side of a supposed victim, the people would readily empower them with extra controlling powers for the purpose of righting the wrongs and guarantee them a place as arbiters on matters of social justice.

Socialism is prefered by these scumbags because it enslaves people and makes them dependent on government for their sustenance ---- there is nothing more important to persons than their lives and the lives of their children, hence government controlled healthcare is the holy grail of achievment to these vermin and the reason they are foresaking all to get it.
The most effective way to institute socialism is to turn the public ire against capitalism and those who succeed in it.
Lest ye think it is a good thing for government to regulate profit of insurance or banks, keep in mind --- your next, and the company you work for and everyone in this system.

Do not be fooled -- this IS a progressive takeover of america.
Duh!

Montesooma you are really talking out your ass. The whole ideal of the socialism that Einstein is advocating is something like true Christianity should be with Jesus as Lord and Savior. You keep rambling on about individual ownership and your rights as a person. Don't you realize that the system you advocate gave corporations the rights of a person without the responsibilities of a person? Are you so naive that you can't see that this is why the current form of capitalism is unsustainable?

It is not right for one person to own all the natural resources of an entire country. It is not right for one person to control all the energy production of and entire continent.

Doesn't it sound weird to say "one person" but yet that is what a Multinational Corporation is, ONE PERSON, based on the law of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. This multinational corporation doesn't even have to be a citizen and they get free speech rights and get o pour hundreds of millions of dollars into their free speech campaigns, because in their collective, because they are a corporation, they are considered ONE PERSON.

The kind of Socialism that Einstein was musing upon is an ideal that requires the free and voluntary cooperation of people to consider one another as kindred souls and everyone would learn, work and pursue their highest achievements working together for the common good. But a system that uses GREED and ONE PERSON OWNERSHIP and ABSOLUTE CONTROL as the cornerstones of its system, is going to have a devastating impact on the real live human beings it claims are its market.

I could give you hundreds of examples of the devastating impact in all areas affecting human life within the most important ones: energy, water, food, and environment.

Jesus would not back this Socialism. Why? Because people work and other people gain what they have created. Jesus would go with what Isaiah said and that is someone will not build and someone else have occupancy or plant and someone else eat. That would be against socialism's standards.

montesooma are you serious?

Seeing as how that I hold my degree in history I'm going to take you school buddy.

Einstein wasn't born into socialism he was born into capitalism, the extreme failure of which in industrial germany led to ww2 and his eventual departure to the states due to the nazi takeover.

The colonies that experimented with socialism did fail after having massive successes in education and general well being. They failed when they tried to operate within a capitalist system because they were in the merchant society..

Property ownership was hated by many people, hell it was a big part of english common law. The concept was that man couldn't own the earth because he was only meant to it as the a gift from the almighty or whomever, in other words man was the earth from god. The only people who supported private ownership where the merchant classes who the kings hated them because they were becoming powerful enough to rival lords and also gained political clout. The merchants also liked this because they could circumvent the political chaos of the ruling lineage and trying to marry into the crown by just becoming richer than the crown. Spain is a good example, they spent most of their empire buying french goods and empowering the bourgeois class, even the kings couldn't do anything even with taxation because the merchants made all the stuff for the royal families. Ironically this rise of the bourgeoisie polarized the classes in france whihc led to the you know what revolution I'm semi fond of...
This was the beginning of those rich families whom you probably still bank with today somehow. I'm in switzerland right now, the name of the street I'm on is rothschild, go figure.

I think capitalist are geniuses but not because they create real wealth, but because they have created a religion that is followed by the poor and ignorant. Those poor spend all their lives searching for the "big one" while working until they die and lose their property to their debtor. In the old days it was the church that made the poor work until death with the promise of eternal heavenly pleasure, but the capitalist were simpler they just flashed their wealth around and said "you can be like me, just work for me and don't ask questions" knowing that thats virtually impossible of the capitalist would become poor.

Your move buddy ....

if socialism was so successful and capitalism such a bane, why did we scrap it?
The reason is most the people were laying around letting others do all the work = it failed
The fact that you have a major in history tells me that you have been b.shitted by your marxist professors.
Id ask for a refund because that is Not what happened in the colonies
Socialism has never succeeded on a permanent basis because it has inherent flaws built into it. Capitalism on the other hand, history speaks for it - it changed the entire world.
The part about the british merchants being capitalist is not true as the king laid full claim to whatever they had.
I have no desire to debate this here as it is too big of a subject and their is already 310 posts(makes it a pain to find my last post).
anyway i think id like to keep my right to own property and succeed in life if i want to without government interference, that's what makes this a great place to live.
c u later..

no the merchants grew in power over time. Eventually they became the bourgeoisie class in europe. The kings power was being lost to bankers and merchants, I guess you don't find it odd they're the only ones who survived the various power revolutions in history. No one targeted the bankers, aside from a few slight legislators in history.

Socialism scraped? Huh? What planet do you live on? Have you been to the rest of the world, its pretty f-ing socialist. With the exceptions being the most disenfranchised nations of course: the US, the middle east, africa and some various south american countries (which is changing it seems if they can avoid the american assisted coups).

Personal property rights were a quality early man would have hated, it would instantly disenfranchise those who were born in the wrong family thus preventing a shot at good hunting. Are you happy? I don't know but that religion I mentioned makes a lot of people say that even right before they become poor so who knows really... The thing about capitalism is that its going to go no matter what I don't even worry, its just going to simply vanish, while painfully so it will happen and it wont be any government that kills it, it'll be the capitalist themselves. Have you ever seen a romba vacum cleaner? yea, now imagine when they invent things to do your job forever making you obsolete and unable to shop for stuff and cause the system to collapse. Thats why I love technology, its going to realize Teslas dream and not only kill capitalism but all human labour altogether. I hope I'm alive to the see the world that exist in such a manner.

Ya know the saying "the last capitalist we shall hang shall be the one who sold us the rope".

I should take it further that some professors from the Scandinavian countries are asking a new question: What would a world be like without capitalism or any ism? I hope they're coming to the same conclusion I've been looking at for the past years.

Hey Scam Fuck - get a life

And stop paying the income tax, which most Americans aren't legally obliged to pay.

No - Jubal has hit it right again. DO NOT PAY their BS rates. Don't allow them to run 40 tests just to give you an aspirin. Don't go to the doctor except when it is absolutely necessary. Have it out with the guy/gal - let 'em know you aren't there to pay unnecessary costs - sham charges.
A good doctor will just give you samples or generics. They won't require you to come in, just for the office visit.
If they got a big, new office building and lots of pretty girls walking about, you are paying for it. On top of whatever costs are, on top of whatever profits are.

Stop paying for the big slush. And PS: your body is what cures your body - except for an occasional need for antibiotics, your the one who heals you. Every time.

Good point jubal, I agree completely. Voting with our wallets is probably just as effective as voting at the polls and protesting. I have reduced my spending greatly and have actually learned how to fix things. When I do spend, I pay attention to whom I am allowing to profit. On a similar note, I am surprised the elimination of the anti-trust exemption for health insurance was not included in the senate bill. I wonder if someone more politically savvy can explain that to me.

Agree Jubal...completely, but sometimes I become mesmerized by that giant ball of bullshit rolling straight at me and I forget that I can just step aside....well, at least I think I can still just step aside, but this does feel like they have put a mandate on standing still and letting the bullshit squash you...and then there is the latest, "you can't get out of your seat for the last hour of your international plane ride."

Maybe they should just get it over with and go ahead and replace us all with robots.

Come on Prog, sit back, smoke a joint, you will feel better tomorrow. By the way, this piece of medical advice will charged to your tax bill. Merry Christmas!

phase 3 doesn't sound so bad lol...

we are all f_cked....God save the Queen, yes, I do mean the DuPont Circle Queen.

how much more time do you need?

hes already tripled the debt.

it took 8 years to get us here, it'll take sometime. The question is, as a Obama hater, how much time did you expect?

as an obama hater? I actually supported obama during the election, i hated bush because i thought he was spending too much money on foreign ventures instead of using that money domestically. I was looking to vote for anyone who had anti-bush slogan, wether it was kerry or obama.

i was so desperate for any kind of change that i was willing to fall for the first politician with a catchy slogan. i was so focused on his catchy slogans that i failed to recognize the baggage he was carrying.

So why should we trust your judgment?

Dont trust my judgment, look at who obama hand picks to be his advisor's,theres no accidents there.

after you do that do some research on the "new left" you might find some striking similarities

then why do they want to criminalize the americans who dont accept this healthcare

Um, kinda of like Americans criminalized those that didn't support Bush and the whole 'lets get them Terrorist' after 911.

i dont remember them being fined with a possible 5 year jail sentence.

No, just had shit thrown at them, beaten up, yelled at, some killed ( though that was rare ). And jailed? I've yet to hear of that. If any. if anyone's jailed due to them protesting against the heath care bill, it's due to them bring a fucking GUN to it.

i had no idea our government was doing that, do you have any proof btw?

"Brake", of course there is no proof. This another example of leftwing rehetoric and fantasy with no basis in fact. Of course it sounds good and could perhaps provide a foundation for a Grisham novel!

Finally something we can all agree on.

In your dreams. History is a controlled revelation.

What is the purpose of the government as the founders intended?
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The purpose of government is to protect a free society. It’s to allow for a country in which the individual is sovereign, in which every man and woman can pursue his own destiny as they see fit.

The federal government does not exist to make the world better. It’s not here to eliminate poverty. (Look at inner city ghettos to see how effective the Left’s efforts have been.) It’s not supposed to try and make sure that more people can buy homes. (Look at the economic crash of 2008.) The founders never intended a government which would require all citizens to buy health insurance. (Look into a crystal ball of how the next few years will turn out.)
*When government is shifted toward bringing about some form of utopia it invariably fails.

Wow, that was the most retarded thing I've seen today.

dare to counter any of the arguments?

Sorry, ran out of space just before I was done.

Balls in your court.

Socialism as an idea is not that bad. However, there is one fly in the ointment. The human factor! The best ideas are almost always corrupted by the greed and need for power exhibited by the ruling class. Eventually the corrupt will find a way to rule and profit from the work of the honest.

Yess moon, very well put! Now we're all thinking.. well lets take the greed out of it. We've identified the problem now lets find the solution. We're on the same team for sure.

The same problem for the idea of socialism also holds true for capitalism. Despite the economic or political system, there will be greedy people who will try to exploit the system that they are in.

It has nothing to do, what-so-ever, with remaining in office. These people are and have been lawyers for hire. They are nothing but willing, paid for pawns in greater schemes. The schemes are from those who get the benefits they are hiring these people to accomplish for them. Some might be good or start out that way - but politicians are hair-sprayed hacks, beginning, middle and certainly end. What an ugly way to live.

Hair-sprayed hacks doing the bidding of those that bid them to do...

Canada has 30 million people and 90% of them live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. Without the U.S. Canada would have to pay for its own military defense and establish more industries not dependent on the U.S. consumer.
Switzerland generates about 90% of its income from banking related activities. What have we learned recently about bankers?
I don't know much about Sweden. I thought that they were one of the most socialist of all countries?

They got Minarets (inside joke)

@Moonloon,

"Without the U.S. Canada would have to pay for its own military defense"

LOL! Good one. First of all, no country is going to invade Canada or the US. No country has even tried for the last century. Secondly, Canada is a member of NATO. Any military conflict Canada has is a conflict with NATO as well.

Anyway, I don't see how any of what you're saying is relevant to health care or the standard of living.