Ref, you have too gracious a personality to be in a club where you and T_J are the only members. You'd also have to work extremely hard to increase your vanity. And just to balance things out, if I had been around in 1904, I would have voted for Teddy. Phi-- I'm still looking for a credible source on the Clinton cocaine thing. Can you help me out?
hehe Funny. Also, you might want to re-think your holding Bush up on a pedestal here. He has a pretty scumbag'ish past that we can drag out on the table if you really want.
Because you form your opinions on your own. If I had a liberal handbook, I would think things like abortion where A OK. Me too, what if, instead of Monica, Clinton had his "wang mouthasized" by Cameron Diaz like in that Ladies Man skit? Just curious if that was enough to get your vote. I'll try not to, but it was his budget. Obviously, he had to make changes to appease the Rupublican congress, that's just part of the game that is politics. Clinton wasn't so succesful early on when the Dems controlled congress, he just assumed the Dems would fall in line. Your Boy, George, could run into the same problem if he's not careful because nobody in politics is ego free. When you try to prove a point, sometimes you need an EXTREME example. You know what I'm sayin? Cough! Cough! Extreme. . . COUGH!!! COUGH!!! Ha-EXTREME-chu!!! Damn, I'm coming down with something. Anyways, ask and ye shal recieve. Blah, blah, blah, Trader_Jorge and Refman too, Blah, blah, blah, facts, charts, graphs, Fox News and other credible proof. What a coincidence, as I'm typing this, REM's "What's the Frequency Kenneth" started playing from one of my WinAmp playlists. Those were the days, Monster is the first CD I ever bought, that was back when I was 12. REM first made me aware of politics and activism. Thanks to them, I made the righ. . . I mean the Left choice in life . That could be a new hip slogan.
LOL i'm from holland, and they have a real good social system, the unemployed get enough money to survive. 2 years ago a group of american children came to my town (because they played in a tennistournament i organised). and they where shocked because here children eat with theyr parents.i think it is good we in europe do not work so hard, and do spend time with our children.(i'm not saying americans do not,because i've never been in america but from that quote i get the feeling americans spend less time with theyr children).
Thanks for noticing. Nah...but it would be impressive. I know. It concerns me. I think George needs to have a "sit down" with these boys early on. OK a liberal admits that Fox is credible. Seriously though...I think that Fox is just as credible as CNN or any other American media source...that may not be saying much though. Oh God...you were 12???!!! Man, do I feel old. I was 21 when Monster was released in 1994.
rimrocker, Here you go! Sunday, June 17, 2001 10:38 p.m. EDT Presidential Biographer Details Clinton Cocaine Use and Violence Even before ex-President Bill Clinton lost the Arkansas governorship in 1980, he was a "recreational user" of cocaine. But the defeat after just two years in office sent him into a "real tailspin," prompting the future president to commence a cocaine habit of "significant proportions." More shocking still is the element of violence - whether realized or merely threatened - that has played a consistent role in Bill Clinton's political campaigns going back to 1974. Those were the blockbuster allegations leveled Saturday night by noted historian and award-winning presidential biographer Roger Morris, whose 1996 best seller "Partners in Power" remains perhaps the best account of Bill Clinton's formative years and early political career in Arkansas. Prompted by front page coverage of breaking developments in the Roger Clinton Pardongate investigation, Morris granted a rare radio interview to WABC radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander, where he detailed the dark side of the Clinton brothers' chaotic upbringing and rise to power. No member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Morris was a former aide to President Johnson who resigned from the Nixon adminstration in protest over the Vietnam War. Years later, he would pen a scathing biography of the 37th president. But like few others of his craft, Morris covered the Clintons by actually burrowing into the Arkansas trenches and chasing down the rumors that most reporters bent over backward to ignore. What he got was one hair-raising account of corruption, brutality and debauchery after another. "Partners" offered the first mention of a violent rape allegation against the future president. And though Morris protected the woman's identity, her account sounded strikingly similar to rape charges that Arkansas businesswoman Juanita Broaddrick would make against Clinton years later. Subsequently, both Broaddrick and Morris personally assured NewsMax.com that the woman in question was someone else - making hers the second outstanding on-the-record rape charge against the ex-president. But on Saturday Morris discussed a different topic, one equally verboten in establishment press circles: allegations that the last president of the United States was once a heavy cocaine user who had his career protected and enhanced through a level of mob-style thuggery never before seen in any previous White House occupant. Here's the exchange between the noted author and WABC's Batchelor and Alexander: ALEXANDER: When did Roger Clinton first develop a drug problem? Do you know? MORRIS: I had stories that put the beginning of Roger's drug problem in high school, although it didn't really become serious until later years. And it became an extremely serious habit. He almost killed himself on various occasions. He overdosed several times. And when he finally went for help and when he was arrested he was in a major habit. ALEXANDER: Can you remind us about Bill Clinton's involvement with drug use? MORRIS: It was clear that Bill was a recreational user, at least of cocaine. It began in the most significant proportions after his defeat in 1980. He went into a real tailspin then. But he had been using with his brother socially before the 1980 defeat and certainly used considerably after that, in the early 1980s. And, of course, into the mid-1980s [Clinton used cocaine] with his friend Dan Lasater, the famous bond dealer in Little Rock, who was the bond daddy, who was later, of course, convicted of drug dealing. ALEXANDER: Remind our audience of what became known as the Lasater gang. MORRIS: Lasater was a very interesting character. He had made his money in the old Ponderosa steak houses - came out of nowhere in the Midwest in the 1960s. And there were organized crime connections that went back to Indiana and Illinois in those years. He sold out rather early, became a thoroughbred farm-gentry character in Florida. He had something called Lasater Farms, which raced very few thoroughbreds, but law enforcement officials suspected laundered a lot of money in Florida. The race track industry, and thoroughbred racing in general, is one of those shadowy areas of American sports where organized crime has always been very prominent. Lasater was quite successful. He decided to open a bond business in Little Rock in the late 1970s, early 1980s. He was a friend of powerful politicians: Gov. John Y. Brown in Kentucky, Bill Clinton in Arkansas and others - and a big contributor, of course. [He was] a philanthropist who was fond of contributing to Toys for Tots at Christmastime as well as to politicians of every party. ALEXANDER: And what was the Clinton connection to the Lasater gang - all of them, Bill, Hillary, Roger, all of them? How were they connected to the Lasater gang? MORRIS: Well, they were very close socially. The Clintons were close socially to Lasater and his wife and flew often on Lasater's private Lear jet. They went to the Kentucky Derby. And these are flights that we later had testimony from state troopers and others that cocaine was available in ashtrays and literally at every seat on the private jet - as well as in the box at Churchill Downs. They socialized a great deal. Lasater was one of those who had direct access to the governor's mansion in Little Rock. He could come in the side door without any questions asked and did at all hours of the day and night. Bill would drop by at random at the Lasaster bond office at Little Rock. I talked to his state police chauffeurs and bodyguards who said he would be in with Lasater at Lasater's private office for hours on end and come out pretty heavily stoned. This was a very close, intimate personal relationship and when Roger Clinton gets in trouble in the mid-1980s with law enforcement and with debts that he can't pay - I think money that he owed the mob and drug distributors and so on - Bill Clinton gets his half-brother, his little brother, a job with Dan Lasater down at Lasater Farms in Florida. ALEXANDER: Now, John and I have painted this picture over the last several weeks here on WABC of what we call the Roger Clinton gang - which is Clinton, Locke, Dickie Morton in Arkansas. BATCHELOR: George Locke was involved with Lasater. ALEXANDER: Can you explain how we go from the Lasater gang to the Roger Clinton gang? It's not a big leap - is it? MORRIS: No, it's not. And it's important to remember that Roger was always something of an independent operator. Here's a kid who's trying his best to rival in some way or to play the big shot next to his very, very successful older brother, who is, after all, a major politician and the governor of the state and all the rest. But Roger had his own connections with the Colombian cartel. The [1985] drug indictment and conviction turned up all sorts of evidence of Roger's business connections all over the United States with the underworld. He certainly had his own contacts. And he had his own contacts in Arkansas. This was a kid who was selling influence with his brother, who was fond of holding out deals. I mean, this latest stuff [Pardongate] is absolutely of a kind, completely consistent with what he did in Arkansas in the 1980s. ALEXANDER: That's the point I want to make. ... That what we're seeing on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow, it grows exactly out of what you're talking about. And you're one of the writers who best describes that. MORRIS: Well, you know, the whole business of buying - we'll see in this Times piece tomorrow, $30,000 for diplomatic passports and a pardon and all that. I mean, this was the kind of influence peddling that Roger had been doing in Arkansas. And sometimes it was just very trivial stuff, sometimes it was just favors with the highway department or access to the governor or money from one of the governor's contributors. In other cases it was zoning changes and favors from the state government that might have meant millions of dollars for those who were on the receiving end. So it ran the gamut. This was an extraordinarily corrupt little society in Little Rock and Roger Clinton was one of those purveyors of influence. But you know, none of this would have been possible, Roger Clinton would never have had the credibility, he would have been dismissed as just a southern phony, as there are so many in Arkansas - if Bill Clinton had not been known to be corrupt himself. People who were seeking Roger's access and were willing to pay for it knew that they had a governor in Arkansas - and later, of course, a president - who could be had. ALEXANDER: And when someone would pay Roger for whatever it was, would Bill Clinton deliver? MORRIS: Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. And this caused enormous tensions between the brothers, as you might imagine. I mean, Roger Clinton occasionally had his life threatened because his brother didn't produce on some of this stuff. And Bill was, I think, rather capricious about that. ALEXANDER: Can you give us an example of that? MORRIS: There was one instance in which Roger Clinton needed some money to pay a drug debt and asked his brother to get the money from contributors, including Lasater. And Bill Clinton refused, initially. And Roger had to come back and say to him, "Look, it isn't just my life that's being threatened. It may be Mother's life, it may be Virginia Clinton's life and it may be yours - because the guys I'm dealing with are capable of that kind of retribution." And only then did Bill scrounge up the money. ... (Commercial break ends with audio of Hillary Clinton complaining that the Rev. Jerry Falwell had accused her husband of murder.) BATCHELOR: Now, listen, these are violent people. That's why I played the Falwell thing. She jokes about it but she knows they're violent. She knows this. MORRIS: Well, she knows this because there was a culture of violence that underlay their political rise in Arkansas. There's always the implicit threat, the subtext here, of violent retribution of some kind. And, as we all know, I think now, who've dealt with the Clintons over the last 10 years or more, there's a very long list of suspect deaths - the famous and the not-so-famous. It will be, I think, one of the more disgraceful lists in American history. BATCHELOR: Can you please help our audience understand that Roger, the little brother, the half-brother - we've heard him on the police surveillance tape, I'm sure you probably heard that tape - that suggests to me, if that was a movie, I'd say this man is completely out of control and capable of slaughtering anybody in the next moment. MORRIS: Roger is the classic weak character who is capable of violence because he's always, in a certain sense, in a desperate situation. He's desperate almost from the time he's a little boy, certainly into his adulthood, because of the inequities of stature and standing vis a vis his older brother, the envy and all the sibling rivalry. I mean, my God, this is a family drama and a personal emotional drama as well as a political one. It's just being acted out, and was acted out for eight years at the highest levels of the U.S. government. So he is, I think, capable of that violence. And as we were saying in the earlier segment, he's connected. He's connected to people in Arkansas who deal in that currency. ALEXANDER: Is Bill capable of creating a situation where someone can be harmed? MORRIS: You know, I think there's no question that people have been harmed who have crossed the Clintons in one way or another. Certainly people have been threatened. We're talking about political opponents. We're talking about ex-girlfriends who threatened embarrassing revelations. We're talking about people who had been close and intimate supporters, financial and otherwise, who bailed out, who became dissident, who left the camp. Absolutely, there's no question about it. The threat of violence is always there and the reason the threat is credible is because it has happened, it's happened to people. And people knew that in Arkansas and I think people know that in Washington. ALEXANDER: Well, earlier in the show we were talking to the Lincecum family. Garland Lincecum, who was a prisoner in Texas at the time - he felt as if his life had been threatened. And his family has come forward to describe how they've given this money for a pardon that they didn't get. And here he is, we're nearing the end of the Clinton presidency, and Garland Lincecum is threatened. Does that fit into the pattern of behavior that you've seen through the years? MORRIS: Absolutely. It started way back in 1974 when Bill Clinton first ran for Congress. As an American historian and a presidential biographer, you try to look at these things in context. And, as disgraceful as Richard Nixon was in a lot of ways, as shoddy as many presidents are in the way they conduct their politics and the way they deal with people and all the rest - whether they're Democrats or Republicans - you know, you just can't find this kind of genealogy, this kind of prominence in modern American history. You don't find this kind of pall surrounding Dwight Eisenhower or even - I mean, Lyndon Johnson, for all the known corruption in Texas, the stealing of elections and all the rest - and some of the allegations of strong-arm tactics - nothing can match in sheer quantity the Clinton record. And that's true of every other politician. Harry Truman and his machine origins in Kansas City or Jimmy Carter and his seedy friends in Georgia - there's just nothing like this in modern American political history. ALEXANDER: So when Garland Lincecum was threatened, that family should have taken that threat seriously? MORRIS: Oh, absolutely. You know, people in Arkansas I talked to who were frightened - I talked to them in 1993, in '94, in '95 - you know, after Clinton was in the White House, I talked to some very scared people who knew that; here was a man at the pinnacle of the U.S. government but he had been willing to use those tactics and those methods as governor of Arkansas, as attorney general of Arkansas, as an aspiring young politician, as a congressional candidate. They knew full well what they were dealing with. ALEXANDER: I'm speechless. How do you like them apples?
Oski, I find that hard to believe that you don't do drugs, because some of the crap you are spewing you must be smoking crack!
Well this just makes me feel old. I remember hearing of REM from a friend of mine who went to UGA BEFORE their first album came out!
For anyone interested, here is a site that has the article Phi83 posted. Not sure if he got it from here or not: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/facts.htm The Clinton Criminal Page Newest headline: Bill Clinton's Role in the Terrorist Attack September 11, 2001. This information also connects you to other aspects of the pages on other aspects of this atrocity. There is absolutely no doubt that Blow Job Clinton's horrible administration is largely responsible for the deaths of thousands in about 2 hours. Good, unbiased and reasonable sources. Other things I would never have known: WACO! WACO! WACO! Clinton Murders Babies Vince Foster's Death Was a Professional "Hit" I like the Bin Laden picture in the background too.
Major, Sorry to burst your bubble, but that wasn't the website I quoted. But thanks for the good reading, even though the red letters on the Osama background is not too reading friendly.
OK Phi, let's move from the general to the specific... This book was published by Regnery Press. This group publishes books by such paragons of fairness as Haley Barbour, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., Gary Aldrich, Michael Reagan, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Dick Armey, Donald Hodel, Barbara Olson, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Wayne La Pierre, David Limbaugh (Rush's brother), Casper Weinberger, and Ed Meese. Other books have been published on the Vince Foster suicide, how the religious right can revitalize America, why women in the military is a bad idea, and how the AIDS virus will never be conquered until people realize that HIV is not the cause. Regnery publishes some books that aren't directly political, but anything it publishes with political content has to be looked at through jaundiced eyes. When Regnery published a book in 1988 on Chappaquidick, Alfred Regnery said, "That was the book that put the nail in Ted Kennedy's presidential aspirations. To do something like that is tremendously satisfying." He also said, "the Clintons were great for us." The parent company is Eagle publishing (which has a Conservative Book Club and a Christian Book Club). The owner of Eagle is Tom Phillips, who also serves on the Ronald Reagan Leadership Program, Republican National Committee’s Regents Program, and the Chairman’s Council of the Republican Party of Orange County. Hardly impartial. Alfred Regnery admits his company is biased. When asked if Regnery would publish a book by Tom Daschle, he said "we probably wouldn't." John Donatich of Basic Books, which has published a number of conservative books, says that a Regnery read is full of "polemical posturing. The more nuanced and ambivalent and open-minded a book, the less air it gets." He also said Regnery is particularly adept at taking advantage of "the conservative bias in talk radio." Speaking of talk radio, let's look at the program you cite: John Batchelor and Paul Alexander share the same radio station, WABC, as Sean Hannity and Rush. According to WABC, they have added a new show, "Conspiracy Radio, to explore the unsolved political mysteries that color the daily headlines, such as the JFK assassination, the Watergate and Whitewater investigations, the Pardongate probe. " Their bias on this is evident when encouraging Morris with questions on the "Roger Clinton Gang" and the "Lasater Gang." Also look at Batchelor's lead in coming out of the break... just a little bias. They have a vested interest in keeping stuff like this alive, whether there is any truth there or not. Now, why is it rare for an award-winning historian to grant an interview? Lots of interviews from Stephen Ambrose and others out there. What's up with Morris? Is he just shy or was he looking for an avenue where he wouldn't be challenged? While his biography of Nixon is OK, here is how a reviewer for The Atlantic described "Partners in Power"... "Partners in Power is the work of a disillusioned liberal Democrat who spent a lot of time in Arkansas, heard all the gossip about Clinton, and chose to believe most of it. The critical faculties that Morris deployed to such effect in his books on Nixon and Alexander Haig appear suspended in a book that recalls G. K. Chesterton's observation on the end of faith: when people cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing but start to believe in absolutely anything." The fact that the Morris' bibliography lists over 100 anonymous interviews should raise an eyebrow or two. This would not be a huge deal if the book were about, say, an automobile company cutting costs by shorting safety equipment, but when you have a well-documented virulent anti-Clinton faction in Arkansas, questions arise. How can one assess a source's knowledge, trustworthiness, and freedom from bias if they are unknown? Some of the sources Morris does identify-including James McDougal and the Arkansas troopers who accused Clinton of serial adultery-have been proven to have lied about matters large and small. Morris also bases much of the framework on the initial NYTimes article on Whitewater, whose conclusions about the Clintons have been cast into doubt by not only other investigative reporters, but also by reports and documentation in Starr's files. On the cocaine issue, the sources Morris cites are dubious at best: anonymous cops, "a convicted drug dealer and informant," and "an apartment manager." Not one source relating to Clinton's cocaine use is named. Here's an excerpt from Morris' book on Clinton's use of cocaine: "According to numerous witnesses who slowly emerged from the shadows, drug orgies were hardly the governor's only sensual pleasures. . . . Police files brimmed with allegations of drug running, ties to organized crime, and even murder alleging the involvement of a well-known Arkansas businessman and some of the governor's closest supporters. " Is there anything in there that is not a smear? Where are the facts? The drug orgies (along with black babies, organized crime links, CIA connections, lesbian Hillary, Russian spy, etc.) have been a widespread right-wing nut conspiracy theory about Clinton for a long time with absolutely no credible evidence to back them up. Isn't it curious that after all this time, none of the brimming police files Morris mentioned but did not cite have yet to be made public? Morris pulls out the old "Clinton Murder List" which has been disproved so many times I can't believe I'm wasting my time typing this. Snopes.com has an impressive entry on this question. Here is the introduction: Claim: Bill Clinton has been quietly doing away with those who oppose him. Status: False. Origins: A new version of a lengthy list of deaths associated with Bill Clinton began circulating on the the Internet in August 1998. According to it, there have been close to fifty suspicious deaths of colleagues, advisors and citizens who were about to testify against the Clintons, with the unstated implication that Bill Clinton or his henchmen were behind each untimely demise. We shouldn't have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap, but we will anyway. In a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive can't boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man has been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity? Don't be swayed by the number of names listed on screeds like this. Any public figure is bound to have a much wider circle of acquaintance than an ordinary citizen would. Moreover, the acquaintance is often one-sided -- though many of the people enumerated on this list might properly claim to have known Clinton, he wouldn't know or remember having met a great number of them. "Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly "suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version: >List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of Clinton's mother's chiropractor. >Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide," to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't contradict with hard evidence. >Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained." >If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claim to have the most damaging goods on Clinton -- Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr -- are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it. >Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff . . . This Clinton "body count" list is not a new phenomenon -- multiple versions have been circulating for years. New victim names are routinely added and old ones taken off, forming an endless variety of permutations. At this point, there is no one "official" list. Morris also ties his Clinton cocaine passages around a larger portion of the book dealing with the Mena Airport. The Mena Airport has long been one of the holy grails for anti-clintonistas who believe that CIA sponsored drug running took place there with Clinton's acquiesence and participation--especially in laundering the sums from the cocaine sales. (Some suggest Clinton skimmed $100 million!) Again, no credible evidence linking Clinton to smuggling at Mena has been produced. There is some indication that the Mena airport was used by the CIA/Oliver North in flying Contra missions and speculation that they were flying back cocaine to fund the Contras, but again, nothing suggests Clinton was involved and why should he be as the players involved were linked to the Iran-Contra scandal? And why would Oliver North trust Clinton to launder money for the Iran-Contra operation? Likewise, there is no real evidence that North and the CIA were running drugs. Neither Starr nor GOP controlled Senate and House investigations found anything to this story. I don't understand the right wing fascination with this, as, if it were true, it would raise more questions about Republicans than Clinton. Oh well. This book may appeal to a certain subset of Americans, but the reporting is sloppy and the conclusions are drawn from rumors and innuendo rather than facts. The fact that it was published by Regnery, includes over 100 anonymous sources, relies on the "Clinton Murder List" and the Mena Airport conspiracy, and is a favorite among the conservative wing-nut sites leads me to say you have failed in producing what I asked for.
So you say, just as the leftist wacko site you just sited in trying to defeat my argument. Sure we could go round and round sighting right wing and left wing stances on issues. Sure you could try to quote what you call creditable sources like I could quote what I call creditable sources. Frankly no one will know the answers, I do complement you on the research though, very through.
I never brought Sweden into because they are more on the socialized end than I desire. I did mention Switzerland along with England and Germany however--as they are the 3 countries in Western Europe that are probably closer in work culture, industrial atmosphere, technology and taxation to the US than they are to say Scandinavia countries (or at least somewhere in between). Many of the other countries you mention are young in their political and market systems, lacking in technology and elite universities, and on and on--thus making them very limited for comparison. As for the middle class splintering and diverging--I think that is happening at least a great extant here as in those three WE countries I talked about or if you throw in Canada or Australia--which have reasonably sized populations, immigration, and economies to make some comparisons. Further, because of the differences in health systems and education in the 5 countries I have talked about (Germany, GB, Switzerland, Canada & Australia)--in the US on our current road the lower-middle and middle-middle class are going to continually get worse off relative to those in those over the next couple of decades. To me the utopians are those who think if government could only get smaller and get out of the way.....1) the fewer and fewer big corporate players that control large market shares or near monopolies will all of a sudden be great stewards of the environment and their workers/families from the top brass to the rank and file and all in between. 2) our medical system will fix itself in a cost efficient, effective and affordably way for most citizens/families. 3) our educational system will get better and more affordable for most citizens/families. To me the utopians are the ones who believe if government just got out of the way the invisible hand in today’s marketplaces will be good stewards for most people in most situations and provide for a healthy environment and a generally equitable system. In short I don't believe in a fix all, as to me it is blatantly obvious the extreme systems of the past (be it communism or near pure capitalism) are doomed to fail. The utopian believes either government or the marketplace has all the answers to all problems for all people all of the time. Modern America, as with Switzerland, Germany, UK, Canada, Australia--are all blended systems with some socialized elements (in the US we have HUGE social security & Medicare systems and some large other social programs as well) and some market/free enterprise elements--it is just a question of the best mix. I am a pragmatist who looks around to see who is doing what better or worse in a specific area, and am not going to hurt my ego or my national pride if I think there are a few things we can learn to do better from others (as well as to learn from their mistakes). What has made America so prosperous is to always look for good ideas and be culturally flexible--I don’t know why we want to close our eyes now. Personally, one of my biggest concerns for our current government is IMO we get less back per tax dollar collected than in many other systems--particular because we pay more on debt interest, have an inefficient medical reimbursement system, and pay more for the military than most other 1st world industrial nations. It is the inefficiency and relatively low payoff for the not so low taxes that we do pay that bothers me more than anything—but that is just me I guess. 10% for 10% would be like giving up $8000 for 24 extra work days off (family/leisure time) or having 4 day work weeks (if you add an extra hour to those 4 days) or 7-hour days (as if most American professionals really work 8 hours per day instead of 10-11 anyway).
So I say? Brilliant rejoinder Phi. I quoted three sites: WABC, The Atlantic, and Snopes. Hardly "liberal wacko." You don't have an argument. You originally made an assertion and tried to back it up with a reference to a radio show transcript. You have contributed absolutely nothing of your own brainpower to this exchange. Frankly, there are some people that do know the answers. These people are often described with adjectives such as "objective," "intelligent," "educated," "thoughtful," and "non-conspiratorial." That you say "no one will know the answers" suggests a big change from your certainty earlier in this thread. Site, Sight, Cite. Look them up and use them appropriately. All sources should be "creditable" (unless they are anonymous) but only some are credible. Thanks... this is the first time I've ever been complemented for "through" research.
And on another subject in this thread, I can't think of anyone who used their last breath to say "Dang, I wish I had spent more time at the office!"
Scar, Let's analyse some of the comparison you are trying to make: Now the first rule when making an objective analysis you want to compare equals: 1. Population: 2001 figures United States: 272,639,608 Germany: 82,087,361 U.K.: 59,113,439 Canada: 31,006,347 Australia: 18,783,551 Switzerland: 7,275,467 Now, do you think this is a good comparison? Lets see, is there a country in the group you listed with a population density equal to that of the U.S.? Nope? OK, how about if we add all the countries together and see if we get a equal population density... U.S.=272,639,608 - All Countries you Listed=144,266,165 Answer= 128,373,443 in favor of United States What does this mean, well your comparison is not valid. When trying to say that we need to follow some other countries model on how to provide healthcare, well it may work for them since the population are smaller by a considerable margin but not for the US. One thing I don't understand is if our healthcare system is so bad, why do people from these other countries come here for medical service more than American go to Europe for medicine? Hmmm, that is a quandry? Maybe it is because the American system has the ability to innovate in the field of medicine since it is not run by the government, where all other countries are stuck with standardized service. Another thing that the American system allows is that in certain cases medical insurance is cheaper in the US when compared to Canada and the UK. For instance, a typical employer covers most of the employees medical insurance. So say I work for X corporation, I have to pay 100 dollars a month for myself and my family to get better standard coverage that I would by paying half of my money in taxes to get worse coverage provided by a government institution. This sounds a lot better for me if I had a job and had health insurance that it would being on some universal healthcare plan. Next Comparison: Economies: GDP Per Capita United States: 31,500 with a population of 272,639,608 Canada: 22,400 with a population of 31,006,347 Australia: 21,200 with a population of 18,783,551 Germany: 22,100 with a population of 82,087,361 U.K.: 21,200 with a population of 59,113,439 Switzerland: 26,400 with a population of 7,275,467 Well when we look at the numbers, we see another mismatch. But there is some irony here if we tax a look at the taxation rates for each country. United States: 31,500 with a population of 272,639,608 Average total tax rate per year anum: 37% Canada: 22,400 with a population of 31,006,347 Average total tax rate per year anum: 63% Australia: 21,200 with a population of 18,783,551 Average total tax rate per year anum: 58% Germany: 22,100 with a population of 82,087,361 Average total tax rate per year anum: 71% U.K.: 21,200 with a population of 59,113,439 Average total tax rate per year anum: 61% Switzerland: 26,400 with a population of 7,275,467 Average total tax rate per year anum: 57% Also if you look at the unemployment rates in the context of these numbers you see that the United States not only has the largest GDP and Population also one of the lowest taxation rates which contributes to one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Finally: Immigration: Do I really have to make a comparison with this??? I think you know that answer.
rimrocker, I hate to tell ya, but they are liberal sites. ABC news, the Atlantic, and Snopes are renowned in the liberal circles for there biase interpretation of the news. That is a whole new subject if you really want to get into it. What you say is biased I see as none biased. Please give me a break if you really think that ABC, NBC, or CBS news are not liberal news sources. If you think they are not biase sources then you are truly one of the biggest idiots on this board! Look at the big brain on rimrocker, WOW your powers of observation are truly interesting to say the least. I posted a article to prove my point. You did the same, but tried to overly interpret what was there and tried to discredit it by saying it was biased. Well all news and opinions are biased one way or another. Personally, I was suprised you would waste so much time trying to defeat a point. Man you must really like that scumbag Clinton to defend him so passionately. I never said that I was any of these adjectives, I am just your average everyday working slob with a opinion. Personally I find most of your posts a bit trite for my taste. You obviously are a unabashed liberal, and I will be the first one to tell you that I am a staunch conservative. In the realm of ideas we will probably never agree, but that doesn't make you a bad person or that I don't like you. In fact I happen to like getting in political debates with leftist just to see some of the more asinine thing that you will say. That doesn't mean I don't like you or don't respect your ideas, it just means we have a difference of opinions. And finally, about the miss spellings. Well know won is perfekt
Would it be better to compare us to Brazil and Russia--two countries I can think of closer in population? Or are all comparisons to all other countries meaningless? I prefer to view them as flawed in many ways--but not meaningless. Considering UK and Germany have more people than California and UK, Germany and Canada have more people than Texas I would say the comparisons--even if flawed, are not irrelevant simply because of the size differences. BTW the first rule of such comparison is not that they are equal numbers--but that you get as similar levels on many parameters (in my case I chose the socialism/capitalism blend, having advanced technology infrastructure, market stability, democracies, political stability, etc.) and then control (adjust statistically) for the rest that differs. Of course we are not doing an objective empirical analysis, but sort of using the logical framework one would use for one with the time & data in hand. Yes our elite level of health care is the best in the world. We will just have to see about affordability for most people over the next couple of decades--I don't think it is going to be pretty for even solidly middle class folks with our current trajectory. As some secondary school teachers how much their premiums have gone up by in the last few years and how much of their pay check it is not taking up. We will see what will happen I guess. If this is the case considering all forms of taxation--national/federal, state, local--this is truly startling and something I certainly want to think about more (e.g., what I think is the ideal balance). How is this figure (ATTRPYA) calculated? Yes there are huge differences in immigration--especially per capita in WE and Switzerland in particular is a unique case. It (higher immigration here--which many people want to fight) is one of the chief reasons America is projected to maintain most of its total share in the world economy in the century while WE will likely be a slightly smaller player. Less sure how different the immigration rates are in Canada relative to its size though. Phi, thanks much for your thorough posts and exchange.
