Comments Posted By bs jones
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 23 Comments
SMALL GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT, OR CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT?
Chazz,
How about a few examples. Are there any examples from history that do not fit your ctiteria?
Comment Posted By bs jones On 9.02.2009 @ 04:03
Many people do not like primary sources; they would prefer someone else cut and chew the food. If this sounds like you, there are plenty of people around who are willing to cut and chew for you, i.e., tell you what it all means.
With regard to the "father of Capitalism", there are many such groups. One of their web sites can be found here:
http://www.adamsmith.org
If this still seems like too much work, read David Brooks in the liberal New York Times.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 6.02.2009 @ 19:16
INVESTIGATING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION A PARTISAN MINEFIELD
In my previous post I said that many Americans do not trust Congress. I also said some Americans want their president to break laws passed by Congress if the president thinks it's right or expedient.
I see at least three comments posted on this thread that support that position.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 14.01.2009 @ 19:52
I believe many American's want an overwhelmingly powerful executive branch that is above the law (at least when the president is from their own party). These people say "Let's get er done". They do not care about following the rule of law, especially if they think the president has good intentions and what the President wants to do is urgent. Partisan Americans may want the president of the other party investigated for law breaking, but it is a rare American that puts the rule of law above both parties.
When I was learning about our form of government, I was taught that the branches were co-equal. I was also taught that some founders believed the legislative branch was the most important branch, not only because it writes the laws, but more importantly because the Legislative branch has the power to limit Executive power.
Today Americans almost universally despise the Legislative branch and would prefer them to stay out of the way of the president, especially if that president is from their own party. We just don't accept the role the Constitution sets up for the Legislative Branch (Congress doesn't accept its role either).
Let me give a few examples:
Polls (allegedly) show most Americans do not support the war in Iraq, yet Congress would never cut off funding for the war. We the People would not accept it.
President Bush's White House broke the FISA law. Congress responded with immunity for the corporations that did the illegal wire taps.
President Clinton committed purgery and was impeached for it. Many Americans thought this went to far. They wanted a censure vote.
Reagan did not like the law preventing aid to the Contras. When Congress investigated Iran-Contra, American's were unhappy with Congress.
Congress is often afraid to execute its responsibilities under the Constitution and when it does it is usually rebuked by the people.
I believe the Executive branch under Bush has broken the law.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 14.01.2009 @ 17:12
I believe Cheney has admitted this in TV interviews.
I believe this is what many Americans want.
I believe Obama will not pursue this law breaking.
THE MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH INSURANCE BOONDOGGLE
Two more anecdotes:
I knew a British girl who was a nanny. She went to Chicago with her nanny girlfriends for New Years Eve. She collapsed/had a seizure when she was leaving a department store and was taken to a hospital for tests and observation.
After returning to her host family, she got a hospital bill for over 100,000.00. Everyone (including me) told her to ignore the bills. She did. Less than a year later, she was back in Britain. She never paid her bills.
Later, I went to visit this girl in Britain. I had a toothache. She told me to go to a dentist and get it checked out. All I could think of was "The Big Book of British Smiles" from The Simpsons. I went anyway.
The dentist filled my tooth. When it was time to pay, the women at reception simply said "National Health". I was not a citizen or even a resident at the time.
Once back in the States I went to my real dentist and asked her about the work that was done in England. She said, "We don't use that kind of filling anymore. We use a composite. It's newer." However, she never replaced the filling.
True stories. Anybody else got one?
Comment Posted By bs jones On 12.01.2009 @ 15:16
Probably doesn't mean anything but I' got two health care anecdotes.
I met a pretty girl one night at a party. She was really high energy and sexy. We became friends and I found out she was a manic/ depressive. I always thought she was lots of fun and sexy when she was manic. I know that sounds strange.
Anyway, she had some college, but never finished. She would get jobs in offices, reception and such like. Her wages were generally between $10 and $13 an hour. She was by her own (and her psychiatrist's) admission a little crazy, so she went through a lot of these jobs.
Part of the problem was that the medicine she needed to stay "normal" cost about $1000.00 a month. Plus, most of these jobs had 3 to 6 month waiting periods before the health insurance would kick in. She was unmedicated and uninsured most of the time.
I heard about Americans buying drugs in Canada for cheap prices. We lived close to the border so I took her to a Canadian pharmacy with the prescriptions. All three prescriptions cost about $120. We did this about three times until she left the state. I haven't heard from her since.
I was in the Czech Republic as a traveler and cut my hand pretty bad with a knife. I was not a citizen or even a resident. I found an emergency room and stitches were put in. I was not worried about cost because everything there was so cheap. A beer was about 20 cents. When I asked the doctor how much it would cost me he said there was no charge - paid by "National Health". Later I took out the stitches myself. The cut healed fine.
Just a couple of health care stories that probably don't mean a thing.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 11.01.2009 @ 21:00
libocrat,
I think the Rodham-Clinton crack might have been a bit of a low blow. Remember when our side sent Karen "these pearls will cover up my Adam's apple" Hughes around the world to promote "pro-American sentiment" with her "rapid response units"? You're right it was not a huge success.
My point is that our Conservative Administration has tried things every bit as silly as "basketballs and chocolates", and, they haven't worked either.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 9.01.2009 @ 17:47
IRAN OPENS SECOND FRONT AGAINST ISRAEL
michael reynolds,
I KNOW I AM, BUT...
I mean...
WAIT!
I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT...Oh, just forget it.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 9.01.2009 @ 15:59
In another comment I said that America should always put America's national interests in the middle east before the interests of Israel. If American interests diverge from Israel's we must have an America first policy.
When I wrote that, I didn't see how the interests of the two countries could diverge very much. Now I do.
The war is widening. It is in Israel's interest to respond. The wise move for them tactically and morally is to respond aggressively. Israel must show that terrorist violence will not change its resolve. Israel should attack Lebanon and increase its retaliation in Gaza. If they don't, they will look weak and irresolute, which would only encourage the terrorists. Unfortunately, this could possibly lead to a wider war with Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
America's primary strategic interest in the middle east is to ensure a safe and reliable flow of oil to the United States and the rest of the global economy. It is especially important now because of a global economic slow down. A wider war in the middle east would significantly reduce the supply of oil. It would create havoc in world oil markets. We could see $200 barrels of oil again. This would be very bad for the U.S.A.
in a time when she is already struggling. (Do you think Obama could handle the type of crisis I am describing?)Right now it is in America's strategic interest to avoid a wider war with Lebanon, Syria and Iran. We don't need the oil shock and we don't need to open up three more fronts in the war against Islamo-facism. Not now. Not with Obama as commander in chief.
Sadly, this is a lose/lose situation for the U.S.A.
If the war widens it will prove a disaster for our interests. If we diplomatically prevent a wider war, we will look like terrorist loving appeasers.Both outcomes weaken our interests in the region.
Not very well played.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 8.01.2009 @ 15:02
TERRORIST JEWS HALT THEIR BABY KILLING TO ALLOW HUMANITARIAN RELIEF OF THEIR ENEMIES
Try left clicking and highlighting the section you want to quote and then copy and paste to the comment box. Highlight again and clickon “b-quote” above.
I can do the cut and paste.
I can highlight the text again.
To my embarrassment, I don't see "b-quote" and can't click on it.OK - try this: at the beginning of the quote put this tag (I have to spell it out or it won't appear)
"less than" (< ) symbol then type "blockquote" followed by "greater than" (>)
At the end of the quote:
"less than" (< ) followed by slash (/) followed by "blockquote" followed by "greater than" (>)
ed.
Those tags work on wordpress so they should work in the comments.
ed.
Comment Posted By bs jones On 8.01.2009 @ 15:52
