Partly true. pretty much a hybrid of one at the following link. Pretty much typical Internet Urban Legends...and people still beleve crap they read through an email.
Tom
Tom
Seattle school renames Easter eggs 'Spring Spheres'
- Thread starter H D
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
I call it the CEFN... Conservative Email Forwarding Network. Apparently it exists by other names. I have conservative, Democratic, and independent friends. The Democratic and independent ones rarely send political email forwards to each other, but the conservative ones do it more regularly. I have a cousin from Texas who would send my mom as many as a dozen a day until I blocked him at her request.
Les
Well-Known Member
,
Since the Dems can't add or read, that makes perfect sense...
Actually, the Democrats and Independents research the information. the Consertives just foreward everything they get because they are unable to comprehend fact from fiction.
Tom
Les
Well-Known Member
:bwahaha:
The liberals are too afraid to forward emails that might not be politically correct.
Words that make forwarding for liberals impossible:
God. Jesus. Work. Budget. Military. White. Male. Cost/Benefit Ratio. Terrorist. Guantanamo. Mexico. Illegal Aliens. Border Security. Drug Cartels.
And the list goes on and on.
Words that make forwarding for liberals impossible:
God. Jesus. Work. Budget. Military. White. Male. Cost/Benefit Ratio. Terrorist. Guantanamo. Mexico. Illegal Aliens. Border Security. Drug Cartels.
And the list goes on and on.
![[Ford Explorer & Mazda Navajo (91-01), Mercury Mountaineer (97-01), Explorer Sport (00-03), & Explorer Sport Trac (01-05) Haynes Repair Manual] [By: John H. Haynes] [November, 2005]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51rNKiwBPpL._SL500_.jpg)
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
I think a better "big boy word" for the above statement is discern, not comprehend.
One doesn't comprehend between two things, they discern between them. True, discerning requires the comprehension of two things, but when comprehending two things for the purposes of understanding distinct differences, well, then, that is discerning.
So, the word of the day is: discern.
Just being playful.
But, more seriously, consider the following...
Labeling ideologies and ideas, and villifying those that think differently than you on certain things is a great way to NEVER get any issues resolved, and to never come to mutual understandings on things troubling this country. That's the #1 problem in this country right now...our snap judgment of, and dissmissing of others and their ideas because we observe a thought or an action placing them in some perceived nut/fringe group. People, politics, the world, are more complex than such simple, good versus evil, right vs wrong classifications.
TJR
I think a better "big boy word" for the above statement is discern, not comprehend.
One doesn't comprehend between two things, they discern between them. True, discerning requires the comprehension of two things, but when comprehending two things for the purposes of understanding distinct differences, well, then, that is discerning.
So, the word of the day is: discern.
Just being playful.
But, more seriously, consider the following...
Labeling ideologies and ideas, and villifying those that think differently than you on certain things is a great way to NEVER get any issues resolved, and to never come to mutual understandings on things troubling this country. That's the #1 problem in this country right now...our snap judgment of, and dissmissing of others and their ideas because we observe a thought or an action placing them in some perceived nut/fringe group. People, politics, the world, are more complex than such simple, good versus evil, right vs wrong classifications.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Pertz
Active Member
Gee, I'm sorry Tom, it was mean't to be a model of how WE should react, as ALMOST all Americans feel this way. It wasn't posted as a fact and I had already checked it on Snopes. Just like you, I check everything, believe very little, but don't get my panties in a bunch about it. Too bad we have NO politicians willing to stand up for our beliefs. Their Gods are power and greed. You and I are miniscule irritants too them.
When we put down the pens and pickup the pitchforks we can say we are serious about getting our country back. Personally, I think, with our present government, it will totally collapse before people get up and do something. By then it will be chaos.
When we put down the pens and pickup the pitchforks we can say we are serious about getting our country back. Personally, I think, with our present government, it will totally collapse before people get up and do something. By then it will be chaos.
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
Society and government is evolving just as it always has. It's just that some yearn for the good old days (as defined by them) and resist the inevitable. All that does is cause angst and ulcers.
Half the country proclaims they want to "take their country back" and the other half rolls with the changes with a smile on their faces. Who's right and who's wrong? It seems a little selfish to assume that everyone wants to return to the Reagan (or whoever) years.
Half the country proclaims they want to "take their country back" and the other half rolls with the changes with a smile on their faces. Who's right and who's wrong? It seems a little selfish to assume that everyone wants to return to the Reagan (or whoever) years.
Don Pertz
Active Member
Government and society don't evolve! They are changed by people who think they have a better idea. Sit back , enjoy the ride. When Socialism or Marxism starts to affect your life it will be too late. This is EXACTLY what they want you to do. Congratulations, you have conformed to your governments wishes.
Few people in this country are smiling about the "changes" that are (or I would argue are not) happening.
It seems a little selfish to assume that everyone wants to move toward European style socialism, too. Just because you attach progress to the front of progressive doesn't mean every idea coming from the progressive camp is a movement toward progress.
Need an example? See how much the progressive movement wants to progress on dealing with our deficit. We could just stay on the same route or we could try to make some progress.
I'm hardly a republican and certainly not a democrat. I think fiscal responsibility is the number one issue in a country. Social equity is best achieved through financial well being and it has to start at the national level.
Things such as petty arguments over the naming of Easter eggs is insulting to me. I want to debate real issues and I want them dealt with. Eventually, we have to get past our sensitivities and when someone calls us out on something ridiculous we can't say that is politically incorrect and run to the courts to solve our petty disputes. Our country is burning through money that doesn't exist, losing international respect daily and creating a country in which hatred and misunderstandings over petty issues are encouraged by politicians and the media.
Has anybody checked the S&P today? It's not a blip, it's a symptom; it's a warning.
So, sure, I'm gonna use labels and call people out on stupid stuff. I am a Christian. I think you should be, too. I make very little money, but I don't expect anything to be given to me. I think you should, too. I believe there is a right way to live. If I didn't, how would I make every day decisions? It's not a belief that I think should vary from person to person. I think honesty is the best policy; treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated; love the Lord your God with all your heart; Jesus offers graceful redemption; spend less than you make; etc.
I won't force these beliefs on anybody, but I won't apologize or defend them, either. I will call Easter - Easter. I will say Merry Christmas, not happy holidays. I will tell you that you are terrible at math if you live on credit cards. I will call you lazy if you are perpetually on welfare and able-bodied. I think our military is underpaid and our politicians extremely overpaid. I think our public school teachers are mediocre at best and probably overpaid as well, if we're basing it on performance. I think some children will always get left behind. You can't believe in natural selection and perfect equality amongst minds. These things are mutually exclusive. Create and make jobs available for everyone, but don't pretend every child has the capacity to be anything they want. Stop lying to everyone. Equality is relative only to what you are naturally capable of and unnaturally determined to do.
If you physically can't find a way to eat, I'll give you food. If you lazily can't find any job at all, I fully believe you'll find a way to eat eventually.
If something is important enough to become law, it should be enforced. It doesn't matter how sad the situation is in another country. Either we have immigration laws or we don't. If we just let anyone in at any time for any reason, then change the laws. If not, then enforce the laws. Political correctness won't allow for either of these situations to occur. So get over the political correctness.
These are all issues that need to be addressed. You may think I'm politically incorrect (thanks for noticing) and you may think I'm cold-hearted (I bet I donate more money every year than you!). I just want people to start saying what they really believe. I want politicians that will say the unpopular things. I want people in this country to take care of their personal finances first and demand our politicians take care of our national finances immediately! Not 12 years from now. Today! Cut funding for your pet projects. Cut funding where it's going to hurt. Cut your salary if necessary. But don't give me b.s. reasons things CAN'T be done and tell me I'm insensitive or politically incorrect.
TJR, there is right vs. wrong. Aristotle believes so, Locke, Hume, any number of philosophers agree so. It won't always be agreed upon, but it definitely does exist.
I want real progress, that is all. If you made it through this whole rant, I apologize for the length but certainly not the content.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Mark K,
Regarding your "libs don't forward as much of this crap" comment (I paraphrase)...
I have a very liberal-biased friend who works in academia, spends most of the day blogging and hitting leftist websites, and sending around links to "the sky is falling", "look at what the neocons did now" types of articles and stories.
He is a nice guy, and I have known him since college, but a lifetime of working in academia has made him a very strong proponent of universal healthcare and wealth redistribitution, which, for me, simply means the government talking care of people by taking money out of my wallet, rather than people taking care of themselves, allowing me to be charitable the way I want, and fixing the main issue of healthcare which is the fact that it is largely a single-payer system, therefore prone to inefficiencies and abuse.
On average, for every $1 all the other industrialized countries pay on healthcare, we in America pay about $2.4. The reason: inefficiencies. The reason there are inefficiencies? We no longer "shop" for good prices, and when you have a single, deep pocket payer (the employer) you tend to "stick it to 'em". Fix that problem, Obama.
TJR
Regarding your "libs don't forward as much of this crap" comment (I paraphrase)...
I have a very liberal-biased friend who works in academia, spends most of the day blogging and hitting leftist websites, and sending around links to "the sky is falling", "look at what the neocons did now" types of articles and stories.
He is a nice guy, and I have known him since college, but a lifetime of working in academia has made him a very strong proponent of universal healthcare and wealth redistribitution, which, for me, simply means the government talking care of people by taking money out of my wallet, rather than people taking care of themselves, allowing me to be charitable the way I want, and fixing the main issue of healthcare which is the fact that it is largely a single-payer system, therefore prone to inefficiencies and abuse.
On average, for every $1 all the other industrialized countries pay on healthcare, we in America pay about $2.4. The reason: inefficiencies. The reason there are inefficiencies? We no longer "shop" for good prices, and when you have a single, deep pocket payer (the employer) you tend to "stick it to 'em". Fix that problem, Obama.
TJR
Of, if you use countries like Germany and France, they have a single payer system. They pay into one common pool of money and use it for health coverage. We have hundreds of insurance companies out there. The doctor HAS to hire people to sort through all of these different forms to submit the right one.
This system could be fixed by modeling it after what the rest of the world does. Of course, then we would be talking about socialism.
The current system doesn't work.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, not exactly the type of single payer system I was talking about. Maybe I am misusing the term. If so, I will try to explain what I meant
In our single payer system (which is poorly named or maybe a misuse of the term by me, granted) there are hundreds of insurance companies that pay the doctors and the medical facilities, typically on behave of thousands (if not 10s or 100s of thousands) of companies each company having hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees. The "single payer" in that model is the company employer. There are few of them, and they pay as a singular unit for MANY of their employees. The various levels involved, the various entities in the middle, all work to remove the direct relationship between those giving the care and those receiving the care. Regardless of the terminology, that is the dynamic at hand.
Because there is no real impetuous in this dynamic for an insured to shop around and get lower costs, and since there are so few entities shopping for lower costs (so few single payers, and the single payers companies there are really are shopping around for cheaper insurance, not cheaper healthcare), the medical providers aren't really incented to compete and to lower costs while raising quality. I submit they are not, because their customers are the insurance companies, which in turn reflect high costs to the companies, which in turn reflect that high cost back to employees with increased employee contributions and/or decreased benefits. Too many levels, too far removed. In almost all other forms of capitalism where the buyer buys directly from the seller, you have more buyers and therefore usually more sellers, and the dynamic at hand provides an inherent incentive for the sellers to figure out how to, as I said, decrease prices while increasing quality/service. The fewer buyers the lesser the drive to compete.
In those countries that have government provided healthcare their truly is a single payer...the government. That dynamic can lead to bullying, IMHO. The buyer due to the fact that they are the only one can DEMAND a price. When that happens, you will have fewer and fewer suppliers, and no real incentive to innovate to increase services, and/or decrease costs. That is part of the reason why other countries that have socialized healthcare have lower prices. Ours are higher due to inefficiencies due to the dynamics at hand, but also theirs is lower because the government can press to drive down the costs, and otherwise fund and subsidize through tax dollars. Kind of like the same reason that our USPS can ship something cheaper than UPS, but how from a service standpoint often they cant compete. You get what you pay for, and I personally have rarely EVER felt that the services I was getting through my government or the agencies the government subsidizes are worth the amount in taxes that I (and others) fund them at.
P.S. I did check and I have seen that I am confusing/misuing the commonly defined "single payer" system, which as Caymen points out is the government administered healthcare. Still, even with my mangled/misues erroneous use of the term, the dynamic I mentioned is still at play today. So few insurers, that fan out through many levels to the care receivers that don't directl pay makes for no real inherent drive to compete in price and better services. That, IMHO, isn't fixed by the so-called single payer system, IMHO.
TJR
In our single payer system (which is poorly named or maybe a misuse of the term by me, granted) there are hundreds of insurance companies that pay the doctors and the medical facilities, typically on behave of thousands (if not 10s or 100s of thousands) of companies each company having hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees. The "single payer" in that model is the company employer. There are few of them, and they pay as a singular unit for MANY of their employees. The various levels involved, the various entities in the middle, all work to remove the direct relationship between those giving the care and those receiving the care. Regardless of the terminology, that is the dynamic at hand.
Because there is no real impetuous in this dynamic for an insured to shop around and get lower costs, and since there are so few entities shopping for lower costs (so few single payers, and the single payers companies there are really are shopping around for cheaper insurance, not cheaper healthcare), the medical providers aren't really incented to compete and to lower costs while raising quality. I submit they are not, because their customers are the insurance companies, which in turn reflect high costs to the companies, which in turn reflect that high cost back to employees with increased employee contributions and/or decreased benefits. Too many levels, too far removed. In almost all other forms of capitalism where the buyer buys directly from the seller, you have more buyers and therefore usually more sellers, and the dynamic at hand provides an inherent incentive for the sellers to figure out how to, as I said, decrease prices while increasing quality/service. The fewer buyers the lesser the drive to compete.
In those countries that have government provided healthcare their truly is a single payer...the government. That dynamic can lead to bullying, IMHO. The buyer due to the fact that they are the only one can DEMAND a price. When that happens, you will have fewer and fewer suppliers, and no real incentive to innovate to increase services, and/or decrease costs. That is part of the reason why other countries that have socialized healthcare have lower prices. Ours are higher due to inefficiencies due to the dynamics at hand, but also theirs is lower because the government can press to drive down the costs, and otherwise fund and subsidize through tax dollars. Kind of like the same reason that our USPS can ship something cheaper than UPS, but how from a service standpoint often they cant compete. You get what you pay for, and I personally have rarely EVER felt that the services I was getting through my government or the agencies the government subsidizes are worth the amount in taxes that I (and others) fund them at.
P.S. I did check and I have seen that I am confusing/misuing the commonly defined "single payer" system, which as Caymen points out is the government administered healthcare. Still, even with my mangled/misues erroneous use of the term, the dynamic I mentioned is still at play today. So few insurers, that fan out through many levels to the care receivers that don't directl pay makes for no real inherent drive to compete in price and better services. That, IMHO, isn't fixed by the so-called single payer system, IMHO.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Currently, the US does have a true single payer system in place. It is called Medicare.
When an employer buys insurance for hundreds of people, they get a better discount than you or I can get.
The real reason we spend so much more than other countries on healthcare is simply because of the way a system is set up. There are too many different payers, too many different forms, too many different policies, too many different co-pays, etc.
It is a pain in the @$$.
Tom
When an employer buys insurance for hundreds of people, they get a better discount than you or I can get.
The real reason we spend so much more than other countries on healthcare is simply because of the way a system is set up. There are too many different payers, too many different forms, too many different policies, too many different co-pays, etc.
It is a pain in the @$$.
Tom
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Was "impetuous" really the desired word there? If I may, might not "impetus" be more apropos?
In any case, I see your overall point and concur.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
KL,
No doubt brain ahead of fingers, or vice versa.
TJR
No doubt brain ahead of fingers, or vice versa.
TJR
