It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bachmann's Response to State of the Union

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


No belief that people will believe in their sytem?





posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Salt;

I would suggest to you that my last post just paid tribute to that sentiment, and to you. I did my best to make clear that there is a right and there is a wrong, and that each of us have to decide which side we are on, and there is no room for fence sitting when it comes to right and wrong.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Just got an email from an uncle. He is a non fence sitter, funny thing is, his younger brother is.

I know your position, I know most folks positions, even our friends her like Janky and WUK. It has all to do with control. But how do we tell them that the control is what the problem is?

Anyway, of course I have been writing and digging into all the ramifications of the verbiage. It could mean nothing and it could mean everything. Actions are what matters.

We shall see.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 





I know your position, I know most folks positions, even our friends her like Janky and WUK. It has all to do with control. But how do we tell them that the control is what the problem is?


Control is not the problem. The problem is who we try to control. If we are not attempting to control ourselves, then we are attempting to control everyone else. Attempting to control others is the problem.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, I was not talking specifically about my control or governmental control, I was talking about all control.
I think mnemeth is rubbing off on me.


Anyway, being it was the SOTU tonight, I may have gotten a "little" out of control.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I mostly agree with you. And i do not exactly disagree with your sentiments either, i just feel the need to clarify my position in light of your response.

True, one must sometimes use an *extreme* position (black hat/white hat), but one should not constantly wear that hat (IMO) with foolish pride. While sometimes this might be a of course learning (taking extremes), oftentimes the concept stays with an individual. I suppose education and _____ is the key, but the magnetism of partisanship--and how it plays itself to people--has a strong hold over people.

All people aim for their perception of the greatest good, whether that greatest good is killing jews or chinese or etc, but that doesn't mean it meets the universal ideal (or categorical imp.) of what is right or wrong (ethically).

I also think all people are basically good, i just think most loose their way, being distracted and disillusioned by the trinkets of life. I also think there are inherent universal ethics.

And by attempting to control others, by using partisanship as a means to force others into their ways, that is dangerous and a problem.

That's pretty much it, i think, but that's probably contradictory, being too black and white.

*shrug*
edit on 26-1-2011 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Why don't they all just admit what they want. Hmm...maybe it's because they only appear to all want the same thing, in your eyes, while in reality they might want the same thing for differing reasons. Maybe they're even telling you and you just can't or won't believe them. Maybe we assume there's unity among them.Maybe we assume period. And who are they anyway?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


JPZ & Liquesence

I normally do not get pissed off. I have seen the owner of the site pissed off. He has told us why he gets pissed off. I myself get pissed off for many reasons.

You know why I get PISSED OFF mainly, is when SOMEONE does not have the BALLS to make a stand on their convictions. See, this is REALLY what PISSES ME OFF. Someone that does NOT have the BALLS to make their position known. Why is it that we have to hear relativistic meanings to their beliefs? Why is it that we have to try and understand their beliefs through their ATTEMPTS to subvert things? WHy is it that we have to hear through their speeches that they really do NOT believe in the VERY HEALTH CARE BILL they passed, but they instituted it to DESTROY the very system they wan to replace.

WHY do they not just admit what they WANT?



I tell you all the time Foam and you would think we were a 90 year old couple up in here.
Frankly you don't absorb things that don't coincide with your paradigm... I point out the same thing to
you virtually everyday, and everyday it seems like you forget or just didn't care to hear. I told you
how messed up the health insurance industry and it doesn't even compute. 2.5 Trillion dollars
a year is 25% of the economy and it is a mathematical certainty, at this rate, healthcare will consume the entire GDP in less than forty years, (if such a thing were even possible). Before Medicare is mathematically insolvent, America would be insolvent.


When the debate was still reasonable way back when, I was attacked day after day for taking out a calculator for pointing this out here on ATS. Take the ten year model, determine inflation over a decade and multiply... For the love of mercy this is a fiscal mess which will eclipse the amount of income tax the feds take in. A few here proposed tort reform, so I ran the numbers based upon their figures and discovered that this would not even begin to impact they cascading trend. It was the proto tea partiers here that busted on me from every side.
I simply wanted to get to open up the dollars and cents of the matter which apparently threatened anyone who
was unwilling to examine the implications of just the insurance side of things. Whats more, the national debate
followed suit and began nothing more than an attempt to save the insurance model... President Moron then
one upped the general attempt to preserve the crooked juggernaut and he is a communist


You and many other Tea Partiers now us this political idiocy to pose as if you are against the system, which is
only true if you tack on President Numb Nut's contribution. See I recall the practical positioning before the layers
of political rhetoric piled on and the TEA PARTY was pro establishment, their rallies were HEAVILY FUNDED by the insurance industry. So why didn't Conservatives at large just STATE "we do not want to change the system!"

In my experience the entire debate went into the toilet with death panels - avoided the very simple "we do not want to change the system!"

So, in this instance your complaint is very much explaining my interaction with you - You never had the balls to say "I like the system the way it is" until you spent half a year citing the moon to the red baron, but not the simple truth. You might think I am a scum bag, but I can say I am intellectually honest, corruption is not exclusive to government of the corporation, they are same when they dance. I cannot vote on a corporation
Which is why is chose government... In the end I feel you are implying that I have to accept anything, because my vote and its alleged weight is a communist plot due to the nature of its method of reform, control as you put it. It appears Bachman like control too, thats a real quandary in such a devolved place setting, although maybe her title's control is less controlling.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Hehehehehehehe.

Tell me Janky, why has the cost of medical gone up?

There is two things that make prices go up, quantity and cost.
Hmmm, the government gets involved in medical, do you think that that maybe drives up cost?
Hmmm, the government forces up taxation in all corporations, does that maybe drive up cost?
Hmmm, the government gets their unions involved in medical, does that drive up cost?
Hmmm, the government attempts to contain costs and implement systems, does that drive up cost?

Oh well, must be nothing.

What was anyone saying?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 





I know your position, I know most folks positions, even our friends her like Janky and WUK. It has all to do with control. But how do we tell them that the control is what the problem is?


Control is not the problem. The problem is who we try to control. If we are not attempting to control ourselves, then we are attempting to control everyone else. Attempting to control others is the problem.


My motivation is that I don not want to BE CONTROLLED and I do not want this country to be ruled based solely upon virtue of wealth. I am not against Happy meals, but I am against Blue Cross sending my claims back denied three, four, six times in an attempt to stiff paying us for our work. My income and my docs overhead
goes to paying for this unethical crap, which is crooked, it controls our operations and effects our profitability.
I do not know how to get the market to come down and punish this as theory states, meanwhile they do the same thing on the patient side too. The shear size and resources available to this company (and all but two other companies) give us little recourse in this market place.


There is 1984 and there is A Brave New World - overt and covert -

As it is I fear this society is much more susceptible to the latter -



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Hehehehehehehe.

Tell me Janky, why has the cost of medical gone up?

There is two things that make prices go up, quantity and cost.
Hmmm, the government gets involved in medical, do you think that that maybe drives up cost?
Hmmm, the government forces up taxation in all corporations, does that maybe drive up cost?
Hmmm, the government gets their unions involved in medical, does that drive up cost?
Hmmm, the government attempts to contain costs and implement systems, does that drive up cost?

Oh well, must be nothing.

What was anyone saying?


I think you want to reenforce what you advocate for... But I don't think you care about learning about this or even care to have a real debate. You are doing what you do so often with me, which is stack it up and outwardly pretend you are trying to mount a real argument. You don't have to play the role with me Foam, certainly government adds cost, thru licensing and taxation... But it does account for charging a pool $200 for an expense that only cost them $49.00. They facilitate payment, they do not lance boils Foam.

One positive I can state about government is the standardized 1500 form is a HUGE cost saver, insurance would enjoy none standardized forms because it would substantiate more cost and satellite revenue through the standard they created for their "product"

www.cms.gov...

and to be FAIR

a great private model - (although they don't pay much) they are very efficient and create great ease in the office

www.ashlink.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Corporatism is a huge problem, my brother. You know this, and you know I know this. Ironically, you also know that I have come to rely very heavily upon a corporate coffee house of late, and I have come to love this particular franchise for being there for me the way they have. I suppose I would love them more if they were just a sole proprietorship offering the same services that this corporation does. As much as I love this coffee company, I have not changed my mind about corporatism. A charter of incorporation is an application to be controlled. An application for a business license is an application to be controlled. All this control comes from a government who increasingly separates and distinguishes itself from the people of whom have the inherent political power.

All closed systems tend towards entropy. A free and unregulated market place is an open system, not a closed system. When we demand regulation, we demand control. When we demand control, we should never be surprised that it is us of whom they control. Some can point and call it the government, others can point and call it the rich, and even others can point and say the rich and government are one in the same, while there will be others who point out that it is not just the rich, but it is the well oiled political organizations along with the rich who are the same as the government, and all want to control you, they want to control me.

Self control...self government. Caveat Emptor was true when it was first spoken, and today in a heavily regulated market place it remains true. Let the buyer beware. If we cannot relax as buyers with a plethora of administrative agencies claiming to be protecting us from bad business, then what good does government regulation bring us?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I now want to see what this little 13 year old on another thread is going to write about in her school assignment of the State of Union speech......



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
bachman, not bad, but more on obama, owe my goddd, breath still holding for this hope and spare change? was waiting for an obama thread, so sorry op, as i have had my fill of lies, false promises, and change that has turned the U.S into almost a fascist state, or commumist, again still waiting for some kind of help for the american people should i hold my breath a bit longer

or is he just a puppet on a string



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join