[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]

Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]

Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.

I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.

If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.

Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.

As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.

To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)

In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.

As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]eavesdropper, that was a great post.[/quote]

Except for the part where he repeatedly referred to me as an ‘ultra-conservative’…which erodes most of the credibility for the rest of the rant.[/quote]

Meadandale, I apologize. I mean, it’s so easy to generalize on these threads, especially the ones that tend to elicit knee-jerk reactions.

I used the word “ultraconservative” twice, so, in theory, I guess that counts as “repeatedly”. But the petty part of me can’t help but feel it’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.

If you did actually read my post, I made every attempt to avoid name-calling. And, while I may have apologized, I AM tired of ultraconservatives (whether that describes you, or not) equating dissatisfaction with distortions of capitalism with unreserved endorsements of communism and socialism. I’m tired of ANYBODY doing it. It’s untruthful. It’s inaccurate. It’s polarizing. And it’s getting old.

Perhaps I completely misread the post, and, in reality, you meant every word you said. If so, I must tell you that I don’t agree with you. I may have problems with the actions of a number of corporations and their officers and executives. But I do not believe the United States should turn to socialism or communism as an economic/sociopolitical alternative.

As for my “rant”, I’m sorry that you see it in that way. I prefer to think of it as a well-thought out dissertation on the misuse of words, distortion of their meanings in an effort to change peoples’ minds about an issue when the truth is not adequate, and use of terms to elicit fear, revulsion, and other visceral responses in the citizenry.

To be perfectly honest, your post did not deserve a response of this length and breadth of topic. However, every day I come across dozens and dozens of polarizing posts of the “Liberals/moderates/ RHINOs hate capitalism and love communism and socialism” variety that are penned by authors from a range of IQs and educational backgrounds. There is never a shortage of accompanying information, but there is always a complete absence of proof. Most of them I simply do not respond, but once every 5000 posts, I react. You were the big winner today. Again, I apologize. (Gee, I’m starting to feel like one of those whiny, wimpy, sandal-wearing, Prius-driving, Obama-worshiping, socialism-practicing, liberal-leaning Commiecrat with all of this apologizing)

In all seriousness, meadandale, I took your post as a sarcastic riposte to the individual who started the thread. I interpreted this as being from someone who is 100% for capitalism, and 100% against communism and socialism. I found it a rather black-and-white view, and I did not see it as a response to the opinions of the OP, but as an emotional reaction. I encounter many posts of this variety on a range of websites; virtually all of the websites and/or the posters are right-wing/conservative by admission. I view “Liberal/Progressives = Communists/Socialists” sentiments as polarizing and untruthful, and I view individuals making these statements as ultraconservatives, meaning that they are conservative to the exclusion of everything else. It was not meant to be an insult, and I’m not sure why you took it as such. However, we appear to be in a period of reverse political correctness, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult determining what everyone wants to be called.

As for my use of the term “ultraconservative”, I don’t see why it affects the credibility of what I brought up in my post. Could you cite examples from the text to which you take exception?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=XBoxBoy]Sorry to come to this debate a bit late… but might I offer the suggestion that yeah big govt. vs boo big govt is about as meaningless at dem vs rep. or liberal vs conservative.

Seems to me that whether govt control of things is better than corporate control of things hinges on which offers less corruption, fraud and misallocation of resources. In the end it doesn’t matter whether it’s govt sponsored corruption or corporate sponsored corruption, it’s how wisely the resources are applied to improve our lot.

Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Except its always been about the money. Whether we’re talking about the first draft of the Constitution reading, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, to the fact that none of the signers of same were tradesmen, shopkeepers or blacksmiths, through the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, to GM using the FBI to put various competitors out of business, its always been about the money and it always will be.[/quote]

Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=XBoxBoy]Sorry to come to this debate a bit late… but might I offer the suggestion that yeah big govt. vs boo big govt is about as meaningless at dem vs rep. or liberal vs conservative.

Seems to me that whether govt control of things is better than corporate control of things hinges on which offers less corruption, fraud and misallocation of resources. In the end it doesn’t matter whether it’s govt sponsored corruption or corporate sponsored corruption, it’s how wisely the resources are applied to improve our lot.

Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Except its always been about the money. Whether we’re talking about the first draft of the Constitution reading, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, to the fact that none of the signers of same were tradesmen, shopkeepers or blacksmiths, through the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, to GM using the FBI to put various competitors out of business, its always been about the money and it always will be.[/quote]

Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=XBoxBoy]Sorry to come to this debate a bit late… but might I offer the suggestion that yeah big govt. vs boo big govt is about as meaningless at dem vs rep. or liberal vs conservative.

Seems to me that whether govt control of things is better than corporate control of things hinges on which offers less corruption, fraud and misallocation of resources. In the end it doesn’t matter whether it’s govt sponsored corruption or corporate sponsored corruption, it’s how wisely the resources are applied to improve our lot.

Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Except its always been about the money. Whether we’re talking about the first draft of the Constitution reading, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property”, to the fact that none of the signers of same were tradesmen, shopkeepers or blacksmiths, through the Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, to GM using the FBI to put various competitors out of business, its always been about the money and it always will be.[/quote]

Bingo, Allan! There is no statement more true than your last. And when that is the case, economic systems, well laid out as they are on paper, sometimes stumble over human foibles.

[Author]

Posts