SouthernYankee

"I am not singling you out, I think all of those millions and billions are bigots too." racemize and Liberty, I did not write this, you would have to ask the person who wrote it what he meant, but it is pretty clear. If Cardboard did not mean what he said, a person reading this thread could find creedence with what he wrote. Ericoploy tends to be over the top in these discussions. I am still trying to figure out why Parsad keeps starting threads like these. This might be fun for him considering how the Canucks let him down year after year! Cheers!

Maybe one monkey should communicate with the others by telling them, "I'll climb up to get the banana, then I'll bring it down and we'll cut it up 5 ways." Of course, they can't speak as humansdo, and they still live in tribes, or dens, or whatever they call them. They usually (Disney says otherwise) leave the weak among them to fend for themselves, as opposed to valueing each INDIVIDUAL life!

"Let there be a law in America that states all persons, men or women, may only be Muslim." You forgot to write "So it shall be written, so it shall be done!" ;D That is just a silly statement. That law would not even get out of committee. Didn't you ever watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid? ("I'm just a bill, sittin' here on Capitol......)

Ericopoly, This issue is one that is evolving, as most laws do. You are calling me a bigot, along with millions (billions?) of others who think they are correct, that there are certain reasons why marriage being between 2 people of the opposite sex is a good way to organize society. One of those reasons is SCIENCE, for the perpetuation of the species. Of course, with today's scientific methods, we see new possibilities. Should tradition just be discarded, to please you, or would it be better to have adult conversations, without politics entering into it?

"Your position is that bigotry is okay as long as it's a long accepted tradition?" -How is it bigoted to treat all men the same way, as well as all women. We are ALL restricted to marry someone of the opposite sex, under that definition. Where is the bigotry??

Liberty, I would please ask where you find in America today, these religious people wanting to subjugate everyone to their way of thinking. Most Republicans and/or the religious people that support them just want to have government stay out of certain areas of our personal lives, especially when it comes to the use of tax monies. And for the people who will bring up defense/war spending, considering it is a power expressly reserved for the Feds in the US Constitution, your argument fails on constitutional grounds. If you don't see the difference between defense spending and satisfying Sandra Fluke and Planned Parenthood, then there is not much more to be said.

"How about this for your answer: Redefine marriage as between men->men or women->women. How does this discriminate against heterosexuals? The definition applies to all men and all women, it discriminates equally. The definition does not include love." -If you are willing to deny science and thousands of years of human history, let's do it. I am sure there are no reasons that certain traditions have evolved over time. Let's do it. I'll tell the Christians and the Jews, YOU tell the others.

A couple of questions. 1) How is religion anywhere near as tyrannical as government? If the government is not controlled by a particuliar religion, how would it exert power over someone like Ericopoly (just as an example)? 2) If one defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman", can someone explain to me how that discriminates against homosexuals? That definition applies to all men and all women, it discriminates equally. The definition does not include love. I don't mean to be a simpleton, but I do honestly get confused about why people in the United States fear religious people so much, and I do not understand how that definition is discriminatory. I am not allowed to marry a man under that definition. I do ask why the state is even involved in the marrige business, I would be fine with government getting out of that business and letting society figure it out.

+1 on the audiobooks!

"Whatever happened to conservative democrats?" Death and taxes took care of most of them!

And once again, thanks to the person who found it informative to begin this thread dedicated to a man who was stripped of his law license because HE LIED UNDER OATH, NOT because he got a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office!

INTERESTING DISCUSSION. :'( Great speech last night, by the way. I am a bit surprised he used the same one from Friday, March 23rd, 2012. Or was it the one from September 9, 2010? Or was it the one he gave in Germany in the summer of 2008? ;D

"W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine. The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined." I had to copy and paste that, I needed another CHUCKLE! That said, Parsad, thank you for this forum on INVESTING, maybe we should all stick to our circle of competence, eh? (I needed to maintain my 100% attendance record for political discussions on an investing board. Of course, I have never been the one to start one of those threads!) Cheers! ;D

First Ericopoly: To quote Parsad from Feb 23rd: Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." Then this from Parsad: Actually, it wasn't me who said that. I believe Myth said that. It was in the quote frame that I excerpted...you've got to go back to page 6 of that thread to see who said it originally. Cheers! Ericopoly, I am very happy that you are better at investing than at fact-checking. Your reply sums up this whole post. Different fact-checkers backing up supposed fact-checkers, but it still does not change the equation of this election: MATH DON'T LIE! Obama's worst nightmare! Cheers, and Happy Investing!

I say the government should just pass another budget which spends 40% more than it brings in, and then we all head for the beach. Jerry Brown says don't worry about the sharks! (I don't understand why political threads keep getting posted. I thought this was an investing blog.)

abcd, So that we can relate it back to the articla first posted by biaggio, which pushed for small experiments around the whole country, I would say that countries which are LESS involved with the every-day decisions of their citizens regarding healthcare and the delivery of healthcare, are more likely to find ways of reducing costs and/or wait times. In that sense, I guess your list would look like Thailand>Mexico>U.S>Canada. Of course, this does not speak to the quality of the medicine, it does not speak to new medical techniques/operations, and I am not advocating a Thailand-style healthcare system, which I know nothing about. My only argument, again, was as it relates to biaggio's original article for this post, I disagree with Gawande's likening to the ObamaTAX law to the beginnings of the USDA a century ago. The USDA started small, and did good things, but has since become another government division which uses force to accomplish political aims. It has taken to invading farms which sell raw milk, for pete's sake. The IRS will be the muscle for the ObamaTAX law. In the original article, there was a profit motive for the farmer to try new things. There is no profit motive in the ObamaTAX law. Cheers.

Sorry, PlanMaestro, I am only a Full Member, as opposed to your Hero Member status. I feel a little bit like Oliver Twist, but may I have some more....of an explanation for what you posted? Thanks in advance. If you disagree with what I wrote about those 2 articles, I promise I won't get upset. I'll simply let you know if I agree or disagree with your opinion, along with my reasons why. Cheers!

mhdousa, In both of the articles you link to, it seems the free market is providing things that places with more government influence in that certain market CAN'T! I am not sure what you are trying to show. If 800,000 Americans had gone to Canada, I would definitely question my beliefs. BUT, when you show those Americans going to Mexico and Thailand, where there are less restrictions, mandates, and more of a profit motive, I have to THANK YOU for helping to prove my point!! Cheers!

Is this a surprising development? Didn't Meredith Whitney warn about this scenario several years ago? The blue-state model does not work!!

I agree it is tough to find objectivity, but people will find ways to do what is good for themselves. It is tough to change human nature. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/report-thousands-fled-canada-for-health-care-in-2011/

"The year 1903 proved to be the most disastrous for cotton in a quarter century, because of the spread of the boll weevil. Nonetheless, at the end of the season Porter reported a substantial increase in profit, clearing an extra seven hundred dollars. He announced that he would apply the lessons he had learned to his entire, eight-hundred-acre property, and many other farmers did the same. Knapp had discovered a simple but critical rule for gaining coöperation: “What a man hears he may doubt, what he sees he may possibly doubt, but what he does himself he cannot doubt.” 2 things from the article (which I still have to finish): 1) it is from 2009, not sure why you would post such an old article 2) it seems as if this paragraph early on in the article gives a very simple motive for farmers to try new things: PROFIT!!! Where, oh where, in the United States discussion of health care, has the profit motive been discussed?? Profit, 100 years later, is a dirty word, when applied to someone's health. I like this writer, and I still have to read the rest of the article. I'll also look for a rebuttal somewhere on the internet, this writer tends to a more leftist/liberal/government-centric way of thinking. I wonder if someone has already gone through his arguments. Cheers.

Shall we limit union expenditures as well? Shall we institute the fairness doctrine? Shall we apply the fairness doctrine to internet sites? It is amazing the lengths opponents of differing viewpoints will go. Dan Rather's old "fake but accurate" is alive and well! Saverin/Trump/Romney - they have no control over me or my family Obama/Schumer/Boehner - those are the people I want to keep out of my affairs

"I need more money so I can have a lobby to get some laws changed." -It is funny, the affect that money has on the people elected to be their representatives. It seems like we should give those types of people less authority over a private citizens actions. But that is just CRAZY talk! Saverin/Trump/Romney - they have no control over me or my family Obama/Schumer/Boehner - those are the people I want to keep out of my affairs

"Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him?" -This is the Age of Television, and Chuck Schumer knows how to get face time! If he was not a politician, what would this guy do for a living? As with all government legislation, beware the unintended consequences!! As to Saverin, he has no power to take from me, he has done no harm to any other citizen, and while I would not leave the United States, I have no ill will towards him, in fact I will probably never think about him again. That $400 million will be DEFINITELY be put to better use, as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates know full well!!

Ericopoly, I think Mitt Romney must be continuing his bullying ways. I know through my source from the Washington Post (or was it the ONION?) that Mitt Romney once beat up Harry Reid's big brother, and now Mitt Romney has threatened to do the same thing to Senate MAJORITY LEADER Harry Reid, DEMOCRAT from Nevada. Why the leader of the Senate, from the same party, is holding up all those nominees, is beyond my intellectual capabilities, but then again, I produce a budget for my family AND at work every year. The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have not produced a budget to be debated in over 3 years. But again, I think he was bullied by the guy who treats dogs badly (but doesn't eat them)! (I think you call it a BORKING, or maybe a high-tech lynching (see Thomas,Clarence)) Please excuse the sarcasm/sophmoric humor, I am feeling a little bit rambuctious, Rangers and the Devils are ready to roll!!