Isn't that what I said?

jemagee wrote:Isn't that what I said?

if it is, you spelled Helvetius incorrectly

drsmooth wrote:

jemagee wrote:Isn't that what I said?

if it is, you spelled Helvetius incorrectly

Did he invent that font on my computer?

No, that font was invented by Swiss designer Max Miedinger and was named after the Latin phrase for Switzerland. Microsoft, American Airlines, 3M, Staples, and numerous car manufacturers used Helvetica to design their logos.

You guys really ease the pain. Thanks.

dajafi wrote:Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday.

He drops by quite a bit in my estimation; she inches up very slightly.

Are there any Hillary Clinton supporters here? If so, could you please tell me why she's running for president, what it is she wants to do, why--aside from upsetting people like some of our old friends from previous message boards so badly they might leave the country--anyone would find her an exciting or attractive candidate?

Because I simply don't get it. I see a celebrity candidate who badly screwed up her two most important moments in public life--health care in '93 and the vote on AUMF in '02--can raise a lot of money, has an army of drones working for her hypnotically repeating "strength and experience, strength and experience, strength and experience," and doesn't scare the financial markets. She buys into all the basic premises of Clinton/Bush America: we can do what we want in the world because we're big 'n' bad, Constitutional or customary limits on executive power should be ignored when possible and knocked aside when necessary, the basic premises of our economy and our politics are just dandy, and history is always someone else's fault.

I would have hoped that after 2000, we would take elections more seriously in this country. Guess not.

Get a grip man. I never understood your hatred for her. I am not a "fan" per se. I won't vote for her in the primary, but up against any of these dunderhead republicans, she is the obvious choice. My biggest issue with her is that she says a lot of nothing.

However, as trailblazers go, she isn't the worst. While I hate her running on the "vote for me, I am a woman" line, I almost look past it because of the other side's absolute disdain for her. Partially because she is a Clinton, partially because she is a woman and partially because she is a democrat.

Btw, I don't know if anyone was watching the mmys, but good line by Colbert on Fox.

"Jon, if we do that, the earth wins!"

Disco Stu wrote:Get a grip man. I never understood your hatred for her. I am not a "fan" per se. I won't vote for her in the primary, but up against any of these dunderhead republicans, she is the obvious choice. My biggest issue with her is that she says a lot of nothing.

However, as trailblazers go, she isn't the worst. While I hate her running on the "vote for me, I am a woman" line, I almost look past it because of the other side's absolute disdain for her. Partially because she is a Clinton, partially because she is a woman and partially because she is a democrat.

Eh. You live in a state where your vote matters, so I get it. (And if it's her vs. Il Rudi, I'll vote for Hillary as many times as I can.) But you're making my argument--she says a lot of nothing, and she's offering little except more "Clintonism," whatever that is, and the matching chromosomes.

On that, I actually think she is the worst as a trailblazer: it would be a lot more of an accomplishment IMO if the first woman president weren't Somebody's Wife. But we're so addled by celebrity in this country, and evidently so much more susceptible to dynastic politics than one might have hoped, that I shouldn't be surprised.

Also, the record indicates that nothing could be better for her chances than my not liking her. Here are my presidential nominees of choice since I've been old enough to vote:

1992: Bob Kerrey
1996: n/a
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: Dean, then Clark, then Edwards
(2008: Obama, Bloomberg)

See a trend? It's almost like I set out looking for the least-viable guys this side of Kucinich Crazyland.

Fair enough, and my voting record is similiar. I'd vote for Kucinich if he weren't so ugly and annoying. Sorry, but that has to count for something, no?

I am not in love with her, but I feel like there is a lot of irrational hatred out there for her (some hatred is rational, but there is plenty irrational). And you have guys like Chris Matthews who focus soley on her being a woman and it drives me nuts. I almost want her to win just to piss people off.

Hillary... married to Bill Clinton, who had the audacity to interrupt the Reagan line of succession. Nothing irrational about it.

Somewhat interesting commentary on Clark's endorsement of Hillary you probably missed:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/200 ... 43361.html

I'm confused by Hillary's "Health Care" Plan...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of us seek employment for health care? What about people who can't afford healtcare? The can't work? The previous Clinton admin failed miserably to get universal health care. They never even came close. Why do these candidates throw stuff out there that they and we know will be impossible to achieve? I hate these people. All of them.

Hillary TV Ad wrote:"She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America,"

What? When? Canada, Brazil, Australia, and most of Europe introduced universal health care to America and the World long before she proposed it. Australia has had it since 1941.

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance

Good luck with that. Isn't the purpose of universal health care to not have to purchase health insurance?

AP Article

Ho'ws that 'required' insurance thing going in Massachusets?

Hillary had a fundraiser today:

On the sixth anniversary of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan's Ground Zero.

One week later, the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.
...
Clinton's fundraising audience is expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.

But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.

For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.

The Dem lawmakers are sort of a who's-who of corporate Democrat scumbaggery: Cuellar, Harman, Ruppersberger, Tauscher, Meek, as well as others whom I don't think of as particularly corrupt.

Her campaign is truly disgusting. It's not that Ralph Nader was right about there being no difference between the parties... but if this isn't straight out of the Tom DeLay playbook, I don't know what is.

momadance wrote:

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance

Good luck with that. Isn't the purpose of universal health care to not have to purchase health insurance?

that sounds easy, and would be the way to go if we weren't starting from a base of crazy. But when you're backing a guy off a ledge you'll settle for confirming his shoelaces are tied before you spend much time urging him to sprout wings

momadance wrote:I'm confused by Hillary's "Health Care" Plan...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of us seek employment for health care? What about people who can't afford healtcare? The can't work? The previous Clinton admin failed miserably to get universal health care. They never even came close. Why do these candidates throw stuff out there that they and we know will be impossible to achieve? I hate these people. All of them.

Hillary TV Ad wrote:"She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America,"

What? When? Canada, Brazil, Australia, and most of Europe introduced universal health care to America and the World long before she proposed it. Australia has had it since 1941.

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance

Good luck with that. Isn't the purpose of universal health care to not have to purchase health insurance?

AP Article

To inject some reality, I'll use an acquaintance of mine as a real-life example. Neither he nor his wife get health insurance provided (paid) by their respective employers. They pay $1,000 per month for health insurance for the family (hubby, wife, 2 kids), discounted through his wife's employer. He works at a factory for $19,000 per year. So basically, he's working to pay for health insurance for the family while they live off the wife's income and have virtually no savings.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:To inject some reality, I'll use an acquaintance of mine as a real-life example. Neither he nor his wife get health insurance provided (paid) by their respective employers. They pay $1,000 per month for health insurance for the family (hubby, wife, 2 kids), discounted through his wife's employer. He works at a factory for $19,000 per year. So basically, he's working to pay for health insurance for the family while they live off the wife's income and have virtually no savings.

I know thats the situation for a lot of Americans. Many Americans also decline to buy health insurance because of the expense. It just seems that under Hilary's plan that her solution to America's Universal Health Care problem is to force people to buy Health Care whether they can afford it or not. How can someone buy Health Care if they're unemployed because they can't get a job due to lack of health insurance? The whole thing just sounds ridiculous. I'm all for Health Care for everyone. Everyone should be cared for, whether rich or poor ... The homeless and the most poverished people obviously can't afford health care, so they'll be left behind? This plan just sounds retarded. It just seems like she really doesn't have a plan but she's just using it campaign on the issue. Then again ... that's the typical POTUS race. Her campaign could at least make it appear to be legit instead of being a total farce.

momadance wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:To inject some reality, I'll use an acquaintance of mine as a real-life example. Neither he nor his wife get health insurance provided (paid) by their respective employers. They pay $1,000 per month for health insurance for the family (hubby, wife, 2 kids), discounted through his wife's employer. He works at a factory for $19,000 per year. So basically, he's working to pay for health insurance for the family while they live off the wife's income and have virtually no savings.

I know thats the situation for a lot of Americans. Many Americans also decline to buy health insurance because of the expense. It just seems that under Hilary's plan that her solution to America's Universal Health Care problem is to force people to buy Health Care whether they can afford it or not. How can someone buy Health Care if they're unemployed because they can't get a job due to lack of health insurance? The whole thing just sounds ridiculous. I'm all for Health Care for everyone. Everyone should be cared for, whether rich or poor ... The homeless and the most poverished people obviously can't afford health care, so they'll be left behind? This plan just sounds retarded. It just seems like she really doesn't have a plan but she's just using it campaign on the issue. Then again ... that's the typical POTUS race. Her campaign could at least make it appear to be legit instead of being a total farce.

If you're interested in one explanation why Hillary failed the first time around with this, and you don't mind wading through some statistical analysis, Politicians Don't Pander, by Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro is an outstanding work in political science. It's an academic work, so it might strike many readers as dry, but it is accessible. I've urged this title on Dajafi several times, but I don't think he's gotten around to it yet.

CREW lists the 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Members of the Senate:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Dishonorable Mention:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

momadance wrote:It just seems that under Hilary's plan that her solution to America's Universal Health Care problem is to force people to buy Health Care whether they can afford it or not. How can someone buy Health Care if they're unemployed because they can't get a job due to lack of health insurance? The whole thing just sounds ridiculous. I'm all for Health Care for everyone. Everyone should be cared for, whether rich or poor ... The homeless and the most poverished people obviously can't afford health care, so they'll be left behind? This plan just sounds retarded. It just seems like she really doesn't have a plan but she's just using it campaign on the issue. Then again ... that's the typical POTUS race. Her campaign could at least make it appear to be legit instead of being a total farce.

I'm gonna get my healthcare ramble on here, and mostly leave it alone hereafter.

In health care reform, Presidential candidates find themselves staring at the same social quandary their predecessors confronted from roughly TR to FDR: fervent public yearning for an equitable solution to a gut-wrenchingly difficult and budget-bustingly expensive challenge generally felt to be beyond the capacity of the private sphere.
The public adamantly wants everyone to be protected from the home-wrecking costs of unforeseen health treatment, and is equally adamant that it will not pay (see any number of polls that show how quickly people lose interest in comprehensive health reform when its ssuggested they may have to give up some features of their own health protection so all may find financial shelter).

Federal pols before FDR struggled to find a way to make broadbased social welfare palatable to the electorate; Roosevelt's way out was to link benefits to a measure of contribution to society. Hence Social Security's connection to employment, complete with credits originally based on, and still expressed as, quarters of coverage in some kind of covered employment, to its description to this day as an insurance program paid for by participants' contributions (even tho, in Medicare's case, most of its financing now comes from general revenues).

Neither Hillary nor any other legitimate candidate can say that they will introduce comprehensive reform that comes without sobering expense for many. It would mark them as without credibility. So, Hillary, and the others, focus on vague gestures towards lowering access barriers (jettisoning underwriting for individual health benefits, reinforcing transferability of coverage among employers, etc), protecting people from thrown into the cold due to whatever health conditions they may endure, and tapdance around the hard financial realities. An equitable mile wide and an effective inch deep is, in the end, the way we Americans like our political commitments.

I used to frequently point out that a central problem of our great decades long health care reform debate was that while we all know health care must be reformed, none of us know what anybody else is talking about when they use the term 'health care' - at least not to the extent that we can agree on practical, substantive steps to take to set things right. Science does its part by making the 'average' individual more & more impervious to disease, decay, and damage, heedless of the gap between society's understandable desire for such wonders, and its ability to make them available for the increasingly large percentage of people who cannot reasonably be expected to pay for them.

Said another way, debate over health care reform quickly brings people up against a score or more of very uncomfortable realities about the capacity of a people as even as well-meaning, ambitious, confident, and wealthy as Americans to meaningfully underwrite life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So go Phils, and drop a vitamin in your refreshment of choice.