Townhall Debate..

[Mills75]

what is kerry's slogan safe at home and respcted in the world.ok does he really mean respected in the world or does he mean in line with whatever is popular in the world and politically correct which doesn't make it right by the way.his slogan should be not safe at home and tested by the world for approval.how bout maybe safe at home kind of but dang popular with the french.Or how bout sell out on your home and have tea with the vietcong.maybe accuse your home and join the world court system that could have authority on and over our soldiers.he is so so misguided.his slogan should be i'm a fool at home and in the world lol.and i have a nice pic of myself if you want to see it in the vietcong hall of fame.respected by jane fonda and loved in Hanoi..lol ok i'm done just not a fan of this guy if you haven't noticed that by now.he is the epitome of a panderer and false prophet and god save us from him.

Jeff

[Mills75]

ok ben said who would choose to be gay other than a person who was born gay? Ok is there any study out there that proves that you're a born canibal and like to eat folks and is there a study that says you're brain is different and you're a born republican or a born yankee fan? I will always believe we are born and then we set our patterns later whether changes in the brain take place or not are the changes straight from birth or do they take place over time? when were these brains studied like at what age and after what experiences? would two cousins maybe five years old who bathed together once or twice be gay? I just will never believe that you are born with these kinds of predispositons.If a mom smokes crack i can see a baby hooked on crack i see that but I can't and never will see things occurring at birth naturally such as this.

Jeff

[Mills75]

ok anxiety is a disorder.does a person with anxiety have it at birth and have brain chemistry to prove it? and even at this is anxiety a real disorder or should it be considered not how do you consider one thing fine and dandy and label another some may think anxiety is much less of a disorder than being gay.Which disorder if you consider them disorders to be more prejudice? calling some with anxiety a person with a disorder and they could consider that label a violation their rights or someone who is gay? where do you draw the line in ? these people could lose jobs and not get homes and get made fun of and yet they have a disorder but in this scenario the gay person does not technically have the label of disorder.ok and if being gay has known changes in the brain and if the brain is different like a brain would be different in a situation with a person with anxiety why is one labeled disorder and the other not?

Jeff

[Mills75]

the theory of opposites right? hot and cold -soft and hard -wet and dry -light and dark. we study this theory and concept also and it's all about balance and the equaling out of things.one cannot exist without the other.you could even apply this theory to women and men.soft and hard.not hard and hard or soft and soft it would seem that in the ying yang concept also that homosexuality would be something this concept doesn't support.

Jeff

[Mills75]

Kerry talks about rebuilding alliances and so forth and says in every debate that he will bring more to the table in Iraq.He will seek of other nations and do such good that Mr.Bush cannot do in his opinion.But why is it that every nation that Kerry talks about bringing in and helping out with Iraq publicly states that they have no interest to be involved with Iraq now and I don't think it's because of Bush.These nations didn't want to get involved no matter what with the exception of seeking reconstruction jobs in the country and profit after the bloodshed by us.He always says I have a plan but you never hear what it is.and when he does say it like this example it's a pipe dream.and noone remarked about the U.S.S. Cole and the other terror before 9/11 why didn't the clinton administration start a homeland security office or take any action whatsoever to protect us? Kerry talks about unchecked cargo hell when he was with big willy clinton they didn't even protect the planes or the ports let alone the cargo and there was terror then.Kerry has a twenty year track record of distortions and poo to show for himself and a bunch of pipe dreams that will never be good for America.I say Kerry
should be in charge of cleaning the dog poo off the front lawn of the white house and that's it..

Jeff

[Bill Glasheen]

Concerning Gene's stream-of-consciousness post...

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

- Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

Bill, I had 4 pages of posts to read and respond to. I didn't have the time or effort to do so earlier - working OT at work and I'm fighting a wicked viral infection, so I was wiped out when I got home this passed week. But, I did my best to get in my points.

I don't quite know what to say about you calling me a lady, though. However, you're welcome to test that assumption at any time....

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

I'll pass on that one, my friend.

The Shakespeare reference is a classic metaphor. The more loudly one protests, the more likely the position is indefensible.

Get well. It's more fun sparring you when you have both feet on the ground.

- Bill

[IJ]

Lemme start off by thanking Rich for vouching for me (he knows me better than my bitchy posts would reveal ) and saying how nice it is to come to a forum like this where we can disagree completely at times and know that old friends like Bill and Rich are great and well meaning people, and that new online acquaintances like Panther, Gene, and Jeff etc are also kind and well meaning people. Thanks to GEM as well for making this space (and Panther, for this corner of it) a reality and for their light touch moderation.

Bill, you are the only person of the dozens and dozens I've spoken to or read on this matter who thinks Kerry/Edwards isn't better on gay rights than Bush/Cheney. They know Bush isn't throwing a bone to the religious right. He IS the religious right. Nuff said. Clinton may have compromised on don't ask don't tell, but he's compromising to make our lives better not worse. That IS politics and it IS a difference worth voting for.

Tracking HIV infection by which power holds the oval office would only be useful if the policies were strikingly different in effectiveness because sooooo many variables come into play besides them. Since this isn't the case, I'll go by what I've watched work, what I've made work in MY clinic and what most experts recommend. I think Bush is ordering what a religious conservative would WANT to work rather than what the target audience most needs. That's unacceptable to me.

Actually, if I stop at an accident, and start administering care, I can't abandon the patient. I've got to stay. Applies if I have a primary care patient too. The exact nature of care I can of course have a say in. But otherwise, I MUST get the patient referred to the right person and am responsible till that happens. If I want to refuse to treat someone, that's only ok after an alternative provider is arranged, period. Further, I do not see how abandoning someone "breaks," a self destructive cycle, or how abandoning a patient reduces the threat they pose to others who might get an STD from them. A good example of tough love is when a patient comes intoxicated and you stress you want to help them but cannot in this situation, cancel their exam, and encourage them to come back sober. THAT is tough... "love", not tough "luck," or "go find another doctor." And if someone else called in the Rx, what cycle really was broken? I'm not making this up, this is the consensus from the, oh, 4 STD clinics I worked in, one for 2 years, where one of my top 3 diagnoses was high risk sexual behavior.

Rich, you're got a lot more econ behind you than I do. I am curious what you recommend doing about our deficit. It's exploding and we're paying more to interest (wasting it). What would you slash funds from? How would you stoke the economy, barring cuts?

Jeff, let me wager that homosexuality just makes you uneasy. That's why the yin-yang thing makes sense to you... although I doubt you'd suggest that straight couples make every effort to date someone of a different race, culture, age, political inclination, religious background, etc, even though those things would blend yin and yang as well. You're too uneasy with it to even imagine that people just ARE gay, which is interesting, because you find it so counter to natural inclinations (at least your own), that it really would make no sense for someone to choose it. YOU for example would have to overcome very strong natural feelings to become gay. That's why you won't, that's why people who ARE gay didn't overcome something, they just WERE. In fact, the great majority of gay people will tell you there was so much pressure on them they made every effort to think straight--and failed. So it's nature--despite choice! To sum, you're uneasy and that's fine. My short response is there has to be something better to justify discrimination by the state. Some plausible, tangible state NEED to discriminate. I've never seen one promoted.

[benzocaine]

Rich- Do you honestly beleive that GE will stop paying dividends? Wouldn't they lose investors if their stocks didn't pay?

Jeff- Being gay isn't learned like being cannibal or being a yankee fan or republican. It definitely won't end our civilization.. infact if you go to any gay areas like here in Roanoke for instance, when the gay community takes over a neighborhood you don't see property values drop do you? You see the houses get painted, health food stores go up, bakerys, flowersops.. well you get it. They hurt no one.

[Bill Glasheen]

I'd like also to state that Ian is my friend, and is one of the more intelligent people I've ever met in my life. And I'd have no problem hugging him in public, or even giving him a peck on the cheek.

But no tongue. A fellow has his standards, mind you...

As for the patient situation, Ian, consider this.

1) The patient got the Rx that the patient wanted.

2) I know of no ethical standard of care that would mandate a provider prescribe a morning after pill to a patient who willingly engaged in unprotected sex. Think about it, Ian. What is pathological about a pregnancy? Will you not allow for the fact that a physician is not mandated to terminate a pregnancy?

3) My wife probably did the most ethical thing. Another provider in the practice picked up the case, and my wife stepped out of the picture. The patient's "needs" were met without the patient's "preferences" being met. You can't always get what you want...

As for your political choice as a gay male, well ultimately it's your decision. However I would NEVER give my vote only to one party. I wouldn't want them to think they are entitled to it. With Kerry recently seeking for a state ammendment banning gay marriage, what kind of ally is he? Is he assuming you will vote for him because he is a Democrat?

Also remember that Kerry often mentions he is a Roman Catholic. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. (Now I'm an American. ) Their dogma isn't exactly something you want to bank on. And given their record on priests, it doesn't look to me like The Church is capable of having an intelligent reaction to anything but "traditional" sexuality.

Meanwhile, Cheyney openly is supporting states' rights on the matter. And he has skin in the game.

Make them work for your vote, Ian. Nobody has mine, and I've voted for every party except maybe the Green Party. That's the way you get politicians to work for you.

And I will stand with you on principle. You and your partner deserve legal rights.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Ian said: "Rich, you're got a lot more econ behind you than I do. I am curious what you recommend doing about our deficit."

Thanks for the interest. I'm not an econ guy by degree (electrical engineer), but at GE we had many internal courses, some by Harvard Business school professors and the like, that most salaried employees were encouraged to take. That, plus 29 years in the GE meatgrinder, and generally good personal investing succes gives me a good feel for the economy. Also, while at GE I lived through quite a few boom then bust then boom cycles and bust again and survived them so saw what the dynamics were.

The number one thing I found is that the more government intervened the more it messed things up. Clinton did a good job in the 90s by pretty much leaving the economy alone. He trusted the Fed and despite their own warnings they let it runaway and implode. So, not even Greenspan has total control.

The best thing to do with a free economy is let it do its thing. As we are now in a truely global economy there are risks as the ups and downs of the oil supply illustrate. But, capitalism will correct for that in the long run. You are too young to remember the oil crisis in 1973-1974, and later in 1979-1980, but there never was a real shortage in the US. The controls the Federal Govt put in place created a situation of panic as we ended up with the wrong oil products in the wrong places.

As for the deficit, some economists argue that it is not that big of a deal. Especially since the US economy is so large. Some say a deficit is better than having a surplus. Big surpluses merely encourage more government spending. The deficits put some drag on the ability to raise spendind as everyone is watching. Virginia got caught big time in that trap by using up the huge surpluses of the 90s to create new programs (spending grew 70% in ten years) that are now strangling the state in a down economy. It is now roaring back, and what does the govt do? Raise taxes again so it can spend more. Sigh, no one learns from history so we will repeat the cycle in about 5 or 6 years.

In my opinion, the Govt will never manage my money better than I will, so that is why I am for lower taxes. If they do not have it, it is harder to spend it.

What would I cut? Entitlements. They start out small, grow, and become fixtures. SS and Medicare were supposed to be 'safety nets'. They are now 'entitlements'. As such, even talking about cutting them is political poison.

If I were president, I'd end incrementalism in funding by wiping every slate clean every year. So instead of politicians fighting for increases in their pet projects and programs, they'd need to first justify why the program exists and start from zero each year.

Take the Dept of Energy as an example. They have never produced a single watt of energy or barrel of oil. They have never created a proactive energy plan. And yet, they have an operating budget in the $billions. Wipe them out until they can show me megawatts generated by their department.

The Department of Education, by most standards, has overseen the deterioration of our public schools. Yet they have an ever growing budget of $billions of dollars and want more. Wipe them out and give the $$ back to the states or cut their cost out of my taxes.

I'm not sure which department (State?) oversees the handing out of countless $billions in aid to mostly ungrateful nations, but I'd zero budget that as well. No incremental increases to Egypt or whoever. Every year they'd need to show me how they used the money we gave them, and then I'd check their voting record in the UN before deciding to give any country a penny.

What would I keep? Strong defense. Strong interstate highway program. Strong interstate commerce program. Strong funding for R&D in health, science, weapons, agriculture.

Then, I'd go to a very flat fed tax (15% to 20%) with few deductions and no loopholes.

Finally, I'd return SS and Medicare to their roots as a safety net, not a replacement for the savings people should be piling up for their inevitable old age. No incremental % increases each year. At the end of every fiscal year we'd begin planning from zero again. No prescription drug cards, no federal funded heath care plans. I would do as Bush wants though, and encourage folks to invest some of their SS $ outside of the US trust. Over a ten year period, the stock market will outdo anyhthing the feds can do with money.

Any questions?

Rich C.

[Bill Glasheen]

When are you running, you right-winged extremist?

You have my vote - for one term.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Ben said: "Rich- Do you honestly beleive that GE will stop paying dividends? Wouldn't they lose investors if their stocks didn't pay?"

You did not understand the situation. GE will not stop paying dividneds. It has paid a dividend every year for over 100 years. It has increased its dividend for the last 28 years, and I expect it will again next year. It makes the stock not only a safe blue chip stock to own but practical as an income generator as well.

Here is the rub... my stock is in what is essentially a 401K plan. Until his year, I simply reinvested my dividends within the plan. Over 29 years, that created my rather nice personal pension plan. Now that I am semi retired, but not an official retiree being well under 60, I need income to supplement my 'hobby' as a sub school teacher.

The way the tax law for 401ks is written, that stock is in a lockbox until I turn 59.5. Any withdrawall is subject to a 10% penalty plus a capital gains tax for selling shares of stock. There is a corporate 'loophole' so to speak, that allows me to take the dividends of the stock in the 401k without paying a penalty. It is taxible income for me, but GE incures no tax on those dollars of earnings being sent to me.

If that 'corporate welfare' law is cancelled, GE would just stop allowing me to take my dividends out of the 401k as the company would then be taxed on them as ordinary income, which is a high rate. GE would still pay dividends on the stock, but into the 401K in the form of more stock. Hence, unless I wanted to incur high taxes and penalties, I'd have to leave the 401k sit for another 7 years!

That is not a bad thing, as my 401k would grow enormously. However, I'd need to end my 'partial retirement' and head back into the meatgrinder of corporate life for 7 years or so for the income.

My physical hobby pursuits have left me concerned about how much fun I'll be able to have in my golden years as I am getting very creaky. At 60 and beyond I might have a $hitload of money but might not really be able to enjoy it. So, I want to enjoy the fruits of my labors now. Just remember, every whack to the head or slam into the mat does add up to a serious tax on the body.

Rich

[RACastanet]

Bill said: "You have my vote - for one term."

Heheheheheh. That would be about right. A one term 'lame duck' attitude is what it would take to fix many of our problems.

By the way, like Switzerland, I'd mandate an assualt rifle in each household, after a bit of mandatory training of course.

That would lower the crime rate!

Rich