May 18, 2009

Doing Our Part


You really don't have to thank us, and the Latinos, for doing our part to keep the nation healthy. Does this worry anyone? Will the gay population and birth control pills ruin us? Turn your computers off and go find your wife or husband and work on saving our nation. Please no Formula 401 premium shortcuts. We can only can handle one Stephen Colbert at a time.

21 comments:

  1. "Does this worry anyone? Will the gay population ruin us?"

    If every gay couple has 2.1 children then gay people will outnumber the hetero's in a mere 29 years. Fear! Fear! Be afraid!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan:

         You do know that "homicide bomber" is pure propaganda and that muslims would identify any of their own in that way. (They would probably say "martyrs" as their own propaganda.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "homicide bombers"??? I've never heard anyone use this phrase.

    "In just 39 years France will be a Muslim Republic". No it won't. Most people get their culture watered down by tcoming to the west.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's a link about the incorrect numbers and false assumputions this video makes:

    LINK

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adam Nardoli:

         In the vicinity of 4:50~5:10. "We don't need terrorists. We don't need homicide bombers..." Incidentally, the phrase "homicide bombers" was coined by the Bush administration to try to prevent any sympathy for muslims because they thought that "suicide bombers" was evoking such sympathy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow. Tangle seems to have every video a paranoid Christian would need.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jill,

    Thanks for a different side to that video. I wasn't interested in doing the research myself to show the validity of it. The numbers appeared to be exaggerated and since sources were not provided it did leave me wondering. There is a point of reality to it though. Can birth control pills and gay marriages be our downfall? Only time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yaeger,

    Good, read funny, point. That is why we all need to discuss things rationally and honestly. Videos like these and movies like Zeitgeist can do damage with false claims. They all need to be exposed if they are indeed misleading. Look at what Michael Moore's movie SiCKO did. Now yo yo's believe that nationalized health care would be a great thing and elected the president to implement it. We are doomed as a nation if that goes through. We used to be the envy of the world, soon we will be the laughing stock. We can give thanks to the anti God and the anti free market for these results.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jill,

    BTW in reading things in that World Factbook here is what I read about the U.S.:

    "The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48,000."

    Bwahahahahhaha! Wow that is so not true its laughable. Either it needs updating or the rose color glasses need to be removed.

    "To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008."

    Bwahahahahhaha! Wow, who is writing this garbage?

    It should have read, if honest:

    To help destroy financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Look at what Michael Moore's movie SiCKO did. Now yo yo's believe that nationalized health care would be a great thing and elected the president to implement it. We are doomed as a nation if that goes through. We used to be the envy of the world, soon we will be the laughing stock.

    I live in Australia. If I want to see a doctor, I can walk into a medical centre, (wait half an hour), see a doctor and not have to hand over any money. If I want almost any prescribed medicine it is $5 or less a month.
    People don't wait until they are really sick and have to visit the emergency room, they get treated earlier, are not crushed by medical bills. I have not seen Sicko but I think our health care model is quite good, not perfect, but better than the alternative.


    "The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48,000."

    Bwahahahahhaha! Wow that is so not true its laughable. Either it needs updating or the rose color glasses need to be removed
    .

    It might have been done last year. The per capita GDP of the US is now $46,859.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    Which economy do you think is the largest and most technologically powerful economy?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan:

         In many ways, the U.S. is already a laughing stock. It is said that the U.S. has the best health-care system in the world. And that's true -- as far as it goes. The problem is that only Bill Gates and Donald Trump have access to that particular health care system. The common people must deal with a sub-standard system.
         Before you tell me how there are Canadians who come into the U.S. for U.S. health care, let me tell you I already know that. There are more U.S. citizens that go up north for Canadian health care. Private health care is better for people with a couple million dollars to get themselves first place in line. Nationalized health care is better for people who would otherwise get shown the door.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jill,

    I guess I freaked out when I read "largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world" not anything about the GDP. If they said we are the largest consumers of the world then I would have agreed with it.

    What we have are consumers. We consume a great deal, I will agree to that. We export very little and we produce little. Its things like NAFTA, and the ilk, that gives tremendous breaks and unfair incentives to companies outside the US that give us smaller business people disadvantages in the game. I guess that was my main thought and thrust.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pvb,

    The problem is that only Bill Gates and Donald Trump have access to that particular health care system. The common people must deal with a sub-standard system. 

    We have great insurance that paid for three brain surgeries and soon to be 5 babies with very little out of pocket. We are gainfully employed though. So if you are talking about people that have no jobs that get sub standard health care then I might have to agree with you. If the government didn't take 30-40% of our income more would be left over to help such people. If the government didn't take 30-40% of our income more would be left over to give those people jobs. Could you imagine a 30% increase for the past 15 years we have been employed. I would be quite well off that is for sure.

    There are problems also, like the movie The Rainmaker pointed out, when insurance companies try to replace the doctors and get into the diagnosing business. The great thing is that if we don't like it we stop buying that insurance or sue the crap out of them and they go out of business. The free market eliminates the bad business.

    Our government, evidenced by the past bailouts, keep bad business people running strong. Our government mentality actually encourage evil business people. Now you want them in charge of all of our health? Wow!

    We only have to look at TSA, FEMA and Katrina, and the current AIG/Freddy Mac bailouts, to see the capacity of our government's ability to make good choices.

    Now you want them to decide who will operate on our families? Whew! You trust too much. You trust mankind way too much.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK for this discussion omit the "You trust mankind way too much." that thought may cloud the thrust of my point.

    ReplyDelete
  15.      "If the government didn't take 30-40% of our income more would be left over to give those people jobs."
         Bzzzt. Unless you make more than $170,000 in a year, the government does not take that much out of your income. More importantly, companies do not create jobs because they have more money. They create jobs when they see a possibility of getting consumer spending money. You are proposing giving more money to people already sitting on a huge pile of it. They will just throw it on the pile. If the goal is to create more jobs and no other effects are considered, the most effective mechanism would be a giveaway program that gave every citizen X dollars spending money. Companies would hire people in an effort to sell goods to get that money from the consumers.
         "The great thing is that if we don't like it we stop buying that insurance or sue the crap out of them and they go out of business. The free market eliminates the bad business."
         The insurance industry acts as a cartel. The only way for a business to get into the industry is with the approval of existing members. The free market does not apply. If you "don't like it" any other provider will do the same thing anyway. Insurance companies are only nominally competitive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ironically, a socialized healthcare system would be the best way to handle an epidemic

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yaeger,

    Why do you think they are overreacting with scare tactics about Swine flu?

    In 1976 the Swine flu killed one person the vaccine for it killed 25 people and the jury is still out on over immunization on infants.

    Government mandated health is a concept that makes me vomit. Where are the freedom fighters out there?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "the jury is still out on over immunization on infants"

    No, it's not.

    "Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine."

    Unless you want to go back to the days of smallpox killing 10% of all children. Or children hobbling around with polio. Or dying from whopping cough... etc... etc...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jill,

    I appreciate that but I did say over immunization , not immunization.

    I am not anti-Immunization, they are helpful for certain things but they are going way overboard these days in a profit fueled push. The jury is indeed still out. I would be more inclined to listen to the humbled rationality of Dr. Bernadine Healy then the others in part 3 and 4 of those videos. To completely write off vaccinations as that quack dr. Wiznitzer did is completely reckless and not scientific.

    Dr. Bernadine Healy said (part 4 6:30): "Giving a one/two day old baby a hepatitis B vaccine that the baby has no risk for it, and the mother has no risk of it,... that is a very heavy duty vaccine given on day two, two months, and 4 months...these are legitimate questions...

    ReplyDelete
  20. " The jury is indeed still out. "

    The link goes to Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey!
    For those who don't know Jenny is a porn actress and Jim is a comedian.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Flute,

    That is not fair and an ad hominem fallacy. I referenced the doctors that I heard in those discussions that I happen to have watched, not the comedian. So porn stars can't comment on their own children with any authority?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>