A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

It's nice to hear of women supporting

Posted: Oct 30, 2013

Whatever your thoughts on Hillary Clinton, I'm encouraged by women in Washington who are rallying and willing to support Hillary rather than turn her into the enemy, the competition, etc.

I know sometimes that women in highly competitive jobs do not support one another, in fact sometimes try to bring each other down (not that men are any different), so this just struck a chord with me, for that reason.

;

So True - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
Bravo. I agree 100%. I do hope she decides to make a run for POTUS. It would be my absolute pleasure and delight to cast my first vote *ever* for a woman to be President of the United States. Not just because she is a woman either, but because I have looked at every possible candidate (both male and female, Democrats and Republicans/Tea Party), and I happen to think she is the most qualified candidate out of the entire possible field.

She's got my vote.

not mine... she is way to progressive/liberal - for me

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes, I would love to see a woman in the White House as well. But her socialist ideals are too much like the current guy. I already don't recognize my country anymore, don't want to see it getting even worse!

Do you see a woman coming up on the right - you'd like to see run? nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

There are a few - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I like Sarah Palin, she is a true American Spirit and a hard worker. When she was governor of Alaska, she used her own vehicle & cooked her own meals rather than take taxpayer money for those things that she felt she could do herself. Fought big oil companies and political cronies in Alaska and won. But she has been smeared so badly by the left that even if she ran, I'm afraid she wouldn't stand a chance.

I also like Michelle Bachmann and Jan Brewer.

I would never vote for someone based on their sex or their skin color, but rather their values and convictions... as MLK says, "the content of their character."

Well, Jan Brewer would be an interesting candidate. - The others are carrying some baggage, so

[ In Reply To ..]
maybe not 2016. Brewer was responsible enough to accept the Medicaid expansion for her constituents who needed it in Arizona (a lot of them), so I liked her for that anyway. I think that pragmatic action may just have something to do with her being a woman. FT

Sarah Palin Doesn't Need Any Help From The Left - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
It's only my opinion, but I think Sarah Palin doesn't need any help from the left to be disqualified for the position of POTUS.

She is quite capable of demonstrating her ineptitude to hold the position of leader of the free world with absolutely no help whatsoever from anyone else.

IMO, that is a person that just does not have the credentials.

Palin needing help from the left - MT

[ In Reply To ..]
You're spot on, she isn't qualified nor does she have nearly enough knowledge for any high level Washington job, much less POTUS.

The only thing the left (and/or the right who put country ahead of hatred for Obama) need to do is make certain we never have to deal with this woman having any power in our government.

I'll for women supporting in each other, of course, but this is not one of those times.

smears from the left - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Did the left fabricate Palin abandoning her position as governor of Alaska to exploit TP constituents, make the reality show circuit, etc. for her personal financial gain instead of completing her term and responsibility to the citizens of Alaska? No, she was criticized for sure, but not a smear because it's something *she* did, a decision she made. The left had nothing to do with it.

Similarly, if Bachmann is called out on her illegal use of campaign funds, would that be a smear from the left? Or would it be a bad move on her part that she was correctly criticized for?

I don't understand how the right can accuse the left of smearing. Shouldn't the personality/candidate/elected official in question take personal responsibility for bad decisions, illegal activity, etc., and humbly accept the consequences instead of blaming it on the left?

the reason she left - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
People on the left who didn't like her were starting so many bogus investigations about her.. not only was it costing her tons of money to fight them, but she was spending so much time trying to put out fake fires (none of the allegations brought against her were true) that she couldn't devote her time to her job the way she wanted to. She felt it was unfair to the people of Alaska, so she stepped down.

Most politicians IMO are dirty, crooked, law breakers. Most cannot be trusted. If they were required to follow the laws the rest of us do, most of them would be out of a job at the least, if not in jail.

One thing I've noticed is that it seems like those on the left are much quicker to point fingers and make accusations against someone on the right (so much for tolerance, huh?). Look what they did to Herman Cain. Oh but, Bill Clinton? He sure got away with a lot!

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Clinton can. Palin can't. It's that simple. She did the right thing for herself, Alaska and the nation. She's much more suited for her current role as...ummm...errr...oh yeah, Grandma Grizzly, former star of axed reality show, founder of her buy-your-own-book PAC and occasional word salad contributor on Fox that even Megyn Kelly can't reign in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdoFgAccqB0

Can you link me to where allegations were proven not true? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
When she resigned, wasn't the ethics investigation suspended? So we don't really know if the charges were true or not. If she was innocent, she should have stayed and fought.

Yes, maybe more fingers are pointed from the left because there are more on the right to point fingers at, for true unethical and illegal activity.

A lot can also be said for how a public figure handles him/herself after having gone through scrutiny of ethical or illegal activity. I think Sarah Palin milked the TP people and robbed them blind after she left office. JMO.

Regarding tolerance, illegal and ethical activity should not be tolerated. Did the left tolerate Weiner's indiscretions? Did the right tolerate Sanford's? So no, the left has no tolerance for unacceptable behavior, but looks like the right does.

Sarah Palin and Herman Cain--Blame The Left Because They're Quitters? - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
You have made a very good argument, in my opinion, as to why Sarah Palin is not qualified to be POTUS. When the going gets tough, the tough.... bow out, resign, quit? Painting Silly Sarah as a victim in her resignation is a nice spin on the facts. If you can't handle the party of the opposition telling lies about you, then maybe you shouldn't be a politician. The whole, "I can serve the people by not serving" argument is pretty lame. What does she say if she decides to run for POTUS in the future? Maybe something like: "I think I can handle it now. I mean, yes, I am now okay to be the President of the United States *winkie winkie*, bring on the lies, Democrat people." LOL

Candidate Barack Obama would have gotten nowhere if he let lies dissuade him from seeking the office, and for that matter, candidate Bill Clinton had some problems with allegations not unlike Herman Cain, but did he quit? Say all the nasty things you will about Bill Clinton, but he was certainly not a quitter.

Now Herman Cain, there is another quitter for you like Sarah. However Herman Cain, the man himself, blames Rick Perry and Ron Paul for leaking the sexual harrassment issues to the press, and I still can't figure out why the right blames the left when even Herman himself doesn't. The fact that Herman Cain did not remember what happened in Libya and some other little campaign mishaps were already on the table before the five sexual harrassment allegations came to light. Herman's campaign was already in a tailspin by then, and those coming along were just the icing on the proverbial cake. By the time the accusations of the 13-year affair rolled around and Cain's lawyer issued a non-denial statement while at the same time the candidate himself was on CNN saying something different...... well. You do the math.

Do voters really want to cast their ballots for POTUS on a candidate who doesn't have the knowledge required and can't seem to successfully manage controversy and show strength while dodging the political slings and arrows that inherently come with the job they are seeking?

Not only no, but *heck* no.

And that is why Herman quit. He apparently couldn't handle the heat and wasn't intellectually equipped with the knowledge of domestic and international affairs, and he knew it, and the majority of the country knew it, and that, not coincidentally, is also the reason that we will never, ever have a President Sarah Palin.

why would anyone spend tons of money to fight - bogus investigations?

[ In Reply To ..]
I just don't get that. If someone wanted to investigate me, I'd let them. I certainly don't need to spend "tons of money" to fight anything.

because you have to - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Quote from Sarah Palin on the ethics complaints: "Keep in mind that anyone anywhere in the world could file an Alaska ethics complaint free of charge. It cost them nothing to do it. And even though leaking was against the state ethics laws, they still leaked the complaints to draw headlines. In short, they could flood the system at will and without consequence to themselves, but we had to formally process each and every complaint - and I had to pay personally for my own defense."

These were all ridiculous complaints. For example, she was filmed for some news footage and happened to be wearing a jacket that had a company logo on it. They filed a complaint about that.
There were dozens more that were just a lame, but when you have to have an attorney fight every single claim, that can add up to a ton of money.

So... who's allowed to break the rules? If a Dem broke dozens of silly - rules, is it okay?

[ In Reply To ..]
You know, they makes these rules for a reason and everyone is supposed to follow them, whether or not they are lame.

No one is entitled to break rules.

Also, a lot of the money she said she would have to pay was inclusive of salaries of gov employees that would have to be paid anyhow.

the point is she did not break any rules - it was just a smear campaign

[ In Reply To ..]
that ended up costing her lots of money and time.

Imagine if you had a nasty neighbor who didn't like you and always filed complaints you had to fight. Your grass got an inch too long because you were too busy to mow one week. Bam! You're accused of painting your house a shade darker than the HMA allows. Bam! A piece of garbage flies into your yard & you don't see it to pick it up. Bam! Your dog is barking one day while you're not home. Bam! All stupid and ridiculous, but you'd be forced to spend your money & time fighting them. This is basically what she went through over & over again. And she had to pay out of her own pocket, not some government employees salary fund or whatever it is you're talking about.

Well, yeah, if I or anyone in my neighborhood violates HOA - bam. Rules are rules

[ In Reply To ..]
It's called personal responsibility. If she had a jacket on with a logo that she wasn't supposed to wear while doing an interview, then yes, she broke a rule. It's called personal responsibility, respecting authority, and accepting the fact that rules are for everyone.

I know there are consequences if I don't follow HOA regulations and I respect the authority that imposes them. I don't think much of people who make excuses or think they are special for whatever reason.

She did break rules, she just didn't want to face the music and accept personal responsibility. You can't break rules and then blame the person who catches you.

I'd still like to know if it would be okay if a Dem violated supposedly meaningless, pesky ethics rules.

Could you kindly explain how our country is - so 'socialist' now that you don't

[ In Reply To ..]
recognize it anymore? Could you be specific? I am really trying to understand how a grossly capitalistic society is got to be so unrecognizably 'socialist' in just the past few years (unless you feel it was socialist also During Bush's terms).

I'd like to know too. That was what my dislike of the above was for. - Not the personal opinion on Hillary. nm

[ In Reply To ..]

just to name a few... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The government has gotten way too involved in our businesses and our personal lives. It started when Bush was president, when the government decided to get involved in the housing market and the auto industry.

There are so many regulations that it's nearly impossible to even start a new business, so many people don't even try. The ones that do have to spend too much money and time making sure they are following all the insane rules.

In our personal lives, they can track our phone calls & emails if they want to. We can't wear certain Halloween costumes for fear of offending someone. A kid can't even have a kool-aid stand in some communities, and yard sales are banned in some as well.

We can't talk about God or display a Christmas tree or Nativity scene in the town square; we might offend the tiny minority who don't believe in God.

Now the government thinks they can do a better job of choosing our health care coverage? We are headed for a single-payer system... fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, no choices left to the individual. Why do I have to have maternity care on MY health plan? I'm past the age of having children. Why do I have to have drug addiction coverage on MY health plan? I don't do drugs, never have, never will.

Our taxes continue to go up while our freedoms continue to disappear, so that we can support the politicians and their lavish lifestyles, their pet projects that we have no say in, and their giant egos that think they know what's best for us.

This country was founded on principles of freedom, that we choose how to live our lives and we are responsible for our choices. The government is taking our choices away, silencing our voices with political correctness, and killing the entrepreneurial spirit that made this the best country in the world. It was the capitalistic society that gave us cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones and many other things that have made our lives so much better. Without the free market, none of those things would exist.

I am genuinely responding - so please read - and not feel attacked

[ In Reply To ..]
You wrote: The government has gotten way too involved in our businesses and our personal lives. It started when Bush was president, when the government decided to get involved in the housing market and the auto industry.

This is be correct in a manner of speaking, but government 'involvement' is *not* socialism. Are you confusing regulation with socialism?

There are so many regulations that it's nearly impossible to even start a new business, so many people don't even try. The ones that do have to spend too much money and time making sure they are following all the insane rules.

Again, this is regulation, not socialism. Regulation saves lives and protects people from business owners who would be happy to reinstitute child labor.

In our personal lives, they can track our phone calls & emails if they want to. We can't wear certain Halloween costumes for fear of offending someone. A kid can't even have a kool-aid stand in some communities, and yard sales are banned in some as well.

Please, how is this socialism?

We can't talk about God or display a Christmas tree or Nativity scene in the town square; we might offend the tiny minority who don't believe in God.

This is not socialism. You have rechecked the definition by now to differentiate?

Now the government thinks they can do a better job of choosing our health care coverage? We are headed for a single-payer system... fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, no choices left to the individual.

You BELIEVE we are headed to single-payer - and how is the GOVERNMENT choosing our health care coverage? Because the ACA requires a minimum standard of coverage from businesses?

Why do I have to have maternity care on MY health plan? I'm past the age of having children. Why do I have to have drug addiction coverage on MY health plan? I don't do drugs, never have, never will.

Frankly I have not fact-checked this but is sounds suspiciously nonfactual. Any other readers can vet this?

Our taxes continue to go up while our freedoms continue to disappear, so that we can support the politicians and their lavish lifestyles, their pet projects that we have no say in, and their giant egos that think they know what's best for us.

I am so sorry to tell you this, but that is under our CAPITALISTIC model, *NOT* socialism!

This country was founded on principles of freedom, that we choose how to live our lives and we are responsible for our choices. The government is taking our choices away, silencing our voices with political correctness, and killing the entrepreneurial spirit that made this the best country in the world. It was the capitalistic society that gave us cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones and many other things that have made our lives so much better. Without the free market, none of those things would exist.

I am sorry to tell you this but you are just factually wrong here. I am not going to defend communism but since *you* mentioned it, I will say this: Do you think communistic countries do NOT have airplanes, phones, computers, etc?

These are all fair questions and what I am TRYING to do it to point out to you that you are fearing a socialism WHICH DOES NOT exist in this country. And I am not sure you understand what capitalism REALLY is. trust me when I tell you that capitalism DOES NOT EQUAL freedom.

definition of socialism - miriam webster

[ In Reply To ..]
Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

When the government imposes extensive regulations on industry, they are, in effect, controlling those industries. That seems to fit Miriam Webster's definition of socialism.

I didn't say we should have NO regulations. I just think there are way too many. Because the lawmakers have to keep making laws in order to justify their jobs, they keep coming up with more and more regulations, some that are necessary, but most are just ridiculous.

Socialist countries generally do not allow freedom of religion. They choose the religion the people must follow.

Several years ago, before Obama became president, he said that he wanted a single-payer system. The ACA is just one step along the way. There are several ways they are working to achieve this. One way is to make so many regulations on insurance plans that they do not meet the "minimum requirements" and thus are now illegal. So now we all have to buy insurance that has coverage that some of us may not want or need. To me, that's like saying I have to have full coverage auto insurance on my 15-year-old car. They also said that some policies would be "grandfathered" in to the new law as long as they added all the extra stuff mandated by the ACA. Oh, but wait! In order for them to be grandfathered in, they cannot raise their premiums by even $5.00. So they are expected to add extra coverage but are not allowed to raise the premium. Another way they are gearing up for single-payer is by adding so many more people to the single-payer system already in place -- Medicaid. They knew there was no way they could go from free market to single-payer in one fell swoop. This is just the beginning of the incremental changes they want to make.

There are many "essential benefits" that now must be included in all policies, including maternity and pediatric care, mental health services, and preventive care (50 preventative services!). I don't have a choice to leave any of those off my policy, which means I'm paying for services I don't need.

When this country was founded, the idea was that regular people would go to Washington to represent their communities, stay for a finite period of time, then go home and go back to their normal lives. The pay wasn't that great. People understood that they were making a personal sacrifice in the service of their country. It was supposed to be temporary. Now, people go to Washington as CAREER POLITICIANS. They spend valuable time and money trying to get reelected (time that takes them away from the work they are there to do). They get great pay, great perks, excellent benefits, and if they ever decide to "retire," get a pretty darn nice pension for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and by the way, I did not say "communist" anywhere in my post. However, those things I mentioned were not invented in communist countries. They were invented here, where people know that if they work hard and come up with a great product that everyone wants, they should be rewarded for their hard work and get to keep most of what they've earned. The only reason communist countries have those things is because we made them first.

Up until a few years ago, I didn't realize how blessed I was to have been born in the United States of America. The people who came to this country originally came here to escape tyranny and oppression. They had a can-do spirit and worked hard, knowing that it was up to them to be successful or not, that they were responsible for their lives and what they made of them. People here are free to dream up new ideas, build a better mousetrap, invent the next great thing. Where else could someone start a business in their garage and end up a Bill Gates? Not only did he make insane amounts of money, but he employed thousands of people, giving them a better life, he gave us products that make our lives easier, and he gives millions to charities that he believes in, helping even more people than all those who work for him. Multiply that by all the others like him, and there are many. These things could not have been accomplished anywhere else, because CAPITALISM EQUALS FREEDOM.

Now that I've said my piece, I have a question for you. Can you tell me of one socialist country with the freedoms and opportunities that we enjoy here? Just one where their system is better than ours? Where people get to keep what they earn instead of giving most of it to the government to let THEM decide what to do with it? I don't think you can.

You may have 'said your piece' but you were not factual - and didn't really answer me

[ In Reply To ..]
You provided the definition of socialism via Merriam and Webster:

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

PLEASE NOTE: the definition does *not* say 'owned OR controlled' it says AND. MAjor difference. This would mean the government would have to OWN AND CONTROL (run) said major industries in order to meet the socialism threshold.

I really can't justify taking time to decipher the rest of your 'piece' because of your leading comments - I don't see you as being truly interested in learning/sharing information - because you seem to insist in twisting our current system into socialism but do not provided concrete evidence.

(You may not have used the actual 'communist' in the post I originally responded but, you DID intimate that only capitalism could produce conveniences like planes, phones, etc. This is incorrect).

what I said - GBA

[ In Reply To ..]
I said I didn't like Hillary's socialist ideals. I would not vote for her because that is the direction she wants to take this country, and so does Obama. We are not a socialist country.... yet... but we are headed in that direction.

In a nutshell, the job of our government is to protect its citizens. It was never intended to become so involved in our personal lives.

I work hard for my money and it should be up to me to decide what I do with it. But the government takes a big portion of what I make and redistributes it in the way it sees fit, even if I disagree with how they spend it. I understand that I must pay for the government to protect me and I have no problem with that.

The government keeps taking more and more of my money in order to give it to someone else. Redistribution of wealth, level the playing field, whatever you want to call it. It's simply not fair that those who work hard must support those who do not WANT to work (please notice I didn't say those who CAN'T... I believe it is our responsibility to help them). When you take from those who work and give it to those who won't, you create an entitlement society, a welfare state. When you end up with more people taking from the coffers than there are putting in, it is no longer sustainable.

As for your last comment, Americans don't have a monopoly on great ideas; I certainly never said that. But in this country we can build on those ideas, we can make huge factories and businesses that employ lots of people, which gives them the opportunity to pursue their dreams as well.

Do you just like to argue for the sake of argument? It seems that way. Because you haven't given your opinion on why you like or dislike our current system. You just want to pick apart details of what other people are posting, and it's really getting tedious. If you would like to see this country become more socialist, tell me why you think that is better than what we have now. And if you like socialism so much, you could always move to one of those other countries you're so bent on defending. That's another wonderful thing about this free country of ours. If you don't like it, you're free to leave.

GBA, I believe the growth of government is a RESULT - of our becoming a nation of over

[ In Reply To ..]
300,000,000 people and still growing fast AND the growth of the technology we are all so dependent on.

Just the way a modern high school with 5000 students cannot be run by an schoolmaster under the direction of a town council, with their entire instructions on a sheet or two of paper, and the schoolmaster himself someone they knew from childhood.

Surely as the school developed dozens of classrooms and hallways they'd have to add something about fire drills?

More teachers, how about regulations about background checks for pedophilia?

More highly developed instructions on what will be taught at what point?

Regulations to keep the food coming out of the school kitchen safe and reporting requirements and auditors so the cooks don't just pocket the food budget?

Multiply that school by our entire nation... and then consider all the disasters that not just can but are likely to occur in a nation where almost no household is self sufficient enough to carry itself for a week?

If the backup water pumps eventually stop in Tucson, Los Angeles, Las Vegas because the power grid went down (backups only last so long), who gets the water flowing again -- fast, fast, fast, before 30 million people die of thirst alone?

In a nation of 300,000,000 million people and the constant prospect of a pandemic flu that could sweep across the continent killing 50,000,000 of us or more, WHO tries to have the right antiviral ready, a different one every year, and in sufficient quantity if not a central government? Should we have regulations on how it's distributed or just let the local county governments pass it out to those they like and auction the rest on the free market to the highest bidders?

Most of the time battleships are the least of it.

Think about it. We just CAN'T do it the old way, or we would.

The growth of government is multifactorial - but in part because

[ In Reply To ..]
When you have a capitalistic society, corporate businesses are MANDATED to make as high a PROFIT as possible for their shareholders.

Now just stop and think what would happen if there was little to no regulation.

Do you think these mega for-profit business would regulate THEMSELVES with regard to: Environmental issues? Fair pay? Child labor? Equal opportunity? Corruption? Dangerous products? SAFE medicinal drugs?

Think about it for just a bit: Would you really support a society that did not regulate those who profit from people like you?

Umhm. She might think she would, but she'd be too busy just - working to support herself to worry about it.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Speaking of tedious - claims of us being or heading - in the socialist direction

[ In Reply To ..]
And going on and on and on about socialism- and when given the chance to explain why you feel we are 'going in that direction' etc., you simply repeat your opinion and or manipulate information to suit a bias. I think you are just *afraid* we are going in the socialist direction - and I believe those *fears* are unfounded.

Frankly I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with any of the so-called socialist programs if they help to LEVEL the playing field between the poor and rich in this country. CAPITALISM has no conscience. It is up to US to make sure there is a balance.

I'm afraid our poor member isn't going to sleep at all - tonight. :) I'm also for using the best tools

[ In Reply To ..]
for the job. Recipe for the common good: Mix together a large amount of healthy self interest and personal greed (capitalism), a nice balance of people sharing a common goal (socialism), 3 tablespoons of regulations to keep the bowl from spinning off the counter, if needed a couple dashes of government assistance to get it off to a vigorous start, and then keep a careful eye on what happens next, with continual adjustments as needed through all the years we're cooking. FT

The world's happiest countries are Socialist Democracies. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

The Scandinavian countries, mainly, and a few others. I would definitely argue that their systems of government and economics, especially, are "better than ours."

"... So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given–of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren’t.

... What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job."

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html

I suppose they wouldn't fully meet your criteria of "Where people get to keep what they earn instead of giving most of it to the government to let THEM decide what to do with it," though (they don't give "most" to the government, but more than we do), so no doubt any evidence to the contrary of your generalizations is all really moot to you then.

Regarding your statement: "Socialist countries generally do not allow freedom of religion. They choose the religion the people must follow."

As can be seen by the list of countries below, that is "generally" not at all the case. Russia and China are both historically based on communism, which while similar to socialism in some economic aspects, is not *synonymous* with socialism at all. And socialism is definitely not mutually exclusive of democracy (as can be seen by the happiest countries, once again, those Socialist Democracies).

If socialism is so bad then why are the happiest countries in the world socialist?

1. Denmark (7.693)
2. Norway (7.655)
3. Switzerland (7.650)
4. Netherlands (7.512)
5. Sweden (7.480)
6. Canada (7.477)
7. Finland (7.389)
8. Austria (7.369)
9. Iceland (7.355)
10. Australia (7.350)
11. Israel (7.301)
http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf

True. My DIL is Danish and would never give up her - citizenship, even though she married

[ In Reply To ..]
an American and lives here happily too. For years, though, she has just routinely planned to return to Denmark if she ever became significantly ill. No one is bankrupted by illness there, and she expects she would get as good care there or better than her standard-type policy would pay for her.

Denmark's benefits would also extend to her family should any of us choose to move there with her. We're hardly the only nation people emigrate to for the benefits. And stability. Denmark's not perfect but definitely less "weird" politically there than the U.S. has been lately.

All in all, I've been very satisfied that our little grandchildren have dual U.S. and Danish citizenship.

FT

Really well done post - Americans have been trained

[ In Reply To ..]
to reject out of hand ANYthing that is not strictly capitalistic.

Why? in order to PROTECT capitalism that's why! It is so transparent to me- and i think its sad how easily some Americans will allow themselves to be manipulated.

My family is Danish--their country has large - subsidies for---ART! :)

[ In Reply To ..]
And they are known as the happiest people on the planet. I would be, too!

the key word in the definition is "owned" - see msg

[ In Reply To ..]
I can't name a major industry in the United States that is owned by the government. I don't agree that your definition "in effect" "seems to" agree with that of Merriam Webster.

In fact, 90% of U.S. wealth is NOW owned by a few - private families. NOT We the People thru our gover

[ In Reply To ..]
x

the question was whether industry is owned by the government - -- and it is not

[ In Reply To ..]

That was never in question. It is currently owned by approximately - 30 families courtesy of the easily fooled. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Facts Can Be Such Pesky Little Things - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
"It was the capitalistic society that gave us cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones and many other things that have made our lives so much better. Without the free market, none of those things would exist."

Well, you paint a very rosy picture there, but as I have said many times before, and I'll say once again: Facts can be such pesky little things. Let's let the facts speak for themselves here.

CARS: The first true automobile was invented by a gentleman named Karl Friedrich Benz. Around the same time, Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach produced the Daimler Reitwagen, regarded as the first motorcycle.
COUNTRY: German Empire, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. During its 47 years of existence, the German Empire operated as an industrial, technological and scientific giant, receiving more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, France, Russia and the United States combined. Under Bismarck, Germany was a world innovator in building the welfare state. German workers enjoyed health, accident and maternity benefits, canteens, changing rooms and a national pension scheme. The world innovators of socialism invented the first true automobile and the motorcyle.

AIRPLANES: In 1799, Sir George Cayley defined the forces of lift and drag and presented the first scientific design for a fixed-wing aircraft. Building on his pioneering work in aeronautics, scientists and engineers began designing and testing airplanes. A young boy made the first manned flight in a glider designed by Cayley in 1849. Cayley is aptly named "the father of aerodynamics." He discovered and identified the four aerodynamic forces of flight: weight, lift, drag, and thrust, which act on any flying vehicle. Modern airplane/aeroplane design is based on those discoveries including cambered wings. He is credited with the first major breakthrough in heavier-than-air flight and he worked over half a century before the development of powered flight, being acknowledged by the Wright brothers. He designed the first actual model of an airplane and diagrammed the elements of vertical flight.
COUNTRY: Kingdom of Great Britain, King George William Frederick, also known as George III (yes, *that* King George). Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. Mercantilism and government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War. With respect to its colonies (you know, the future US "colonies"), British mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners. The goal was to increase political power and private wealth so as to exclude other empires. The government protected the government's merchants and excluded all others through trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses. The government took its share through duties and taxes (the colonies took issue with those), with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. These are the guys that brought us taxation without representation. Would we call that a free market? Yet this is where the airplane originated, acknowledged by Wilbur and Orville Wright.

COMPUTERS: Charles Babbage, considered the "father of computers," was the creator the first mechanical computers called the Difference Engine and the Analytical Engine. His first undertaking was actually sponsored by the government of his country but was never completed.
COUNTRY: United Kingdom.
COMPUTERS: Also see Percy Ludgate.
COUNTRY: Ireland.
COMPUTERS: First concepts of what we consider a modern computer. Alan Turing, 1936.
COUNTRY: United Kingdom.

COMPUTERS: First commercial computer and computer company, Konrad Zuse, 1942.
COUNTRY: Germany, Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Nationalsozialisten or National Socialists, Nazi Party. Does this really need explanation, or does the term Socialists speak for itself? Yes, I agree.

CELL PHONES: Reginald Fessenden, 1900. He made the first wireless phone call on December 23, 1900. He was able to communicate by voice over radio waves by transmitting a signal from one radio tower to another. Fessenden's work was the basis for broadcast radio technology and served as an enabler for later cell phone and development of wireless networks.
COUNTRY: Canada. Head of State, Queen Victoria. Canada's tradition of liberalism is widely known: Social liberal attitudes toward homosexuality, women's rights, and other egalitarian movements. However, there is also a sense of collective responsibility in Canadian political culture, as is demonstrated in general support for universal health care, gun control, foreign aid, and other social programs.

TELEPHONE: I know you didn't list this one, but humor me and Google Antonio Meucci. Would you believe that Meucci invented the idea for his "teletrofono" while living and working in Havana, Cuba, way back in 1849? Too bad for him that he could not afford the patent once he immigrated to the U.S. Yes, an Italian immigrant living in Cuba invented the telephone, but the Canadian immigrant born in Edinburgh, Scotland who carried out experiments in the same lab where Meucci's materials had been stored, Alexander Graham Bell, got the actual patent on it (and until recently got the majority of the credit for it).

In the grand scheme of things, America is a fairly new country. I think a great many Americans view the United States as the inventors of "everything," but that is just simply not the case. Facts can be such pesky little things, but I think it is safe to say that capitalism and free markets are not a required necessity nor necessarily a catalyst of original ideas and inventions.

sure... - go ahead

[ In Reply To ..]
elect yet another lying, felonious, committing treason, candidate! JUST what we need in office to follow another lying, felonious, committing treason candidate. Just because she is a woman, so to speak, does not make her a saint, and a saint she is not. She has been hiding documentation of felonious acts for years and years. she has been one of the active acting big-wigs behind the Benghazi scandal, and you want HER to lead our country. God help us!!

Candidate? - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
Once a person has been elected to office, they are no longer a "candidate." For instance, Barack Obama is not candidate Obama, he is President Obama.

If you have possession of actual hidden "documentation" or evidence that President Obama has committed a felony or treason, or future candidate Hillary Clinton for that matter, you and Darrell Issa should talk. If you could produce this evidence, it would be a nice 60th birthday present for him tomorrow.

Time for Issa to retire. He's now officially a cranky old man.

I am really starting to dislike - the word SERIOUSLY

[ In Reply To ..]
one person thought it sounded "professional" and now Everybody is saying it. geez, get an ORIGINAL one, will ya!
and I was not referring to Barak Obama as a "candidate." He is on his way out, thank goodness!!! And if you have been alive long enough, you know all about the document hiding scandal from Hillary back when her puppet, I mean husband, was "president." I do not need to provide the documents. The govt already knows what they are and where they are. The fact is that she has been a liar since day one, used her position for scandalous things, has done no good whatsoever for this country, and I just cannot believe that people are actually considering her as a candidate for the next presidency just simply because she is a woman! ugh! lord help us all!! These are the "choices" we have as voters??? no thanks! we are doomed. must have the forest stuck in your eyes! and I could care less about Issa!!! Stop throwing his name around like it is going to hurt me or something! and talk about cranky....well, you know where the mirror is at!

Chin up! Maybe Cory Booker will challenge her in primaries :-) He's being - sworn in today!

[ In Reply To ..]
And here's wishing him a long, prosperous, stellar, and presidential future!

I think it's cute and gets the message across far more - pleasantly than many other ways.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

you hear it enough - you get really sick of it.

[ In Reply To ..]
ick. :-( Just like... "just sayin'", "it is what it is..." They get over used and get on my last nerve. This is the most recent one. I do not like "tweaked" either! cute to you is not to me. sorry. "just sayin'"

It's entirely - possible

[ In Reply To ..]
to make this quasi-political statement minus the moniker slam and personal digs, but I do sympathize with those partisans still obsessing over their insatiable need to bag a pound or two of Clinton flesh. I'd be cranky too if I were still fighting that crusade.

Been There--Done That--Seen That--Heard That--Lived That - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
One person thought it sounded "professional," and now everybody is saying it? Really? Well, I can't speak for "everyone," I can only speak for myself. "Seriously" is my nickname. My father stuck me with that one because someone three times my age was trying to argue some issue of fact with me that he remembered incorrectly. My father said to the guy that he should check his facts before he insisted so vigorously with me that he was correct. Something along the lines of: "Seriously, dude, you will lose this one. I know she is young, but Seriously." And that has been my nickname ever since. I like it, obviously, or I wouldn't keep using it all the time.

I can say with absolute 100% certainty that people who deal in half truths, misconceptions, and falsehoods grow to loathe me. Probably because I have this habit of interjecting the truth into a conversation. People don't always remember things correctly, and some of them do it on purpose. We would refer to this habit as an agenda. Quite simply, people with an agenda hate facts.

I think it is truthful to say that people are not considering Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate "just simply because she is a woman." If that criteria alone made a successful candidate, Silly Sarah would have made a run for POTUS in 2012 rather than blowing all that steam only to *not* run for the office. I like her idea of serving the people by not serving. It's fine by me. If she thought she could win, I assure you, Silly Sarah would have run, forest, run. So will Hillary, for that matter, if she thinks she can win.

I wasn't throwing Issa's name around to hurt you at all. I believe I rightly assumed you were neither Hillary Clinton nor Kathleen Sebelius, so I thought you and Issa might share the same political views. I was merely thinking that you seem to have knowledge that Issa would love to possess (and all his millions cannot buy to date), and that you could really give him the present that he's been longing for all these years (it being his 60th birthday tomorrow and everything): some "real" dirt on President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton, etc., that he's been trying desperately to produce for ever so long.

I just checked my eyes and found no forest. I'll keep what I did find to myself. I'm not really a cranky person at all, just a person who perfers the truth to rhethoric and someone who can't understand why conservatives call themselves the "right" when they usually have the facts "wrong." Actually, I do know why they call themselves the "right," but that is another story.

seriously - may be your nickname

[ In Reply To ..]
but it has never been used on this board before, that I can recall. It is all over TV, in public, and emails, chat boards, every social media you can think of, and it just sucks! ugh.

My political views are my own, not "leaning toward Issa," or anybody else. Certainly not a proponent of ANY party. The current govt is just plain unjust and corrupt, and it will never get any better if the "people" continue to be "out voted" by corporations and other money grabbers with their hands out!

truth and rhetoric are a "personal" choice. what may be "truth" to you, may not be "truth" to someone else, and obviously skewed by whatever "side" you are on. I am not, nor will I ever be, a fan of Obama, Clinton, Bush, or any other "president" we have had in the last 20 years or so. None of them have had the interest of the people in their hearts, and all have led to us going downhill. My opinion, and I am entitled to it.

What? Truth is a Choice? No, But Thank You For Playing, Here Is A Nice Parting Gift - *Seriously

[ In Reply To ..]
"Truth and rhetoric are a 'personal' choice."

I respectfully beg to disagree on this one. Rhetoric is a personal choice, but the truth is never a "choice." Facts are facts, and they are pesky little things that get in the way of rhetoric.

No one expects you to agree with everything they believe or to be a fan of the POTUS, not even the man himself. He's an intellectual, and he gets it. He's also one tough individual who has a handle on the whole political minefield opposition party rhetoric thing. He's not a fan of it either, but I believe, IMO, that he does have the interest of the people in his heart. He stood up to the conservatives, and rightly so, and who won that round? What did he have to lose, really? They didn't have an end game, and the POTUS didn't need one.

The dirty little secret is that conservatives don't mind spending and handouts, they just want all the money flowing up for their corporate welfare projects. Obama has threatened to undo Reaganomics and "trickle up," and he is succeeding against their vigorous objections. That's why conservatives are not generally his fans. They worship at the alter of money. Your money.

Maybe these gutless wonders will think long and hard before they try to hold the country hostage again. We shall see, and time will tell. I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them, scam I am, but I know a ham when I see one, and thankfully so does most everybody else. And I also know that a house divided against itself cannot stand (thank you, Mr. Lincoln), and so who will win the GOP? IMO, it will be the moderate Republicans drinking the tea... a bitter pill to swallow, but I believe they will swallow it whole.

I really would like to "like" your posts more than once - I only have two computers, though

[ In Reply To ..]
I love your writing style and your absolute devotion to the "just the facts ma'am."

Love it. Absolutely love it. You've made reading this particular board entertaining, when normally I stay away from it because I can't stand the foolishness.

Thanks.

I Think Jon Stewart Said It Very Well When He Said...... - Go Jon

[ In Reply To ..]
Jon Stewart (on Senator John McCain calling some of his Republican colleagues “wacko birds”)

“You don’t get to complain!! McCain, you don’t get to complain. At all. Because if I remember correctly, no matter how cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs you think your wacko bird colleagues are, they don’t come anywhere close to your hatchling. [On screen: clip of McCain introducing Sarah Palin as his VP candidate in 2008]. You opened Pandora’s Box! You were the guy who gave the Mogwai [from the movie Gremlins] a post-midnight all-you-can-eat buffet! You don’t get to complain that now the party’s overrun with gremlins!”

three complaints about a moniker? - I don't get that.

[ In Reply To ..]
What's the big deal? Live and let live, yes? Personally, I don't care for "sucks," but I know some people enjoy the expression so I deal with it.

Not to mention, whining about the moniker - Srsly.

[ In Reply To ..]
isn't going to change anything, so what's the point? Why not keep your complaints to yourself? It's a political board, not an "I don't like your moniker board."

Actually, my post was about women supporting - each other in politics, not electing HC.

[ In Reply To ..]
I didn't even mention whether I would vote for HC, so there's no need to be dramatic.

Yes, and...... - I Might Add......

[ In Reply To ..]
The OP has a link that leads to a story with the words "Hillary Clinton" in the actual headline and all through the actual story.

Mystery solved.

It sure sounded like it - to me.

[ In Reply To ..]
we need new blood for a candidate, not some old worn out has been who lies and steals...and that could encompass nearly every one in politics as a "profession" these days.

I don't care if a candidate is male, female, or purple for that matter - It is the character and the ideas

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not ever ever ever going to support a candidate because of skin color, gender, age, physical beauty, or any such foolish superficial thing. What kind of destructive foolishness is that?

you are right - unfortunately.....sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Way too many people voted for Obama because he was black. They had no idea what he stood for and they didn't care.

I wonder how many people - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
voted for Romney because he was white and had no idea what he stood for and didn't care.

Too many I'm afraid - romney exactly like obama

[ In Reply To ..]
too many conservatives voted for romney without really understanding how extremely liberal he really is, and heartbroken he didn't win, but actually it is just as well for our side that he didn't, ultimately we will have a better chance of undoing some of this extravagant foolishness of the democrats without romney in the picture.

The claim of Romney being "severely" - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
conservative was not the premise of my post, and if you're referring to right wing extremism as "our side," perhaps you should check poll numbers before you get your hopes up too high.

Similar Messages:

Oct 10, 2016
Women who "like" Trump are invariably older and don't like Hilary Clinton because they were raised in an era of economic competition with each for men. In the old days, men generally took care of their women, and some women lucked out with good men and some stuck it out with bad ones. Young women can take care of themselves economically so aren't as threatened by other women so they're more apt to go for HIllary. Older women also don't like Clinton because she stuck with her ...

Aug 05, 2017
I have a lot of compassion for anyone who struggles with the biological gender with which they're born. I can't imagine how confusing or painful that is. However, I will NOT say you are a man when you're a woman or vice versa. This asinine legislation about the bathrooms does not make sense. Whatever your feeling is about this issue, ask yourself what is true. Because the truth may be distasteful to someone does not make it untrue. If you stru ...

Sep 06, 2012
Obama or the democratic party. This is for those who don't wish to go down to my first posting or wish to ignore it. I just want to make sure everyone is straight on this. OBAMA OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STOCK MARKET RALLY TODAY. There. Is that clear enough? The stock market closed at 13,292 because the ECG (European Central Bank) is buying up bonds. It has nothing to do with Obama. I can't believe you're trying to give credit to him or the part ...

Sep 22, 2014
nm ...

Mar 19, 2017
Private money has long played a big role in American elections. When there were limits on how much a single donor could give, however, it was much harder for an individual to have a decisive impact. Now, Potter said, “a single billionaire can write an eight-figure check and put not just their thumb but their whole hand on the scale—and we often have no idea who they are.” He continued, “Suddenly, a random billionaire can change politics and public policy—to sweep ev ...

Mar 28, 2013
Senator Murkowski of Alaska says her views are evolving, and she plans on reevaluating her stance on the issue (hooray for her!). "I think you are seeing a change in attitude, a change in tolerance," she said. "And an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving committed relationship with respect to the individual." As for why Murkowski is considering a change in position, she pointed to her two young sons, who she says give her puzzled looks when she asks them for ...

Sep 19, 2012
Today the republicans in the senate prevented a veterans’ jobs bill from coming to a vote by forcing a budget point of order vote. Democrats came up 2 votes short of the 60 needed to defeat the GOP’s budget measure ...

May 31, 2013
I'm not sure of clickable link will work, so here's url: ...or just do a search! :-) https://acluva.org/10882/aclu-praises-governor-for-support-of-felon-disenfranchisement-law-reform-urges-legislators-to-act/ ...

Jul 05, 2016
How much money does it cost for Air Force One and the presidential motorcade to be in Charlotte to campaign for Clinton? That is our money. I tried to find out if it is common for the sitting president to go out on the campaign trail for the next president and found that in most cases, they were very careful not to get too involved. - but Obama doesn't care and neither does Hillary - they think they can do no wrong..... I still believe that when we elect a president, th ...

Nov 11, 2016
Just a little boy! This is a sickening video that shows how extreme the left is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtlzPUtyBnI ...

Nov 07, 2015
There are many more but this is a good start! 1. Bernie is an honest, decent, compassionate, practical, intelligent man, a very rare commodity among politicians! 2. He is consistant and does not change his position with the changes in the political wind. 3. He is not beholden to powerful corporations, special interest groups or individuals, never has been! 4. He cannot be bought and does not have or accept money from Super PACs or large corporations. 5. He has been fighting for the rights o ...

Jan 21, 2016
1. Bernie is an honest, decent, compassionate, practical, intelligent man of integrity, a very rare commodity among politicians! 2. He is consistent and does not change his position with the changes in the political wind. 3. He is not beholden to powerful corporations, special interest groups or individuals, never has been! 4. He cannot be bought and does not have or accept money from Super PACs or large corporations. 5. He has been fighting for the rights of ordinary people for over thirt ...

Jan 19, 2010
State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on Oct. 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure. As ThinkProgress reported on Saturday, at the same time Brown was voting against the 9/11 rescue workers bill, he sponsored House Bill 4 ...

May 01, 2013
/ ...

Dec 08, 2014
If there's really a war on women, why doesn't the White House help us in this profession of medical transcription? (I know there are men in this profession, but the majority is women. No offense intended.) ...

Mar 07, 2012
I have a feeling women will be doing very well in 2012 and even better in the 2014 interim election. This is such a hoot. I am loving every last minute of it. Enjoy. Viagra Would Require Therapist OK in Ohio Bill By Mark Niquette on March 07, 2012 State Senator Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, has introduced a bill to require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs, including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist ...

Mar 01, 2010
Now that Spring is around the corner (finally!) my thoughts turn to a new Spring/Summer fragrance....I really love Lollia Breathe, but think I need something new.What do you like? ...

Mar 03, 2010
BUYAGRA: Stimulant to be taken prior to shopping. Increases potency and duration of spending spree.MENICILLIN: Potent anti-boy-otic for older women. Increases resistance to such lines as, "You make me want to be a better person. Can we get naked now?"ST. MOM'S WORT: Plant extract that treats mom's depression by rendering preschoolers unconscious for up to six hours.... See MoreEMPTY NESTROGEN: Highly effective supplement that eliminates melancholy by enhancing the memory of how awful t ...

Oct 21, 2012
First, please use birth control whether it means that "you" have to "shoulder the burden" or not. Yes, it would be "reasonable", "fair", or "right" for men to share this responsibility with you, but please - LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD where a lot of men have absolutely NO control over their penises. Second, please come to the point that you truly comprehend the incalculable value of EVERY human life. If, for instance, I could tell you that the human being you are sending to the garbage heap was f ...

Feb 17, 2017
Perhaps single men should be paid less than married men? I cannot believe there are men like this in our state legislatures. I hope Utah wakes up to the 21st Century. * * * * * Letters to the Editor 2/15/17 From the Wasatch Wave Equal Pay For Women Has Consequences Editor: Here's the problem with the Equal Pay bill being considered by the Utah Legislature... Traditionally men have earned more than women in the workplace because they are considered the primary breadwinners fo ...

Jan 04, 2014
First time I heard about this I thought that is just gross, but I was reading this website for other articles and saw this one that explains it. Has anyone ever used one and what are your opinions on it. If all you have to do is buy one cup and it lasts 10 years that would be a great savings on pads/tampons. What does anyone think about this. http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2014/01/are-you-still-using-pads-tampons-use-the-menstrual-cup-instead-2-2504750.html ...

Jul 05, 2014
I'll try not to make this too long, but would love advice. Hubby and brother not very close, but my daughter and BIL's brother are best of friends/cousins. BIL raised daughter himself for years and about 6 months ago met a girl who he moved in and now she raises the daughter while BIL works on the road. BIL likes the fact that the new girl takes full charge and he can kind of just come and go or whatever, work all of the time, not deal with family life, I think. ...

Jan 22, 2017
They didn't even know why they were there, spewed a bunch of nonsense. Pro-life women not welcome, which made the real agenda even more obvious. It's what the blind press couldn't see that matters more. For every woman out there, there were 10 who weren't, and wouldn't have been there if they could be, including every woman in my family and extended family...not all of whom voted for Trump, either. Ridiculous exhibition of childish pique over the ele ...

Mar 18, 2015
Uh-oh ...

Aug 20, 2017
If you respond defensively. I will think you protest too much. http://www.teenvogue.com/story/women-white-supremacy-history-america ...

Aug 21, 2012
DNC Refuses To Reimburse Conn. Town For Overtime Costs During Obama Visit. What? The taxpayers have to cover the cost? http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/08/21/dnc-refuses-to-reimburse-conn-town-for-overtime-costs-during-obama-visit/ ...

Apr 06, 2013
EXTREMITIES: Fatty, fatty. ...

May 16, 2015
How do they let this get on the air? Was it the comedy hour? No, seriously, was he trying to be funny? Hannity was laughing a lot, but I think it was just nervous laughter waiting for the other shoe to drop. ...

Jun 29, 2015
It's nice to see the programs on American history on Fox News Channel. I'd rather watch programs where I can learn something or be reminded of what I've learned as opposed to watching the smut on MSNBC. ...

May 17, 2011
After reading this article, I realized that the greatest fear of American women is the same thing women fear all over the world, running out of money in their old age. This is a good article. It made me think. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-hannah-grufferman/life-after-50-womens-wors_b_861659.html ...