Taking the traffic off “When will we have football?”

[topher800]

That's a darn good point, Oldergoat! Sweden has a system similar to Canada that liberals in the U.S., especially Bernie Sanders, cite as evidence that government run healthcare can work in the United States. That system works so much better in smaller countries with more homogeneous populations because they tend to all agree "on the common good" as Topher pointed out. Heck, we can't even agree if people protesting are peaceful or violent.

While I'm not that old, I've been through the U.S. healthcare system more than I care to remember. If someone could price each medical procedure without factoring in profit, I think that information could be used to create a price menu, similar to a fast food restaurant, that consumers could use as a base for making decisions. Most people know a fastfood hamburger costs about $3 and about $6 for a combo meal. Medical procedures vary drastically and are computed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Right now, the insurance companies and doctors's offices are so cryptic about how much stuff costs because they both profit from it. I think healthcare will take a little more government oversight than most businesses because the demand will always be there, so I think we should make sure doctors make most of the profits, you know the guys with talent, and kick insurance companies to the curb. Another helpful thing would be setting limitations on litigation or tort to help medical liability insurance go down for doctors.

Those protests being peaceful is a load of BS. They are violent. Not sure how they are going to stop them and I cannot imagine how much more violent they will get if the GOP wins in November. The crazy lefts protests if Trump gets back in will make that orange buffoon's own temper tantrums seem insignificant. No matter what the government does (either blue or red) those protestors are going to cry that they are being abused and mistreated.

 

[Blue Bird]

Canadians have, for years, been crossing the border into the U.S. to pay for elective surgery (and non-elective for that matter) rather than waiting in line for your socialist style of medicine. To me, that is a blanket condemnation on your health care system.

Personally, I would prefer to have a business man as our President rather than a professional politician. That is my choice. I don't always like every thing he says, but I do like what he has been able to accomplish, including the new NAFTA deal. He still holds the office of President and gets my respect no matter what. (Just like the last one.) It offends me a lot when you call him names! When our liberal press calls him names it ruins any credibility they ever might have had with me. The same goes for you!!

 

[FCSA football]

Not naming names replies: you will figure it out.
1. If you like a Government Run Health System, talk to a Veteran, especially a Vietnam era Vet.
They let you die, oh they say all the right things while you’re dying to make you feel good, but you’re going to die from neglect, non treatment, mis treatment or malfeasance.
2. Don’t want to wait on a procedure? Call and ask for a cash price. You’ll be surprised at the difference in scheduling and the mark up you WON’T have to pay.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie boy can pay cash (charge it to the taxpayers) so they will NEVER FEEL YOUR PAIN.
3. If everything is so bad why do the richest people in the World come to the US FOR TREATMENT ?
4. COVID will be over when the democrats, George Soros, Barack Obama, movie stars, entertainers, professional sports participants, the media mob and others of wealth and Priviledges want it to be
Too many people, organizations and companies are giving in to extortion, that’s what it really is, right or wrong doesn’t play into it at all. It’s bullying, manipulation and extortion, and coincidentally those tactics, practiced by others led to two World Wars and many, many rebellions.
History is a wonderful thing to study. Everyone thinks they are the first with their “ideas”, narcissistic, self centered egotistical, emotionally and intellectually immature individuals want attention and they don’t care how or what it cost for them to get it. ME, ME, ME,ME .........

Random questions, just saying.......,,,,

 

[Deleted member 21909]

That's a darn good point, Oldergoat! Sweden has a system similar to Canada that liberals in the U.S., especially Bernie Sanders, cite as evidence that government run healthcare can work in the United States. That system works so much better in smaller countries with more homogeneous populations because they tend to all agree "on the common good" as Topher pointed out. Heck, we can't even agree if people protesting are peaceful or violent.

While I'm not that old, I've been through the U.S. healthcare system more than I care to remember. If someone could price each medical procedure without factoring in profit, I think that information could be used to create a price menu, similar to a fast food restaurant, that consumers could use as a base for making decisions. Most people know a fastfood hamburger costs about $3 and about $6 for a combo meal. Medical procedures vary drastically and are computed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Right now, the insurance companies and doctors's offices are so cryptic about how much stuff costs because they both profit from it. I think healthcare will take a little more government oversight than most businesses because the demand will always be there, so I think we should make sure doctors make most of the profits, you know the guys with talent, and kick insurance companies to the curb. Another helpful thing would be setting limitations on litigation or tort to help medical liability insurance go down for doctors.

Those protests being peaceful is a load of BS. They are violent. Not sure how they are going to stop them and I cannot imagine how much more violent they will get if the GOP wins in November. The crazy lefts protests if Trump gets back in will make that orange buffoon's own temper tantrums seem insignificant. No matter what the government does (either blue or red) those protestors are going to cry that they are being abused and mistreated.

While I understand why Trump isn't doing more in liberal states, I wish he would send the army in and put this crap down. The 10th amendment doesn't give the states the right to not enforce the laws of the United States. Want legal authority? The Supremacy Clause and the Preamble to the Constitution.

 

[FCSA football]

Please look up the definition of Sedition. That among other charges were used by the northern states to invade the southern states during the War of Northern Aggression. It was also used without mercy to kill, maim, destroy property burn towns farms and cities of all, including non-combatants, and ALL their food supplies.
Women and young girls were raped and men and young boys were beaten and killed. All survivors STARVED.
Sedition is considered to be serious crime with 20 year prison sentences the punishment. Conspiracy to commit violence, destruction and violence only add to the terms of possible sentences.
This is EXACTLY what Governors, mayors and elected representatives and officials are doing now and yet no one has been charged.
Just shows the ability of a few to judge others by standards they are immune to. Just depends on who is the most self righteous hypocrites in control became at this it’s clear NO ONE IS IN CHARGE.
Just reviewing History! It repeats itself.......,,,,,,,,,

 

[Deleted member 21909]

FSCA, you should lose your rights when you leave the United States. I do not condone treasonist Democrats who should have stayed in the union if they truly wanted to persevere slavery. Give me free-market and liberty over slavery and elitist hierarchy any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

FSCA, you should lose your rights when you leave the United States. I do not condone treasonist Democrats who should have stayed in the union if they truly wanted to persevere slavery. Give me free-market and liberty over slavery and elitist hierarchy any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Now you are confusing me. There were still slaves in the North during the Civil War and the slaves were still held in bondage in the North until after the war because the Emancipation Proclamation targeted only slaves held by Southern states. So the North was comfortable with slaves, wouldn't you say? Lincoln realized that the North's goose was cooked without all the natural resources of the South. All of the raw materials for the North's industrial complex was coming from Southern states. Some what similar to Japan's dilemma at the out break of world war 2. Lots of talent and manufacturing capabilities but no natural resources. Slavery was an issue but NOT the main issue. As far as treason, the States had the right to secede from the Union which they did. It is not treason if someone decides to leave the Union. It's their choice. If the Union people call it treason, it's because it makes them look morally superior to say it. Just like people who get married and then get divorced, they decided not to be a part of that Union. Do they call each other traitors? No one forced the Southern states to join what we call the Union initially, each state joined individually after their respective population agreed that it was their learned opinion that they should join. No where do you find that it was a binding one way street. Lincoln forced the issue because HE wanted the Union to stay together. Just think of all those American men who died in that struggle because Lincoln deemed it so. Remember now, the North invaded the South. The North was the aggressor. I used to think Lincoln was the victim, given his assassination, but not any more. Those Americans in the Southern states had every right for self determination and in a democracy not even Lincoln should have got in the way.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Stupid phone

 

[FCSA football]

Boy Tebow you must have read the text verbatim and not between the lines and tongue in cheek as was intended.
What I was demonstrating was that the POLITICIANS in some of the Southern States wanted to do what they wanted and go their own way.
Just like the politicians in progressive, liberal, democrats, Bernie Babies and Soros Soldiers are doing today.
It led to a civil war, which is what antifa, skinheads and other far out radicals are both doing today.
Sherman’s “March to the Sea Violated every premise that civilized nations had adhered to until that time.
Sherman continued his barbarous actions with the American Indians. Killing men women and children with bullets, starvation and disease, behaviors he had used successfully in the South. Up until that time Those types of atrocities were not found in wars between “civilized” nations.
My points being:
Why has EVERYONE ignored the Sedition going on in this country. Why is no one held accountable. Where are the severe punishments?
Where is the punishment, you’re right there is none, only rewards and 10 minutes of fame.
I mentioned NOTHING ABOUT SLAVERY. My point was that what was SEDITION then is the same as SEDITION TODAY!
Openly flaunting and ignoring the law and utilizing violence and intimidation to do so.
So YOU ONLY SAW WHAT YOU WANTED TO SEE so you could try to jump up on your Righteous High Horse to receive YOUR 10 minutes of fame and praise.
As far as me leaving the country, I spent over 4 1/2 years serving this country so you and everyone else has their Constitutional Rights. However those rights don’t include the RIGHT TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY under any pretense or “reason”.
Take the Scales off your eyes, I believe you’re a better person than that.
Study History, maybe we can avoid making some of the mistakes of our predecessors.
Just saying...............

 

[Deleted member 21909]

FSCA, you should lose your rights when you leave the United States. I do not condone treasonist Democrats who should have stayed in the union if they truly wanted to persevere slavery. Give me free-market and liberty over slavery and elitist hierarchy any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Now you are confusing me. There were still slaves in the North during the Civil War and the slaves were still held in bondage in the North until after the war because the Emancipation Proclamation targeted only slaves held by Southern states. So the North was comfortable with slaves, wouldn't you say? Lincoln realized that the North's goose was cooked without all the natural resources of the South. All of the raw materials for the North's industrial complex was coming from Southern states. Some what similar to Japan's dilemma at the out break of world war 2. Lots of talent and manufacturing capabilities but no natural resources. Slavery was an issue but NOT the main issue. As far as treason, the States had the right to secede from the Union which they did. It is not treason if someone decides to leave the Union. It's their choice. If the Union people call it treason, it's because it makes them look morally superior to say it. Just like people who get married and then get divorced, they decided not to be a part of that Union. Do they call each other traitors? No one forced the Southern states to join what we call the Union initially, each state joined individually after their respective population agreed that it was their learned opinion that they should join. No where do you find that it was a binding one way street. Lincoln forced the issue because HE wanted the Union to stay together. Just think of all those American men who died in that struggle because Lincoln deemed it so. Remember now, the North invaded the South. The North was the aggressor. I used to think Lincoln was the victim, given his assassination, but not any more. Those Americans in the Southern states had every right for self determination and in a democracy not even Lincoln should have got in the way.

I may need my computer to answer all this but will give it a shot on my phone.

#1: Most of the northern population was ambivalent at best about the morality of slavery, but most realized it was an outdated economic system that stunted free enterprise. The debate over slavery revolved around the expansion of slavery into new territories, not taking it away in the south. As far as the border states, Maryland would have seceded if Lincoln let them, Delaware didn't use slaves for agriculture purposes, and Kentucky and Missouri had representation in the Confederate Congress.

#2: The south controlled all but 8 years of Presidency from the time John Quincy Adams left the Whitehouse in 1828 to when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860. It looks like more because William Henry Harrison died (replaced by John Tyler) and Zachary Taylor died (replaced by Millard Fillmore.) The south controlled the Supreme Court (see Dred Scott v. Stanford,) the bureaucracy, enough states to be a large minority in the Senate, and might have beaten Lincoln in 1860 if they didn't split their votes 3 ways. If the south wanted to fight, they should have seceded in 1830 before the Union invented the repeating rifle. By 1860, the south controlled enough the government to keep slavery around until the start of the 20th century. The problem was the North was rapidly developing industrially while the south stayed stagnant. Oh, and a country can get raw materials from anywhere.

#3: The "states rights" thing as a cause of the Civil War is an odd debate. In my opinion, the two sides of the debate do not use the same definition. Pro-southerners mean the right of a state to secede from the union. While that's definitely part of it, no country can allow a part of it to leave without a fight. If England won the American Revolution, "the Founding Fathers" would be considered treasonist criminals. The Federalist Party became irrelevant in part because they threatened to secede over the War of 1812. Oh, and most countries "reconstruct" by the barrel of a gun before you go to bohoo over the south during Reconstruction. The legacy of the Civil War is interesting because we did not kill the southerners afterwards. You do realize the north enforced the Fugitive Slave Law during the early years of the war?

I will come back to this because I have more to say.

 

[FCSA football]

Sorry Tebow you are still trying to make this about another issue you are obviously fond of and want to promote. You are still “missing the point “, but now I know it is by design.
I also now know you don’t know History or choose to ignore it because it is an inconvenient truth.
My point was about Sedition and you are trying to hijack it to something else.
Maybe it makes you feel good, superior, better than thou type of personality.
The question and point was Sedition. Your term paper didn’t deal with the subject matter. It was lengthy however in a “word merchant” kind of way therefore instead of an F you get a D-.
Being verbose while ignoring the subject actually deserves an F however.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Tebow, Your argument is skewed at best. Whether the Northern residents were ambivalent about Slavery or not is begging the question. The North held slaves, just like the South. Not everyone in the South had slaves, in fact, very few but the wealthy had slaves. The South held a great deal of slaves on plantations for agricultural production, the North bought that production and converted that production to saleable goods. The North was profiting from the slaves more than the South for that reason. Yes the North could have gotten their raw materials anywhere but they didn't. It was cheaper to get it close by instead of far away. Where did you come up with that argument? The South want to fight? The North knew they had to vacate Fort Sumter because South Carolina militia had ordered the Union forces to leave following South Carolina's secession and waited several days before attacking the fort. Lincoln decided to invade the South and used this attack as an excuse for his invasion. Fort Sumter was on South Carolina territory. I guess from your response you are not a Civil War or War of Northern Aggression history buff. The South could have held out for years instead of surrendering but Robert E Lee did the right thing to surrender and bring the fighting to an end. General Grant allowed all combatants to leave with their horses and weapons. Doesn't seem like he was intent on killing all the Southerners! Union forces would had a disaster chasing Confederates forces into Texas to fight with the Comanches lurking around too. Union forces couldn't even capture Galveston. Nothing invincible about their fighting force.

 

[FCSA football]

Actually Longhorn the South was against “ States Rights “ . That was the reason Northern states claimed that they had no duty to return runaway slaves. So saying the “States Rights “ issue was a strictly Southern issue is wrong. What they were concerned about was the addition of new states diluting their POLITICAL POWER!
Another piece of false information “the Emancipation Proclamation” freed ALL SLAVES. It didn’t.
Lincoln needed the Border States to insure his political power, therefore those states were exempted.
Check it out. Nothing changes, it’s still all about POWER AND POLITICS!
I hope Tebow is quiet because he is studying now.
He’s a good kid I think, just making it up as he goes along sometimes because he’s just Short on Knowledge.

BTW,
He completely ignored Sherman policy of EXTERMINATION of American Indians when I bought it up as a comparison.

Just saying..........

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Sorry Tebow you are still trying to make this about another issue you are obviously fond of and want to promote. You are still “missing the point “, but now I know it is by design.
I also now know you don’t know History or choose to ignore it because it is an inconvenient truth.
My point was about Sedition and you are trying to hijack it to something else.
Maybe it makes you feel good, superior, better than thou type of personality.
The question and point was Sedition. Your term paper didn’t deal with the subject matter. It was lengthy however in a “word merchant” kind of way therefore instead of an F you get a D-.
Being verbose while ignoring the subject actually deserves an F however.

I apologize for hijacking your thread but did not do it intentionally or to get fame. Your right, I didn't understand the tounge and cheek comment. While I think I know my history, I'm sure I could learn more. Why are you so condescending all of a sudden?

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Actually Longhorn the South was against “ States Rights “ . That was the reason Northern states claimed that they had no duty to return runaway slaves. So saying the “States Rights “ issue was a strictly Southern issue is wrong. What they were concerned about was the addition of new states diluting their POLITICAL POWER!
Another piece of false information “the Emancipation Proclamation” freed ALL SLAVES. It didn’t.
Lincoln needed the Border States to insure his political power, therefore those states were exempted.
Check it out. Nothing changes, it’s still all about POWER AND POLITICS!
I hope Tebow is quiet because he is studying now.
He’s a good kid I think, just making it up as he goes along sometimes because he’s just Short on Knowledge.

BTW,
He completely ignored Sherman policy of EXTERMINATION of American Indians when I bought it up as a comparison.

Just saying..........

I didn't make anything up. I challenge you to find a statement I made up. As far as I can tell, we agree for the most part.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Tebow, Your argument is skewed at best. Whether the Northern residents were ambivalent about Slavery or not is begging the question. The North held slaves, just like the South. Not everyone in the South had slaves, in fact, very few but the wealthy had slaves. The South held a great deal of slaves on plantations for agricultural production, the North bought that production and converted that production to saleable goods. The North was profiting from the slaves more than the South for that reason. Yes the North could have gotten their raw materials anywhere but they didn't. It was cheaper to get it close by instead of far away. Where did you come up with that argument? The South want to fight? The North knew they had to vacate Fort Sumter because South Carolina militia had ordered the Union forces to leave following South Carolina's secession and waited several days before attacking the fort. Lincoln decided to invade the South and used this attack as an excuse for his invasion. Fort Sumter was on South Carolina territory. I guess from your response you are not a Civil War or War of Northern Aggression history buff. The South could have held out for years instead of surrendering but Robert E Lee did the right thing to surrender and bring the fighting to an end. General Grant allowed all combatants to leave with their horses and weapons. Doesn't seem like he was intent on killing all the Southerners! Union forces would had a disaster chasing Confederates forces into Texas to fight with the Comanches lurking around too. Union forces couldn't even capture Galveston. Nothing invincible about their fighting force.

I'm just going to go point by point with this because you are all over the place:

1. All the northern states besides Delaware abolished slavery by 1805.

2. You are right that few southerners owned slaves.

3. The North definitely benefited from slavery, but so did England or anyone else that owned a factory. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

4. Nobody has "the right" to secede from their country without winning a war. Other than the collaspe Soviet Union, every single country in earth derives its power from winning a war. If the south wins the Civil War, they become the new nation. If the United States lost the American Revolution to England, our "founding fathers" are remembered as criminals. I'm curious, why do you think the United States had to abandon their own forts? If any region could leave a particular country, we would have a lot of little countries in the world today.

5. Lincoln resupplied Ft. Sumter with what he called "humanitarian aid" and the Conferacy shot it down. While I can see your point, I also understand not wanting to give up a military fort.

6. Lee surrendering was a good thing, but a Confederate army led by Joe Johnston still had 90,000 men after Lee surrendered to Grant.

7. Although I don't think we should have shot the southerners either, most rebellions end with the winners shooting the losers. That's my point. I think things would have worked out better if Lincoln did not get shot by Booth.

My question to you: what do you think was the point of the Confederacy?

 

[FCSA football]

Tebow I’m not sure what you are referring to. The bottom line is I respect you. You always seem to have a level head and a good sense of perspective.
Once again, my point had a focus on hypocrisy and the different applications and justification under the law.
If we don’t have the rule of law, then we have anarchy.
I did not support the war in Vietnam, at least how it was prosecuted, but I was drafted and I went into the military. Going from wanting to be a helicopter pilot in the Army to an encryption specialist assigned to a nuclear site in the Air Force working in a vault, At a nuclear site.
One way in, one way our.
Even though I didn’t believe in the way the war was pursued, I went when I was called.
I could have joined the anti-war movement, or have gone to Canada or to prison. My parents didn’t support the war as it was being prosecuted either.
However, if I would have taken any of those choices, my family would have abandoned me. I would have been an orphan.
I have no doubt that many on both sides faced similar circumstances of the day. But once again I say it’s complicated. I have no doubt that many young men that fought and died for the South fought for their beliefs in “For God and Country”. Preachers from the south preached that their sacrifice was being made in DOING GODS WORD.
That is why Presbyterians, Methodist and Baptist split during those trying times. Each quoting Scripture as to why they were Morally Right. Young men forced to make choices. Young men who had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Fighting for GOD and Country, there is no higher calling, no higher Honor! When your country calls, you go, right or wrong, you go.
Blessings and Peace to you.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Tebow I’m not sure what you are referring to. The bottom line is I respect you. You always seem to have a level head and a good sense of perspective.
Once again, my point had a focus on hypocrisy and the different applications and justification under the law.
If we don’t have the rule of law, then we have anarchy.
I did not support the war in Vietnam, at least how it was prosecuted, but I was drafted and I went into the military. Going from wanting to be a helicopter pilot in the Army to an encryption specialist assigned to a nuclear site in the Air Force working in a vault, At a nuclear site.
One way in, one way our.
Even though I didn’t believe in the way the war was pursued, I went when I was called.
I could have joined the anti-war movement, or have gone to Canada or to prison. My parents didn’t support the war as it was being prosecuted either.
However, if I would have taken any of those choices, my family would have abandoned me. I would have been an orphan.
I have no doubt that many on both sides faced similar circumstances of the day. But once again I say it’s complicated. I have no doubt that many young men that fought and died for the South fought for their beliefs in “For God and Country”. Preachers from the south preached that their sacrifice was being made in DOING GODS WORD.
That is why Presbyterians, Methodist and Baptist split during those trying times. Each quoting Scripture as to why they were Morally Right. Young men forced to make choices. Young men who had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Fighting for GOD and Country, there is no higher calling, no higher Honor! When your country calls, you go, right or wrong, you go.
Blessings and Peace to you.

No disagreement from me for anything you said and obviously I respect you. I don't blame the Confederate soldiers, either, but I think things today make a lot more sense if, like you said, the same party who seceded in 1860 are the people letting people run wild in 2020. Don't believe me? Ask Jim Webb.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Tebow, If you could ask someone about the Civil War, Shelby Foote was the hands down expert on all things on this subject. Unfortunately he is not with us any more. You can read his three volume series: The Civil War. It is an amazing and sad commentary on the conflict. These books are an extensive examination of all the circumstances involved. Luckily, Youtube has several videos in which he discusses the issues of the conflict. I encourage history buffs to listen to some of his comments.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

While I have never read any of his stuff, I've watched that entire Ken Burn's thing at least twice and Foote is great in that as the narrator. Although Lee and some of the other military leaders deserve credit from a tactical military standpoint, I think Progressives, like Woodrow Wilson, whitewashed the legacy of the Civil War.

Those 11 southern states (plus a few others) made the decision to secede because they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election, that they helped Lincoln win by splitting their votes three ways. They could have stayed in the union and kept the government divided for a long time. FSCA talked about diluted political power, every slave in the south counted as 60% of a person when awarding congressional representation. They won all but two presidential elections from 1828 to 1860, Andrew Jackson is probably the most effective politician or second to FDR, because of Jackson's spoils system they controlled the federal bureaucracy (which has been the most effective opposition to Trump today,) they had a big majority on the Supreme Court, and enough states to keep a strong minority or maybe even a majority in the Senate. I don't see any political oppression, in fact I would say the southerner Democrats kicked butt politically. They threw it all a way, however, when they decided to secede.

During a war, anything is fair game. Both sides fought fairly "gentlemanly" until Grant and Sherman realized if we force a tie, meaning a Union and Confederate soldier shoots eachother at the same time, eventually the North would win. Some of the stuff during Reconstruction got out of hand, but the south committed more than its fair share of transgressions. Remember, most countries "reconstruct" via the barrel of a gun.

If a person goes deeper than "state's rights" and "slavery is bad," you'll realize a very elite hotheads caused a war that, ironically, ended their way of life. Since then, they have worked like heck to retool for another crack at power.