DO YOU THINK MY HISTORY PROJECT BIOGRAPHY IS GOOD. GIVE IT A GRADE. MAKE SUGGESTIONS THANKS?
Jean – Jacques Rousseau was born to a middleclass family in Geneva Switzerland in the year 1712. He came from a family that had voting rights and his father Jean – Jacques Rousseau, a watchmaker was also a lover of music and education. Rousseau’s mother, Suzanne Bernard Rousseau, was the daughter of a preacher and died nine days after childbirth due to difficulties. Rousseau also had an older brother named Francois; the two brothers were both raised by their Father and a paternal aunt. At a young age his father got into legal trouble and to avoid imprisonment the family fled and they lived with Jean Jacques Rousseau’s’ maternal uncle after his father remarried. Rousseau uncle then sent him away to live with a Calvinist minister. With the minister he learned mathematics and picked up the elements of art. Rousseau who was deeply moved by religious services and for a time even dreamed of becoming a priest. After he was finished with school he had a few unsuccessful apprenticeships; first for a notary and then an engraver by whom he was treated very harshly. The practically orphaned Rousseau spent much of his spare time alone exploring his first love, nature, which he ran away from Geneva as a vagrant in 1728. His wanderings led him out of Geneva to Sardinia then France, where he met Madame de Warrens, a nobleman who helped bring Protestants to Catholicism, and for the next ten years she gave him an education, and much needed moral and financial support Finding himself mostly on his own besides the support of Madame de Warrens Rousseau he supported himself for a time as a secretary, servant, and tutor. He received a small inheritance from his mother at age twenty – five and with some of that he repaid De Warrens for her financial support of him. In 1743 1742 Rousseau moved to Paris were he wished to take on a career in music. He initially went to Paris to propose a new system of music to the Academy of Sciences; despite his efforts it was unsuccessful. He published musical theory and wrote for the opera, attracted the attentions of King Louis XV and court when he composed, Le Devin du Village (The Village Soothsayer). Rousseau was offered a pension from the King, but denied it in attempts to live a modest life, and after the success of his opera, he promptly gave up composing music. He also befriended and Therese le Vasseur, a pretty seamstress, who became his mistress and together they bore five children. In 1749, the Academy of Dijon held a contest that Rousseau won first prize in by answering the question “Has the progress of the sciences and arts contributed to the corruption or to the improvement of human conduct?"Rousseau felt that humanity was good at nature but corrupt by society. Although it is still widely believed that all of Rousseau's philosophy was based on his call for a return to nature, this view is an oversimplification, caused by the excessive importance attached to this first essay. His second major philosophical essay, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men which stated that the advancement of science and art had not benefited mankind and that I took away individual liberties and gave governments more powerful. After its publication, Rousseau returned to Geneva, reverted to Calvinism and regained his official Geneva citizenship. In 1756 he moved to France , a year after the publication of the Second Discourse, Rousseau left Paris after Madame D’Epinay lent him a cottage, on her estate at Montmorency. His stay here lasted only a year because of repeated quarrels with Madame D’Epinay and her guest, Rousseau moved to housing near the country home of the Duke of Luxemburg at Montmorency. During the later years in his life was when he wrote the bulk of his renowned work including the novel, Julie or the New Heloise. Then in the year 1762 his most important and chief philosophical works: including The Social Contract; which showed his views on political philosophy, and one on education, Emile. The Paris government condemned both books mainly because of his views on religion forcing him to leave France. Rousseau then moved to Switzerland and started to work on his life stories, his Confessions. A year later, after coming across difficulties with Swiss government and then moved around and live in Berlin and Paris and ultimately moved to England to stay with David Hume. However, due to constant bicker with Hume, and his inability to learn English or make friends his stay in England lasted only a year, and in 1767 he returned to the southeast of France under a false name. In 1770 when he returned to Paris where he copied music for a living, it was during this time that he wrote what would be his final works Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques and the Reveries of the Solitary Walker. His final years which were spent in deliberate withdrawal did not allow him to enjoy him fame. He died on July 3, 1778. this is 9th grade advanced history and my and suggestion just anything to help improve it so yes grammatical errors
Homework Help - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Great work. I graded many papers [as a teachers assistant] and what most of those reports were missing was alot of facts. I give this an A. Great work. Facts are correct. Great job!
2 :
Very nice; informative. Some grammatical errors or typos. Did you want our help in correcting those? Like I said, they might have been typos. Is this high school? If it is, then correct the errors and it's an A paper. This is an exceptional paper for a freshman in high school! You deserve an A+. Unless your sources inserted a hyphen b/t Jean and Jacques, drop the hyphen. Space between middle and class. Comma after Geneva. Jean Jacques R was a watchmaker and also a lover of music ... His mother, SBR ...and died nine days after giving birth to him. ...Francois. The two brothers were raised by their father and ... Comma after at a young age. Period after the family fled. They lived with Rousseau's maternal uncle after his father remarried. His uncle then sent him away to live with a Calvinist minister. With the minister, he learned mathematics and picked up the elements of art. Rousseau was deeply moved by religious services and for a time even dreamed of becoming a priest. ...exploring his first love, nature, which [caused?] him to run away from... His wanderings took him from Geneva to Sardinia... Madame de Warrens, an aristocrat, ...Finding himself mostly on his own, besides...Warrens, Rousseau [delete he] ...twenty-five 1742 or 1743? Period after opera. He attracted the attention... offered a pension from the king but denied it in the attempt to livea modest life. After the success... Delete the "and" after befriended. Period after contest. Rousseau won first prize by answering the question, Has the Progress of the Sciences and Arts Contributed to the Corruption or Improvement of Human Conduct? ...not benefited mankind and that they took away individual liberties and made govenments more powerful. In 1756, he moved to France. A year after...Rousseau left Paris to accept MdE's loan of a cottage on her estate at Montmorency. Period after D'Epinay. Delete and her guest unless you identify the guest. It was in his later years that he wrote the bulk of... Comma after year, comma after 1762. Delete including after works ...difficulties with the Swiss ...lived in Berlin Comma after make friends. Period after only a year. In 1767, he returned... In 1770, he returned to Paris where he copied music for a living. It was during...his final works. ...to enjoy his fame
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Conservatives, what is your overall opinion on insurance companies
Conservatives, what is your overall opinion on insurance companies?
Particularly: a.) Insurance companies that practice "rescission" in which a person who has paid into the insurance fund is subsquently denied what he has paid for because the insurance company comes up with an arbitrary reason for denying the needed coverage. b.) Rationing. How do you feel about insurance companies who decide if a procedure is in their best interest and deny to someone a life-saving procedure because it isn't profitable to them in the long run? c.) Denials. Someone who works and wants health insurance and does not qualify for state aid because he actually works for a living and pulls his own weight, but can't find a job with benefits (increasingly common, and why are employers expected to foot the bill for insurance as they don't pay for your car insurance or renter's insurance and this limits job mobility and the ability to start small businesses), and is either outright denied or charged more than his monthly salary? d.) Do you think that if rent, clothing and food cost as much as monthly premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, that we would be in serious trouble? e.) How do you feel about people who had the misfortune to be born with a genetic pre-disposition to an illness, i.e., breast cancer, ovarian cancer, Crohn's Disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease, MS, Alzheimer's, haemophilia, etc. f.) Do you think that an emergency room qualifies as part of preventive, ongoing treatment or that it's not cost effective for sick people to wait until they are at the worst stage to get necessary treatment? g.) Can you explain how several nations, in fact the overwhelming majority, that have universal health care have still remained free, capitalist, prosperous nations, i.e., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland.....they didn't go communist, and the people do not live in gulag states.
Politics - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
none of my questions are posting
2 :
For profit companies that profit on healthy people and try to avoid the cost of covering the sick. Criminal. As for rationing, a necessary evil that Medicare and Medicaid already practice. If a treatment [eg. some cancer drugs provide 6 mo extended life for $65,000 and are considered too costly to provide]. Regardless of who is insuring [single payer, private, etc.] there has to be a line somewhere.
3 :
Let me answer: They would bend over for them and let them rape them until they fall over dead.
4 :
I didn't realize I was going to have to take a test on Y!A today. All so you don't have to spend 35 points asking 7 individual questions. I'm more worried about the government rationing my health care services than the insurance companies. At least I could go to a different insurance company. I have a feeling that once Obamacare is fully in place, I won't have any other option to go to, when my time comes to be rationed. All the competition will have been driven away by the government by then.
5 :
Typical Democratic... attacking the wealthier American businesses and questioning why we are not more like other countries. The founding fathers would slap you across the face.
6 :
they must be good as Obama gained 60% of one
7 :
a) If it complies with their contract, so be it. People need to know what they're signing. b) Again, refer to the contract. It's in there. c) This is perfectly fine. If a company does not want your business, they have the right to deny it to you. If you want to buy my computer and I say no, should I be forced to sell it to you? If they charge him high prices, he agreed to those prices. d) Yes. e) Their parents or private charities can help them. I'm willing to donate, but don't tell me that I am required to pay for them. f) No. g) They also have very high taxes. Some take over 50%. Why should I have to pay higher taxes for a complete stranger? My health insurance is great.
8 :
I don't know what cheap insurance policy you bought, but ours has paid 100% of cancer treatment - minus $35 copays. And we were not denied coverage. Obama had a chance to come up with a bill that would help people with pre existing conditions and reduce health care costs without screwing up coverage for everybody else. He failed to do anything except take control of the inurance industry and raise costs.
9 :
This is how we feel: Insurance companies exist to insure against infrequent catastrophic risks. Their jobs is not to pay routine doctor visits, cause they occur on more or less regular rate and do not constitute risk (but ObamaCare made it mandatory) Their job is to evaluate risk of each individual and name the price accordingly, setting price too low would draw them out of business, and setting price too high will make the deal a loser for the customer (now banned by ObamaCare) There is a value in such sharing risks for a reasonable fee, which insurance companies take as compensation for the valuable service they provide. Now we see that ObamaCare in effect banned the business of insurance in health care, and turned insurance companies into mere tax collection outsourced agents of the government. This is why ObamCare is destined to collapse.
10 :
I have Crohn's and it sucks I also know that ,,, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland.... added together have less of a population than the USA try immigrating to working and living in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland. ,, , it;s going to take you some time and money,, maybe marry I am trying to point out that trying to compare these countries to a very ethnically diverse and large USA is not a fair comparison
11 :
"Can you explain how several nations, in fact the overwhelming majority, that have universal health care have still remained free, capitalist, prosperous nations" Utter falsehood. Theri citizenry is held back by the enormous taxes they have to pay to prop up their universal health care systems. Indeed, over 80 percent of the major medical discoveries are done in the US.
12 :
A. Most of these recission examples the politicians tell us, they get wrong. The idea is, if you've lied to the insurance company about something relevant, and they catch it later on, you're out of luck. These examples about someone failing to report they have acne and then being knocked off their insurance when they get cancer are almost always found to be false. B. Rationing sucks. It sucks when the health insurance company does it, and it'll suck when the gov't does it. C. Denials. Do you know what organization denies the most claims? It's Medicare. Why aren't the liberals all up in arms about that? D. There are two issues here. 1. The whole idea of insurance has been distorted for health insurance. Insurance, any insurance, be it auto, flood, homeowners, etc. is to offset risk for incidents that you cannot normally afford. Except health insurance. Health insurance now means they must pay for every tiny expense. Is it any wonder it costs so much? How much would your auto insurance cost if they had to pay for every oil change, maintenance service and minor repair? This also means that market forces have been removed from routine health care. No one asks their doctor how much a visit or procedure will cost, because they don't care. They aren't paying for it. 2. If health care is so expensive, maybe we should have directed our efforts at reducing the cost of actually delivering health care, vs. spreading around who pays for it. E. It sucks. F. Circle back to my response to point D G. Yes, I can explain it. They are all tiny countries, population wise, compared to the USA. Gov't is much more responsive in tiny countries. How are the universal health care systems where populations range in the hundreds of millions?
13 :
As long as there is profit involved, death panels are okay. Otherwise you are just helping poor people live longer lives and we all know that is unAmerican. The sooner we are more like Somalia with religious gangs running the country for profit, the better off we'll all be.
14 :
Nobody feels a kinship with insurance companies. You will be dealing with the same insurance companies except they are now going to be subsidized and they must stop refusing people with existing conditions and they must pay an endless amount. A panel appointed by the president will make the rules of what is covered and what isn't. There will be a computer program telling doctors the treatments that are permitted. Keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims than any other insurance. Look it up. You are under the misconception that when people don't want the government to control health care, its because they like insurance companies. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
15 :
I am concerned over many of their practices as you have detailed above but I also realize that they are for-profit private enterprises and that they have a right to refuse service to anyone in an effort to make an actual profit. If you wish to oppose these practices then the answer would be to do so by providing motivation for health care providers to reduce costs and for health care consumers to become more involved in the process, not the other way around. More freedom is needed, not less. BTW. . . I am exactly the kind of person you describe in c). above. As such I think I probably can speak to your concerns with more experience and legitimacy than most. I am also a small business owner and health care issues have in no way limited my ability to start and succeed in business. I have resolved this issue by standing on my own two feet and researching options for myself and my family.The result is instead of demanding that my fellow citizens pay for my health care needs I am a member of a voluntary, non-profit needs sharing health care plan that covers all my families catastrophic and testing needs. It works by each person donating a set amount per month to cover the needs of fellow members when they occur. In turn I receive assistance when I need it. I have had several very expensive needs occur in the last decade and never paid a cent out of pocket that was not fully reimbursed in time. In fact. . . payment is received on the average within three to four months. . . about half the time that it takes for your provider to be paid via traditional insurance. The plan also teaches participants how to negotiate discounts since we are essentially a non-profit, self-pay organization. It also encourages health care consumers to economize and choose carefully the services they consume which keeps costs down. I don't run my child to the emergency room every time she has the flu to get antibiotics which are only going to do harm anyway. . . unlike a lot of "fully insured" moms I know . We do it the old fashioned way. . . take vitamin C, drink lots of fluids and get some rest. As a result we get a lot fewer colds than most families and we're generally more resistant to colds and flu because we haven't ruined our immune systems.Go figure. On the other hand, I am never pressured to scrimp on testing and services that are legitimate. It works beautifully and will most likely become illegal under Obamacare. BTW. . . if you are thinking all this must cost a fortune, you would wrong. My family of three is covered through this plan at a rate of $225.00 per month. In addition we have complete control over our health care decisions and which Doctor we consult with. True. . . we have to pay for regular check-ups out of pocket and we have a large deductible of $1,000 per year per person. But. . . that deductible can be done away with as we negotiate discounts. In other words, if I convince my hospital and surgeon to each deduct $500.00 off my bill, that counts toward my deductible and I no longer have to cover the first $1,000.! Very motivating. Funny how that works: Reward people for hard work and being involved with their own health care and they will work hard to save money. Reward providers with instant payment and not having to jump through a million paperwork snafus and they'll reward you with discounts. It's called freedom. Soon to be illegal in the United States of America. Finally. . . in answer to your question contained in g).: I can explain this because the health care programs of those countries where not brokered in back rooms between a corrupt liberal agenda and the very health insurance interests you detest so much. Nonetheless, they still cost their citizenry in huge tax burdens that limit their freedoms and make them more dependent on their government. That's the best you can expect from the best national programs. If you think Obamacare looks anything like say for example, Israel's national health care program, you'd be sadly mistaken. What we are going to get is twice the cost and limitations on freedoms with none or few of the benefits that these programs provide their people. . . even if they are exorbitantly expensive. And who is going to benefit the most. . . the very insurance industry players you hate so much. Can't wait, can you?
Particularly: a.) Insurance companies that practice "rescission" in which a person who has paid into the insurance fund is subsquently denied what he has paid for because the insurance company comes up with an arbitrary reason for denying the needed coverage. b.) Rationing. How do you feel about insurance companies who decide if a procedure is in their best interest and deny to someone a life-saving procedure because it isn't profitable to them in the long run? c.) Denials. Someone who works and wants health insurance and does not qualify for state aid because he actually works for a living and pulls his own weight, but can't find a job with benefits (increasingly common, and why are employers expected to foot the bill for insurance as they don't pay for your car insurance or renter's insurance and this limits job mobility and the ability to start small businesses), and is either outright denied or charged more than his monthly salary? d.) Do you think that if rent, clothing and food cost as much as monthly premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, that we would be in serious trouble? e.) How do you feel about people who had the misfortune to be born with a genetic pre-disposition to an illness, i.e., breast cancer, ovarian cancer, Crohn's Disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease, MS, Alzheimer's, haemophilia, etc. f.) Do you think that an emergency room qualifies as part of preventive, ongoing treatment or that it's not cost effective for sick people to wait until they are at the worst stage to get necessary treatment? g.) Can you explain how several nations, in fact the overwhelming majority, that have universal health care have still remained free, capitalist, prosperous nations, i.e., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland.....they didn't go communist, and the people do not live in gulag states.
Politics - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
none of my questions are posting
2 :
For profit companies that profit on healthy people and try to avoid the cost of covering the sick. Criminal. As for rationing, a necessary evil that Medicare and Medicaid already practice. If a treatment [eg. some cancer drugs provide 6 mo extended life for $65,000 and are considered too costly to provide]. Regardless of who is insuring [single payer, private, etc.] there has to be a line somewhere.
3 :
Let me answer: They would bend over for them and let them rape them until they fall over dead.
4 :
I didn't realize I was going to have to take a test on Y!A today. All so you don't have to spend 35 points asking 7 individual questions. I'm more worried about the government rationing my health care services than the insurance companies. At least I could go to a different insurance company. I have a feeling that once Obamacare is fully in place, I won't have any other option to go to, when my time comes to be rationed. All the competition will have been driven away by the government by then.
5 :
Typical Democratic... attacking the wealthier American businesses and questioning why we are not more like other countries. The founding fathers would slap you across the face.
6 :
they must be good as Obama gained 60% of one
7 :
a) If it complies with their contract, so be it. People need to know what they're signing. b) Again, refer to the contract. It's in there. c) This is perfectly fine. If a company does not want your business, they have the right to deny it to you. If you want to buy my computer and I say no, should I be forced to sell it to you? If they charge him high prices, he agreed to those prices. d) Yes. e) Their parents or private charities can help them. I'm willing to donate, but don't tell me that I am required to pay for them. f) No. g) They also have very high taxes. Some take over 50%. Why should I have to pay higher taxes for a complete stranger? My health insurance is great.
8 :
I don't know what cheap insurance policy you bought, but ours has paid 100% of cancer treatment - minus $35 copays. And we were not denied coverage. Obama had a chance to come up with a bill that would help people with pre existing conditions and reduce health care costs without screwing up coverage for everybody else. He failed to do anything except take control of the inurance industry and raise costs.
9 :
This is how we feel: Insurance companies exist to insure against infrequent catastrophic risks. Their jobs is not to pay routine doctor visits, cause they occur on more or less regular rate and do not constitute risk (but ObamaCare made it mandatory) Their job is to evaluate risk of each individual and name the price accordingly, setting price too low would draw them out of business, and setting price too high will make the deal a loser for the customer (now banned by ObamaCare) There is a value in such sharing risks for a reasonable fee, which insurance companies take as compensation for the valuable service they provide. Now we see that ObamaCare in effect banned the business of insurance in health care, and turned insurance companies into mere tax collection outsourced agents of the government. This is why ObamCare is destined to collapse.
10 :
I have Crohn's and it sucks I also know that ,,, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland.... added together have less of a population than the USA try immigrating to working and living in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland. ,, , it;s going to take you some time and money,, maybe marry I am trying to point out that trying to compare these countries to a very ethnically diverse and large USA is not a fair comparison
11 :
"Can you explain how several nations, in fact the overwhelming majority, that have universal health care have still remained free, capitalist, prosperous nations" Utter falsehood. Theri citizenry is held back by the enormous taxes they have to pay to prop up their universal health care systems. Indeed, over 80 percent of the major medical discoveries are done in the US.
12 :
A. Most of these recission examples the politicians tell us, they get wrong. The idea is, if you've lied to the insurance company about something relevant, and they catch it later on, you're out of luck. These examples about someone failing to report they have acne and then being knocked off their insurance when they get cancer are almost always found to be false. B. Rationing sucks. It sucks when the health insurance company does it, and it'll suck when the gov't does it. C. Denials. Do you know what organization denies the most claims? It's Medicare. Why aren't the liberals all up in arms about that? D. There are two issues here. 1. The whole idea of insurance has been distorted for health insurance. Insurance, any insurance, be it auto, flood, homeowners, etc. is to offset risk for incidents that you cannot normally afford. Except health insurance. Health insurance now means they must pay for every tiny expense. Is it any wonder it costs so much? How much would your auto insurance cost if they had to pay for every oil change, maintenance service and minor repair? This also means that market forces have been removed from routine health care. No one asks their doctor how much a visit or procedure will cost, because they don't care. They aren't paying for it. 2. If health care is so expensive, maybe we should have directed our efforts at reducing the cost of actually delivering health care, vs. spreading around who pays for it. E. It sucks. F. Circle back to my response to point D G. Yes, I can explain it. They are all tiny countries, population wise, compared to the USA. Gov't is much more responsive in tiny countries. How are the universal health care systems where populations range in the hundreds of millions?
13 :
As long as there is profit involved, death panels are okay. Otherwise you are just helping poor people live longer lives and we all know that is unAmerican. The sooner we are more like Somalia with religious gangs running the country for profit, the better off we'll all be.
14 :
Nobody feels a kinship with insurance companies. You will be dealing with the same insurance companies except they are now going to be subsidized and they must stop refusing people with existing conditions and they must pay an endless amount. A panel appointed by the president will make the rules of what is covered and what isn't. There will be a computer program telling doctors the treatments that are permitted. Keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims than any other insurance. Look it up. You are under the misconception that when people don't want the government to control health care, its because they like insurance companies. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
15 :
I am concerned over many of their practices as you have detailed above but I also realize that they are for-profit private enterprises and that they have a right to refuse service to anyone in an effort to make an actual profit. If you wish to oppose these practices then the answer would be to do so by providing motivation for health care providers to reduce costs and for health care consumers to become more involved in the process, not the other way around. More freedom is needed, not less. BTW. . . I am exactly the kind of person you describe in c). above. As such I think I probably can speak to your concerns with more experience and legitimacy than most. I am also a small business owner and health care issues have in no way limited my ability to start and succeed in business. I have resolved this issue by standing on my own two feet and researching options for myself and my family.The result is instead of demanding that my fellow citizens pay for my health care needs I am a member of a voluntary, non-profit needs sharing health care plan that covers all my families catastrophic and testing needs. It works by each person donating a set amount per month to cover the needs of fellow members when they occur. In turn I receive assistance when I need it. I have had several very expensive needs occur in the last decade and never paid a cent out of pocket that was not fully reimbursed in time. In fact. . . payment is received on the average within three to four months. . . about half the time that it takes for your provider to be paid via traditional insurance. The plan also teaches participants how to negotiate discounts since we are essentially a non-profit, self-pay organization. It also encourages health care consumers to economize and choose carefully the services they consume which keeps costs down. I don't run my child to the emergency room every time she has the flu to get antibiotics which are only going to do harm anyway. . . unlike a lot of "fully insured" moms I know . We do it the old fashioned way. . . take vitamin C, drink lots of fluids and get some rest. As a result we get a lot fewer colds than most families and we're generally more resistant to colds and flu because we haven't ruined our immune systems.Go figure. On the other hand, I am never pressured to scrimp on testing and services that are legitimate. It works beautifully and will most likely become illegal under Obamacare. BTW. . . if you are thinking all this must cost a fortune, you would wrong. My family of three is covered through this plan at a rate of $225.00 per month. In addition we have complete control over our health care decisions and which Doctor we consult with. True. . . we have to pay for regular check-ups out of pocket and we have a large deductible of $1,000 per year per person. But. . . that deductible can be done away with as we negotiate discounts. In other words, if I convince my hospital and surgeon to each deduct $500.00 off my bill, that counts toward my deductible and I no longer have to cover the first $1,000.! Very motivating. Funny how that works: Reward people for hard work and being involved with their own health care and they will work hard to save money. Reward providers with instant payment and not having to jump through a million paperwork snafus and they'll reward you with discounts. It's called freedom. Soon to be illegal in the United States of America. Finally. . . in answer to your question contained in g).: I can explain this because the health care programs of those countries where not brokered in back rooms between a corrupt liberal agenda and the very health insurance interests you detest so much. Nonetheless, they still cost their citizenry in huge tax burdens that limit their freedoms and make them more dependent on their government. That's the best you can expect from the best national programs. If you think Obamacare looks anything like say for example, Israel's national health care program, you'd be sadly mistaken. What we are going to get is twice the cost and limitations on freedoms with none or few of the benefits that these programs provide their people. . . even if they are exorbitantly expensive. And who is going to benefit the most. . . the very insurance industry players you hate so much. Can't wait, can you?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Was the EU founded to combat nationalism
Was the EU founded to combat nationalism?
I'm not great at understanding politics, so I was wondering if someone could help me. Also, I'm quite young, and no one has explained this to me properly, so I came on here to see if someone could help me. Was the EU founded to ease nationalism, something that started the Second World War? And has this not had the opposite effect, as nationalist parties (such as the UKIP, PVV) seem to be very popular right now? Why did these countries specifically (France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) start the EU? Why these countries and not others? Why did the UK not have a hand in creating the EU, and only joined later on? Also, I would appreciate some anti and pro opinions, to get a better idea of how the EU works. From what I can see, peoples' concerns seem to be loss of national identity, immigration, and being ruled by people in another country. I've gathered that from newspapers and online opinions. But would like to hear positive aspects too. Sorry if some of what I've said is wrong, I've been trying to learn about it off internet articles, but I don't understand political terms. So easy explanations would be appreciated! Thankyou in advance. Alby- thanks for your answer. jtryan- thank you for your answer.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
That could be argued as one reason, but it was mostly to increase economic cooperation between European states for future prosperity, and believing that if all their economies were tied, it would prevent future war. So far it has prevented conflict.
2 :
EU was founded based on the economic (and to a lesser extent security) aspirations of its constituent member nations -- common currency, common economic agenda, common trade standards. For example, one goal at the time EU was founded, challenging the economic might of America.
I'm not great at understanding politics, so I was wondering if someone could help me. Also, I'm quite young, and no one has explained this to me properly, so I came on here to see if someone could help me. Was the EU founded to ease nationalism, something that started the Second World War? And has this not had the opposite effect, as nationalist parties (such as the UKIP, PVV) seem to be very popular right now? Why did these countries specifically (France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) start the EU? Why these countries and not others? Why did the UK not have a hand in creating the EU, and only joined later on? Also, I would appreciate some anti and pro opinions, to get a better idea of how the EU works. From what I can see, peoples' concerns seem to be loss of national identity, immigration, and being ruled by people in another country. I've gathered that from newspapers and online opinions. But would like to hear positive aspects too. Sorry if some of what I've said is wrong, I've been trying to learn about it off internet articles, but I don't understand political terms. So easy explanations would be appreciated! Thankyou in advance. Alby- thanks for your answer. jtryan- thank you for your answer.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
That could be argued as one reason, but it was mostly to increase economic cooperation between European states for future prosperity, and believing that if all their economies were tied, it would prevent future war. So far it has prevented conflict.
2 :
EU was founded based on the economic (and to a lesser extent security) aspirations of its constituent member nations -- common currency, common economic agenda, common trade standards. For example, one goal at the time EU was founded, challenging the economic might of America.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Socialism or barbarism
Socialism or barbarism?
The U.S ruling elite has targeted much of the Middle East for imperialist domination in their quest to maintain their insatiable appetite for evermore wealth. Of course, Iran, were it to develope nuclear weapons, could not use those weapons on anyone without insuring their own destruction. The reason that the U.S. ruling elite refuse to allow a nuclear Iran is that it would establish that Iran's destiny will not be one of being dominated by the imperialist master. The possession of nuclear weapons means that Iran would be able to defend themselves against imperialist domination. But like a gangster defending his "turf", the U.S. wealthy elite aren't about to allow a source of future wealth to fall into the hands of other competitors. Hence, as the following two articles reveal, we see the head gangsters rallying for WWIII in an effort to protect their claim on the riches of the Middle East Cheney: US will not let Iran go nuclear By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer Oct 21, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney -------- Bush Warns of 'World War III' if Iran Gains Nuclear Weapons Thursday, October 18, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303097,00.html --------- Socialism or barbarism? One of the most famous writings in the history of socialism is the Junius Pamphlet, written by German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in 1915 while she was in prison for opposing the first world war. Obviously, many things have changed in the world and in the socialist movement in the 90 years since the beginning of that war. But some things have stayed the same. Take Luxemburg's descriptions of capitalist profiteering on the war: “Business is flourishing upon the ruins†and “Profits are springing, like weeds, from the fields of the deadâ€. Who could think of a better description for the plunder of Iraq by the likes of Bechtel and Halliburton? Take the fantastic lies peddled by the German government to its own people about the reasons for the war — that Germany had been invaded by Russian troops, that bombs had been dropped by “Frenchmen flying over Nurembergâ€, that a French doctor had poisoned the wells at Montsigny with cholera, that there were “Russian students who hurl bombs from every bridge in Berlinâ€. Could these, and Luxemburg's description of the whipping up of the populace into “spy-hunting†and chasing “suspicious-looking automobilesâ€, fail to demand comparison with the fables of Iraq's weapons of mass deception and sponsorship of terrorists within our midst? Take Luxemburg's searing condemnation of the betrayal of the principles of international socialism by the official leaderships of the socialist parties in Germany, France, and Britain. Tony Blair may be unable to betray the principles of international socialism — you can't betray principles that you've never subscribed to — but the leaders of the British Labour Party have outdone even their treacherous forbears of 1914 in enthusiastically joining Bush's coalition of the killing. Likewise, the repudiation of the class struggle by the likes of Henderson, Legien, and Lensch is outdone by the Tony Blairs of today in their taking up of the class struggle against the working people on behalf of the capitalists. Take Luxemburg's description of how, in imperial conquest, “an ancient civilisation was delivered into the hands of destruction and anarchy, with fire and slaughter ... when Persia gasped in the noose of the foreign rule of force that closed inexorably about her throatâ€. Arab civilisation has bequeathed to us some of the finest products of human culture. For example, the theoretical grounds for the invention of the modern digital computer were devised by a ninth century Persian mathematician, Abu Jafar Mohammed ibn Musa al Khowarizm, and the word “algebra†derives from the Arabic word al jabr. Who could fail to feel the force of Luxemburg's words on recalling the sacking in April 2003 of the National Museum of Iraq? In the Junius Pamphlet, Luxemburg argues that the choice facing humanity is one of socialism or barbarism: “We stand today ... before the awful proposition: either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; or, the victory of socialism.†In the early stages of the 21st century, the choice before us is even starker — without socialism, our children and our children's children will find themselves in a vast cemetery, a brutal world where Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay serve as models for the treatment of human beings, where environmental catastrophe is inevitable, and where the finest products of human culture are sold off to the highest bidder. Rosa Luxemburg and her fellow revolutionary Karl Leibknecht were brutally murdered in January 1919 by the reactionary troops of a right-wing social-democratic government. The Socialist Alliance stands squarely in the tradition of Luxemburg, Leibknecht and the other socialists of 90 years ago who refused to betray their principles. We oppose unconditionally the war in Iraq and call unconditionally for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops. We subscribe to Luxemburg's words at the end of the Junius Pamphlet: “This madness will not stop, and this bloody nightmare of hell will not cease until the workers of Germany, of France, of Russia and of England, will wake up out of their drunken sleep; will clasp each others hands in brotherhood and will drown the bestial chorus of war agitators and the hoarse cry of capitalist hyenas with the mighty cry of labour, `Workers of all countries, unite!'†http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=308 witwwats, The Democratic Party and the Republican Party both represent the interests of the wealthy elite. Bill Clinton came to power promising national health care. Instead he gave us imperialist war in Yugoslavia, the bombing of Iraq, NAFTA, a consolidated media, an increased police state and the destruction of social welfare (corporate welfare was saved, thank God). The Bush presidency is merely the consolidation of the Clinton presidency. Redsandr, Thanks for the H.G. Wells quote. Old Scout, The "free market" is the most manipulated thing on the planet. In fact, the very essence of the job of the Federal Reserve is to manipulate the markets. That housing bubble, and the subsequent fallout, didn't happen all by itself. It was the result of manipulative policies. You might reread my initial posting and then think about the development of the world over the past 90 years since Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Junius Pamphlet. We've seen one devastating world war followed by many, many smaller conflicts -- almost all over who is to dominate resources. All of those have come during the period of liberalism which reached its zenith in the early 70s and has since been in steep decline. Today we sit once again on the verge of another world war as competing capitalists fight over control of the world's major resources. Rosa Luxemburg has been proven correct. Our choice is socialism or barbarism. The wealthy elite have chosen barbarsim. We must demand another road.
Politics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Right!
2 :
A bit long-winded to be so incredibly and totally wrong....
3 :
Ask the elite that started this: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
4 :
The owners of USA, Inc. are the biggest threat to the world of all of the imperialists. With a weak and corrupt union movement and no mass socialist parties, workers in my homeland are in no position to stop them. And I've seen many different tendencies and groups squander chances to make a mass breakthrough, during various periods during the last thirty years when people were open to an alternative. Unless that changes, it will be barbarism, because without the heavy battalions of the multi-racial U.S. working class, our species doesn't stand a chance. Yes, I do believe there is a special role for the proletariat here. And no, that's not American nationalism - it's just plain good sense. Our bosses cause the biggest threat, so we've got to provide the biggest hope for the future. "History is a race between education and catastrophe." - H.G. Wells
5 :
Take a chill pill, Socialism is the perfect form of government for the simple minded. The market however always wins in the end. When every state on the planet is a Liberal state in the western model, we will live in a peaceful and prosperous world. Why are you opposing progress to a higher level of humanity for all? It is messy and unpleasant now but has the promise for a better future for all humanity.
The U.S ruling elite has targeted much of the Middle East for imperialist domination in their quest to maintain their insatiable appetite for evermore wealth. Of course, Iran, were it to develope nuclear weapons, could not use those weapons on anyone without insuring their own destruction. The reason that the U.S. ruling elite refuse to allow a nuclear Iran is that it would establish that Iran's destiny will not be one of being dominated by the imperialist master. The possession of nuclear weapons means that Iran would be able to defend themselves against imperialist domination. But like a gangster defending his "turf", the U.S. wealthy elite aren't about to allow a source of future wealth to fall into the hands of other competitors. Hence, as the following two articles reveal, we see the head gangsters rallying for WWIII in an effort to protect their claim on the riches of the Middle East Cheney: US will not let Iran go nuclear By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer Oct 21, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney -------- Bush Warns of 'World War III' if Iran Gains Nuclear Weapons Thursday, October 18, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303097,00.html --------- Socialism or barbarism? One of the most famous writings in the history of socialism is the Junius Pamphlet, written by German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in 1915 while she was in prison for opposing the first world war. Obviously, many things have changed in the world and in the socialist movement in the 90 years since the beginning of that war. But some things have stayed the same. Take Luxemburg's descriptions of capitalist profiteering on the war: “Business is flourishing upon the ruins†and “Profits are springing, like weeds, from the fields of the deadâ€. Who could think of a better description for the plunder of Iraq by the likes of Bechtel and Halliburton? Take the fantastic lies peddled by the German government to its own people about the reasons for the war — that Germany had been invaded by Russian troops, that bombs had been dropped by “Frenchmen flying over Nurembergâ€, that a French doctor had poisoned the wells at Montsigny with cholera, that there were “Russian students who hurl bombs from every bridge in Berlinâ€. Could these, and Luxemburg's description of the whipping up of the populace into “spy-hunting†and chasing “suspicious-looking automobilesâ€, fail to demand comparison with the fables of Iraq's weapons of mass deception and sponsorship of terrorists within our midst? Take Luxemburg's searing condemnation of the betrayal of the principles of international socialism by the official leaderships of the socialist parties in Germany, France, and Britain. Tony Blair may be unable to betray the principles of international socialism — you can't betray principles that you've never subscribed to — but the leaders of the British Labour Party have outdone even their treacherous forbears of 1914 in enthusiastically joining Bush's coalition of the killing. Likewise, the repudiation of the class struggle by the likes of Henderson, Legien, and Lensch is outdone by the Tony Blairs of today in their taking up of the class struggle against the working people on behalf of the capitalists. Take Luxemburg's description of how, in imperial conquest, “an ancient civilisation was delivered into the hands of destruction and anarchy, with fire and slaughter ... when Persia gasped in the noose of the foreign rule of force that closed inexorably about her throatâ€. Arab civilisation has bequeathed to us some of the finest products of human culture. For example, the theoretical grounds for the invention of the modern digital computer were devised by a ninth century Persian mathematician, Abu Jafar Mohammed ibn Musa al Khowarizm, and the word “algebra†derives from the Arabic word al jabr. Who could fail to feel the force of Luxemburg's words on recalling the sacking in April 2003 of the National Museum of Iraq? In the Junius Pamphlet, Luxemburg argues that the choice facing humanity is one of socialism or barbarism: “We stand today ... before the awful proposition: either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; or, the victory of socialism.†In the early stages of the 21st century, the choice before us is even starker — without socialism, our children and our children's children will find themselves in a vast cemetery, a brutal world where Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay serve as models for the treatment of human beings, where environmental catastrophe is inevitable, and where the finest products of human culture are sold off to the highest bidder. Rosa Luxemburg and her fellow revolutionary Karl Leibknecht were brutally murdered in January 1919 by the reactionary troops of a right-wing social-democratic government. The Socialist Alliance stands squarely in the tradition of Luxemburg, Leibknecht and the other socialists of 90 years ago who refused to betray their principles. We oppose unconditionally the war in Iraq and call unconditionally for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops. We subscribe to Luxemburg's words at the end of the Junius Pamphlet: “This madness will not stop, and this bloody nightmare of hell will not cease until the workers of Germany, of France, of Russia and of England, will wake up out of their drunken sleep; will clasp each others hands in brotherhood and will drown the bestial chorus of war agitators and the hoarse cry of capitalist hyenas with the mighty cry of labour, `Workers of all countries, unite!'†http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=308 witwwats, The Democratic Party and the Republican Party both represent the interests of the wealthy elite. Bill Clinton came to power promising national health care. Instead he gave us imperialist war in Yugoslavia, the bombing of Iraq, NAFTA, a consolidated media, an increased police state and the destruction of social welfare (corporate welfare was saved, thank God). The Bush presidency is merely the consolidation of the Clinton presidency. Redsandr, Thanks for the H.G. Wells quote. Old Scout, The "free market" is the most manipulated thing on the planet. In fact, the very essence of the job of the Federal Reserve is to manipulate the markets. That housing bubble, and the subsequent fallout, didn't happen all by itself. It was the result of manipulative policies. You might reread my initial posting and then think about the development of the world over the past 90 years since Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Junius Pamphlet. We've seen one devastating world war followed by many, many smaller conflicts -- almost all over who is to dominate resources. All of those have come during the period of liberalism which reached its zenith in the early 70s and has since been in steep decline. Today we sit once again on the verge of another world war as competing capitalists fight over control of the world's major resources. Rosa Luxemburg has been proven correct. Our choice is socialism or barbarism. The wealthy elite have chosen barbarsim. We must demand another road.
Politics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Right!
2 :
A bit long-winded to be so incredibly and totally wrong....
3 :
Ask the elite that started this: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
4 :
The owners of USA, Inc. are the biggest threat to the world of all of the imperialists. With a weak and corrupt union movement and no mass socialist parties, workers in my homeland are in no position to stop them. And I've seen many different tendencies and groups squander chances to make a mass breakthrough, during various periods during the last thirty years when people were open to an alternative. Unless that changes, it will be barbarism, because without the heavy battalions of the multi-racial U.S. working class, our species doesn't stand a chance. Yes, I do believe there is a special role for the proletariat here. And no, that's not American nationalism - it's just plain good sense. Our bosses cause the biggest threat, so we've got to provide the biggest hope for the future. "History is a race between education and catastrophe." - H.G. Wells
5 :
Take a chill pill, Socialism is the perfect form of government for the simple minded. The market however always wins in the end. When every state on the planet is a Liberal state in the western model, we will live in a peaceful and prosperous world. Why are you opposing progress to a higher level of humanity for all? It is messy and unpleasant now but has the promise for a better future for all humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)