This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

A Powerful Message From Carly Fiorina



Carly Fiorino is the Republican trying to unseat Barbara Boxer in California. This video comes by way of HotAir. She was chosen to give the GOP weekly address and it's noteworthy because she doesn't mention Boxer, Obama or even the fact that she is campaigning despite the high profile opportunity. The message is profound given her experience with cancer. It's another example of the defacto "Death Panel".

52 comments:

Johnny Rico said...

As Americans you would think Boxer wouldn't stand a chance against Carly Fiorina, especially in light of Boxer's ultra caustic episode in which she derided a Brigadeer General for calling her "maam" instead of "madam Senator), yet this is not the case in Kalifornia.

The illegal aliens, as well as legal Latinos, love Boxer as she is a champion of giving America away. So do the liberal socialist sheep that infest the once great Golden State. Boxer, like Fienstein, is embedded in Kalifornia with few challengers who stand a chance of unseating her. I wonder what Carly Fiorina's stance on the 2nd Amendment is? This is always a good litmus test for prospective candidates. Coach Carter in Ashe County found this out when he publicly said he didn't believe in semi-automatic rifles.

Johnny Rico

Honest Debate said...

Johnny Rico,

Remember this?

bridle said...

I notice that she found her lump 2 weeks after a clear mammogram. I have known several women who have discovered lumps after clear mammograms. What is never mentioned in this controversy is that radiation is one of the known causes of cancer. The cumulative effect of compressing breast tissue and irradiating it every year for 20 or more years is likely to cause cancerous tumors in some women.
This strikes me as worth mentioning. The cost in dollars, pain, and disrupted lives of false positives is also worth emphasizing. Unnecessary treatment may cause harm in itself. There is a word for that "iatrogenic".
The data used in this recommendation was analyzed by scientists using statistical analysis techniques that evaluate overall benefit. I would prefer that recommendations come from panels of scientists, rather than insurance company clerks or industry professionals with a financial interest in recommending these procedures.
The real answer of course, is to come up with a better test.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle, you wrote: "The data used in this recommendation was analyzed by scientists using statistical analysis techniques that evaluate overall benefit. I would prefer that recommendations come from panels of scientists, rather than insurance company clerks or industry professionals with a financial interest in recommending these procedures."

You raise some good points but I have a few questions:

Does the insurance industry use "clerks" and not scientist?

If "industry professionals with a financial interest in recommending these procedures" bothers you why doesn't government bureaucrats trying to save a buck bother you, or does it?

I notice you didn't mention "doctors" in your post, why?

Shouldn't the patient have the choice to decide what test they want?

bridle said...

Good questions. Firstly, anyone employed by insurance companies to recommend treatment is going to preserve the company's bottom line before the welfare of its customers. Stories about this are everywhere, you can find them as easily as I.
I would rather have government bureaucrats making those decisions because government is answerable to us. As public servants they can be held accountable for not serving the primary mission. A government health care program would serve the primary mission of providing access to quality health care. An insurance company's primary mission is to make a profit. It is answerable to its stockholders.
Doctors should certainly serve as advisers, but we must bear in mind that doctors are not immune to undue influence or bias. The standard line is that for any given problem, a surgeon will want to operate, a shrink will give you Prozac, and a chiropractor will adjust your spine.
And lastly, of course patients should be able to decide what they need. And based on circumstances recommendations should differ. A woman with a family history of cancer would have a different schedule, no doubt.
The bottom line is that our current "system" of private insurance is a nightmare of bureaucracy and paperwork and inefficiency. Every other civilized country in the world considers health care a basic right, and they all have better systems than we do.

Sarkazein said...

"I would rather have government bureaucrats making those decisions because government is answerable to us.-Bridle

And if you don't like that answer, you take your business to another government. Because insurance companies care nothing about their reputation. Just look at the $$$$$ they spend for advertising to get your business. What they really want is a bad reputation, so people will pick the competition.
(sarcasm)

bridle said...

Sark, Insurance companies are responsible for driving up the cost of health care. Estimates are that at least 30% of overhead costs for Doctor's offices go to paperwork and training assistants to deal with the various headaches involved with all the different plans patients use. And no insurance plan is good because all are driven to reduce coverage and make a profit. In order to keep profits up, they deny coverage, deny benefits, and require burdensome pre-authorizations for care. The alternative (which over 40 million people have "chosen" is to do without health care.
I really don't get this meme that private companies are more efficient than government. Haven't we seen that private finance companies have failed to point where all of us (and our system) were nearly brought to catastrophe? Government had to bail them out. And because they had no accountability, they gave themselves bonuses! Government can be bad too. But some government programs have been spectacularly successful. The Manhatten project, elimination of smallpox, our national highway system, and putting humans on the moon are all examples of what good government programs can do. And health care from the VA is considered very high quality where people have access to it. compare quality of care
It all depends who is in charge.

Johnny Rico said...

Unbrideled Idiot said:

"I would rather have government bureaucrats making those decisions because government is answerable to us".

This is one of the most stupid, moronic, and sophmoric statements ever said on any blog, ever. So you trust government bureaucrats? Are you an American? All good Americans distrust government in all forms; it is expected. Since when are bureaucrats answerable to anyone? You liberal socialists love to say Bush was not answerable to anyone. And us conservatives KNOW Hussein Obama isn't answerable to anyone.

Take the 2nd Amendment as a prime example of what happens when the masses don't question government. This important right has been abridged time and again by out of control bureaucrats. Chicago banned guns. Why aren't bureaucrats held accountable for civil rights violations? With Chicago one of the most dangerous cities in America, the liberal socialist sheep are unable to put two and two together.

You need to take a history course or two and perhaps try and think about what you write before you pen it.

your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Samantha

Professor Johnny Rico said...

Unbrideled Idiot said:

"Every other civilized country in the world considers health care a basic right, and they all have better systems than we do."

I take my last statement back. This is the most stupid, moronic, and dumb assed thing ever. If their systems are better than ours, then why do folks from Europe regularly come to the United States to have complicated medical proceedures done? Wouldn't they want to remain within the "better systems" you mentioned? If their systems are better than ours then why do the teeth of all foreigners look brown, crooked and dirty?

Uh huh, that's what I thought. Take you small head out of the sand and look around for once. We have the best system in the world, despite the fact 25 million illegal aliens use and abuse it worse than Americans. LOL!!!

This ought to be interesting!!1

Your ole pal
Johnny Rico

Bill

PS I won

Johnny Rico said...

Unbrideled Idiot said:

"which over 40 million people have "chosen" is to do without health care"

Let me ask you a question rocket scientist (doubtful I will get an answer). How come illegal aliens infest our health department on King Street and recieve free health car and 40 million Americans are without health care? Care to explain that? Either what you say is not true and no one goes without needed health care, or illegal aliens have more rights and privledges than US citizens.

I think I know the answer to that one - go to the health department and see for yourself instead of lying like the yellow dog you are. LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Ps I wonder how you will get out of this one

bridle said...

I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this and other blogs. But my time is too valuable to waste it responding to boorish insulting clods. Playground name-calling and Ann Coulter-like insults are just too tedious for words.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I agree with you about the inefficiency, fraud, waste and influence of insurance companies. But none of that is improved by government, I think the bureaucracy would be far worse.

I disagree with your premise that the quest for profit is bad. I also disagree that the government would not be as concerned with the "bottom line". Life must be rationed in any government run system. If they are to answer to us then what happens to the 95 year old man that needs surgery that cost $500,000 to live another year? Is that being responsible with our money? More importantly who makes the decision?

A private sector company trying to make big profits must deliver a good product. Take the much vilified pharmaceutical companies. The drugs that are available today are remarkable. Society benefits greatly from them. If not for the quest for profit these drugs would not exist. I believe insurance companies motivated by profit are good.

That doesn't mean the system is peachy. If the insurance companies had to compete across state lines they would have to offer a better product for less. That's easy to say and Republicans say it but it would be a nightmare to find a common set of regulations throughout the 50 states and Republicans do indeed frown on federalizing anything. I still think the benefits out weigh the problems.

Here's an idea I haven't heard. Give a dollar for dollar tax credit to anyone who buys insurance for anyone else. Maybe I'd buy LiberalPOV insurance to get the tax credit.

Another problem with the public option is control over our lives. For instance, I happen to oppose seat belt laws. Seat belts can kill you. Chances of survival may be increased if one is thrown out of the vehicle before it goes over the cliff. Obviously your chances with a seat belt are overall much better but shouldn't that be my decision to make? It doesn't hurt anyone else if I die because I did not buckle up. That is unless you (the taxpayer) has to pay my medical bills. Now we have to ask about your other dangerous habits. If the government is footing the bill then maybe we should outlaw motorcycles, skydiving and eating pork rinds.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle you wrote: "...my time is too valuable to waste it responding to boorish insulting clods"

Allow me to offer an observation and some advice. The observation is that most of the liberals on this blog are mean, condescending and insulting as hell and you don't criticize them. In fairness you may have missed Nonny and his over the top homo-erotica references but it's not hard to find examples of our being called "flat earthers, know nothings, teabaggers, circle jerkers and much more. This mostly happens when the argument is lost. It is usually in lieu of a rational rebuttal.

Johnny Rico has a style all to her own. It is abrasive. IMHO it may not be the best way to convince but who knows? However, I consider her post to be honest debate. Obviously, it's your decision how to respond and reciprocating with the same (...boorish insulting clods. Playground name-calling and Ann Coulter-like insults are just too tedious for words) is a valid choice but my advice would be to put her in her place with facts...if you can get past the bombast and refute the merits of her arguments.

How can you not like Ann Coulter?

Sarkazein said...

"...that at least 30% of overhead costs for Doctor's offices go to paperwork and training assistants to deal with the various headaches involved with all the different plans patients use."-Bridle

What do you think that percentage will rise to when the doctors have to deal with the government run health-care? They will not only have the insurance handling over-head, they will have the government handling over-head. The government handling will be more than the insurance companies. Hence the ducking of Medicare patients now.

Honest Debate said...

The 500 pound gorilla in the room is tort reform. Bridle raises a good point about the "iatrogenic" thing. Frivolous lawsuits drive it. That is not to say malpractice is not an issue but it's reached an absurd level.

Sarkazein said...

"I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this and other blogs. But my time is too valuable to waste it responding to boorish insulting clods. Playground name-calling and Ann Coulter-like insults are just too tedious for words."-Bridle

You've gotta admit this is a funny comment. It starts out complaining about blog manners and within two sentences calls other commenters "boorish insulting clods, play-ground name calling..."
I guess a liberal insult is not too tedious for words.
I think there is a word for that.

bridle said...

HD and Sark - There is no evidence that govt run health care would involve the horrible paperwork and obtrusive interference between a Dr. and patient that we experience with the insurance industry. I was a military brat and got all my health care from the doctors on base. My father was a military doctor and there were no issues with burdensome nitpicking paperwork. We had good health care, my dad could do his job and it worked fine.
About rationing.. you miss the elephant in the room. Our health care is currently rationed by insurance companies and by cost. We have a volunteer clinic in Boone that is overwhelmed with people in need of basic services.
If you are talking about a 95 year old man who needs half million dollars surgery to live another (maybe) year, who do you think pays for that? You and I do in increased insurance premiums.
Which is better for our society, kids getting basic health care to grow up healthy and productive, or invasive measures to prolong the dying process in people who are moribund?
Your comment about seatbelts is interesting. I used to think the same way until I spoke with a friend who had been the first responder at a terrible accident. I realized the cost of one person's carelessness on society. All the emergency personnel were affected by cleaning up the mess that person's brains left on the pavement. All the money and work spent by hospital personnel to deal with the trauma, and the cost to all of us to sustain a brain-damaged person could have been avoided by seatbelts.
It's a basic truth that in our society "no man is an island". As our society becomes more and more complex, we become more and more interdependent and (unfortunately) need more regulations and cooperation to keep things running smoothly.
(Ann Coulter is beneath contempt, a poisonous hatemonger )

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

"If you are talking about a 95 year old man who needs half million dollars surgery to live another (maybe) year, who do you think pays for that? You and I do in increased insurance premiums."

But who decides where the money is spent? Don't insurance premiums go up the same way if it's a three year old who gets another 93 years of life?

If first responders can't handle gore then they need to find another job. What about the gore of the seat belted victim that went over the cliff?

Ann Coulter makes a case for her positions, like it or not.

Honest Debate said...

"Which is better for our society, kids getting basic health care to grow up healthy and productive, or invasive measures to prolong the dying process in people who are moribund?" -Bridle

THAT'S THE POINT!!! It's not the governments business to ration life.

bridle said...

HD and Sark, point taken on the insults. But I am calling them boorish childish clods because of their behavior, not because of their political views or opinions. That sarcastic nasty style may make tons of money for those sleazy entertainers who use it, but I don't intend to engage in it or endorse it.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

It's perfectly feasible that the three year old grows up to be another Jeffrey Dahmer and the ninety-five year old man in his last year of life finds the cure for cancer.

"Which is better for our society"?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Note the intra-military is not the same, or even near the same as a private citizen dealing with a government bureaucracy. BTW, I choose not to be treated the same as I was in sick-call in the military.
The question, is where is the evidence that it is easier to deal with the government paper work than the insurance companies' paper work? And the government has to agree to be sued and an insurance company does not. How is the government more answerable to the individual than the government? How? I'm talking now, not pre-liberalization of the government.

Sarkazein said...

Should read: ...more answerable to the individual than an insurance company.

Sarkazein said...

A "funny" story about sick-call. I went in one time with a fever. They took me in a room where about 25 guys were sitting on the floor with pitchers of ice water and glasses. Everyone had to drink ice water until their temperatures went down, then they were sent back to the barracks.

Bridle, while you were a military brat, how much of the processing paper work were you required to do? How many forms between the base sick-call and the Pentagon were you required to fill out a day?

Honest Debate said...

"That sarcastic nasty style may make tons of money for those sleazy entertainers who use it, but I don't intend to engage in it or endorse it." -Bridle

I disagree. That's why no one listens to or watches Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz or Keith Olbermann to name a few. Meanwhile there's Rush who is a harmless lovable fuzzball, he's never mean. That's where the money is.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, you have got to be kidding about your opinion that government run health care would not cause more paperwork. Government is run from a policy uncontrolled positive feed back. In other words, if it starts to run to fast or get to large, there is noting in place to slow it down. With no governor to control the speed of the motor,and indeed the governance causing a speeding up, it oscillates out of control. The nature of any government program is to try to justify enlarging that program. I do not know of a single government program that worked itself out of a job or even downsized itself. In order to justify increases in size and power, a huge paper trail is necessary so that the books can be cooked as with the global warming fiasco.

Death panels and government caused health care rationing could get interesting. It is possible that when you tell a sixty something Vietnam vet that he has to die, or his wife has to die, he may take umbrage at your statement. If you consider that such a man has nothing to lose and military training, it makes for a thought provoking scenario.

Do not tell me government health care is not going to be rationed. A young friend with a child who is on Medicaid has told me it is already being rationed. If the libs cut Medicare, it will be rationed even more.

Reader said...

Most women like myself do not agree with the new study. I will continue to get the tests, I deem fit for my body. Most women are not stupid, even the ones who say they agree with the study. We will be sitting in the waiting room, waiting for our name to be called and dreading the smash machine as always. I prefer to take precautions, because it's my life.

Mrs. Fiorina is a strong woman. There's a difference in being strong and being arrogant.

Sarkazein said...

Reader-

I am sure in the 2,000+ pages of government health-care reform, there is treatments to get your mind right so you can appreciate the government is here to help you.

bridle said...

Reader, You do know that radiation causes cancer, yes? Does that thought give you pause? You automatically trust the industry, that makes money from your tests, to give you good advice about those tests?

bridle said...

Guy, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't ration care?

bridle said...

Anarchists all - The United States government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people we elect are honest, ethical, and competent, our government will work just fine. If we elect spoiled rich kids who feel entitled to the perks of office but are too lazy or stupid to actually think about what's best for America, we will fail.
We can, by the electoral process, decide what our government becomes.
What I don't get is what makes anyone think a complex, interdependent global society can function by allowing random market forces to control our fortune. Any complex organism requires a central control center (ie a brain). Simple organisms, like worms and bugs that don't have a complex repertoire of behavior, don't have much brain (ie regulation). The more complex the behavior is, the more regulation is required (bigger brain).
As long as we respect elections and the democratic process, as long as we value education and analytical thought, we may be able to keep our democracy.
If we succumb to demagoguery and fear, the bread and circuses mentality, the selfish, self serving mentality, we will go down like the Romans.
Happy Monday......

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I realize you are addressing Reader and Guy but I can't help butting in.

Reader is not a sheep. She is perfectly capable in this information age get informed and make her own decision based on what she knows in counsil with her doctor. Do you really believe as Obama has implied that most doctors recommend unnecessary procedures to enrich themselves? Do you totally dismiss the CYA dynamic imposed on doctors through the threat of lawsuits?

As to your question for Guy. You are under the mistaken impression that insurance companies provide health care. They cannot ration something they don't provide.

Sorry Reader and Guy I just can't help myself some of the time.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

"Anarchist"?

"...spoiled rich kids who feel entitled to the perks of office but are too lazy or stupid to actually think about what's best for America"?

"demagoguery and fear"?

"the bread and circuses mentality"?

"selfish"?

"self serving mentality"?

I, Sark, Guy, Reader and yes, Johnny Rico all made points you have not addressed. You resort with "Playground name-calling"

"This mostly happens when the argument is lost. It is usually in lieu of a rational rebuttal." -myself

Honest Debate said...

I don't know about the rest of you but I sure get tired of being told what I think by liberals.

If I oppose a bloated, overly intrusive government they say I want Anarchy.

If I'm outraged at the hijacking of science they say I'm a flat-earther.

If I support letting people keep more of the fruits of their labor they say I hate the poor.

If I don't like Obama's policies they say I'm a racist.

If I'm against cap and trade they say I'm anti-environment.

If I listen to Rush they say I'm a hate monger.

I could go on forever.

Sarkazein said...

"... entitled to the perks of office but are too lazy or stupid to actually think about what's best for America, we will fail."-Bridle

this assumes we all want the same thing. We don't. Your comment shows the Left's complete lack of respect for the individual. This is one of the reasons we are so divided...you think all should be controlled with one brain. A brain that 51% of the people agree on. This is NOwhere close to the intent of the US Constitution... for good reason.

guy fauleks said...

In my life, I have been severely injured three times. I was once given a 20% chance to live. Thanks to the state of the health care in this country, I survived. I have some disabilities, but I am alive and functioning. Thanks to insurance companies, both mine and those of the people that caused some accidents, I have not have to pay very much for this care. The care probably totaled more than half a million dollars. Bridle, do not give me any crap about insurance companies rationing care or our health care not being the best in the world. I worked hard to purchase my insurance because I felt I needed it. I sacrificed to have it. They have never rationed anything. And yes, I have changed insurance after these accidents with no loss in coverage.

This same kind of medical treatment is available if you go to an emergency room, regardless if you have insurance or not. I know this for a fact because I have some liberal entitlement loving relatives that have received, it including extended hospital stays. A few of these people actually needed free care. The rest of the jerks could have worked and provided for themselves, but they are captured in the "take the easy way out" slavery imposed by liberal entitlement programs.

Guess what? As far as I am concerned, those of us that work have no responsibility to pay for health care for my sorry assed kinfolk that are better able to work than I am.

It is interesting to me that you think a global society is democratic. As far as I can tell the proponents of a global society are socialist.

We have decided what our government became by the electoral process. The United States is a land of opportunity. You can be as successful as you are willing to work and be. You may have setbacks, but if you keep trying, you will succeed. It is not a socialist on communistic state in which everything is handed to people that do not try to help themselves. Bridle's desire change this country to a gimme gimme society is reprehensible. He /she has the right to desire this, but I also have the right to oppose it. God, I hope I win.

Honest Debate said...

"If the people we elect are honest, ethical, and competent, our government will work just fine." -Bridle

Is there anyone who thinks Obama fits this description?

Professor Rico said...

Unbrideled Idiot said:

"I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this and other blogs. But my time is too valuable to waste it responding to boorish insulting clods. Playground name-calling and Ann Coulter-like insults are just too tedious for words."

In other words, what you meant to say was " I am such a typically moronic liberal that I know I will be unable to answer ANY of the questions posed by Professor Rico, so I will try and take the emotional road out in hopes no one will notice my indefensible stance and mindset."

LOL!!! You liberals are all the same - throwing out insults, censoring views not consistent with your own, and unabashidly failing to answer the tough questions!! LOL! Want to take a crack at the 4 UNANSWERED POSTS or do you want me to repost for your edification?

Still waiting on answers to all those tough questions you socialist sheep of a moron.

Your dearest ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I have already ran POV and Cheerleader (tricycle lard) off this site. Want to make it a perfect three?

Sarkazein said...

Harry Reed said- When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.


Now, to this total yutz, if you are not a socialist, you are anti-civil rights. I'm tellin' ya, the time is here.
The video of the retired Lt Colonel calling for patriots to take up arms against the socialists is hopefully a trial balloon.

Honest Debate said...

Harry Reid is no better than the libs on this blog. He has no rational rebuttal so he resorts to the ad hominem thing. The irony of all ironies is that it was Democrats that filibustered civil rights.

That's even more ironic than when the grammar patrol (Nonny) misspelled hypocrisy (Huckabee thread, November 30, 2009 1:32 PM).

Sarkazein said...

H.D-

Not only was it the Democrats filibustering the Civil Rights bill, the Republican Party was formed to fight slavery.
Reed is one sick freak. Between him, Pelosi and Obama, the country will become even more divided... if that's possible.

Simon Jester said...

"If the people we elect are honest, ethical, and competent, our government will work just fine." -Bridle

If a frog had wings, it would not bump it's butt on the ground hopping. If your aunt had testicles, she would be your uncle. LIke HD said if Obama was any of the things Bridle talks about, government might work. None of the above is very likely.

Zippity Doo Dah said...

Sarkasein...

It certainly wasn't SOUTHERN Republicans that fought slavery. The GOP maintained zero power in the south until racist, turncoat Dixiecrats chose to jump party lines over civil rights and become Republicans.

They weren't about to sit by and watch as their party and their government tried to take away their right to prevent darkies from living in their towns, going to their schools, working in their businesses and voting in their elections.

So they became Republicans and tipped the balance of power in most southern states, at least in national elections, for the better part of the past 40 years.

Basically, were it not for racism, the GOP wouldn't have a leg to stand on down here.

Now, that's a heritage for all of us to be quite proud of.

Reader said...

No Bridle, radiation doesn't scare me and I'm not a fearful person. I control my body and what goes in it. I didn't listen to the H1N1 scare either. People are easily duped.

Sarkazein said...

"Sarkasein..."-Zippity Doo Da

That would be S A R K A Z E I N

bridle said...

Is there anyone who thinks Obama fits this description?

Yes, HD. The overwhelming majority of the electorate who put him in office. Just review the tapes of the inauguration if you forget how many of us do believe Obama is honest, ethical, and competent.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

The "overwhelming majority of the electorate who put him in office" were duped. His poll numbers have plumeted so many have changed their mind. Do you really still believe it considering his broken promises?

guy faulkes said...

Zoppity Do Dah (Shyster, Annoyimous)

First of all, Southern Republicans did fight slavery, or thought they were. I know as my ancestors fought on both sides.

Second, the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over money. The North wanted the South's cotton for its mills and clothing factories. England and France would pay more for the cotton. The North passed tariffs to insure the South had to sell the cotton to them in order to afford cloth. The slavery issue is interesting as Lincoln's solution for freed slaves was to send them back to Africa. He was not pro-black. See the following article. There are many more.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Slavery was the emotional issue used to justify the war, not the actual reason it was fought.

Third, I can remember when the Democrats ran everything in the south. One could not get a public sector job without being a Democrat, be it teaching school, being a janitor, or being a police officer. Your party affiliation used to be required on job applications. Then this question was removed, but party politics still paid an important role. To a lesser degree they still do in state government employment.

I am indeed proud of my heritage. I would appreciate your keeping your male bovine fecal matter opinions to yourself in this matter, as they prove you either have no pride in your heritage or you are a Damn Yankee hypocrite.

Bridle, Obama's popularity has fallen so far, he is toast. By 2012, it would not surprise me if Hillary runs against him in the primary and wins. The man child Messiah is a joke to all but his deluded cult disciples.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote: Just review the tapes of the inauguration if you forget...


Now that's funny. The honeymoon is way over. This could be your problem. You are playing the inauguration tape over and over and over, and missing the current news, and all the history before.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, here are some links for you to examine. They indicate that only 26% of the people thought Obama deserved his prize, that he did get a boost in the poles when he sent the troops to Afghanistan,but in spite of that his approval rating is only 47%, and that Palin's approval rateing is 46%. What are the libs going to do when Palin has an better rating than the man child Messiah?

Professor Johnny Rico said...

Zipity Dumb Duh said:

"Basically, were it not for racism, the GOP wouldn't have a leg to stand on down here."

Racism? You know all about that don't you. Watch "No Guns for Negros" and tell us why you think it is a "slick piece of propaganda". LOL!!!!

Your ole pal
Johnny Rico

PS Have you always been a racist or did you get that way somehow?

Professor Rico said...

Unbrideled Idiot said:

"I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this and other blogs. But my time is too valuable to waste it responding to boorish insulting clods. Playground name-calling and Ann Coulter-like insults are just too tedious for words."

In other words, what you meant to say was " I am such a typically moronic liberal that I know I will be unable to answer ANY of the questions posed by Professor Rico, so I will try and take the emotional road out in hopes no one will notice my indefensible stance and mindset."

LOL!!! You liberals are all the same - throwing out insults, censoring views not consistent with your own, and unabashidly failing to answer the tough questions!! LOL! Want to take a crack at the 4 UNANSWERED POSTS or do you want me to repost for your edification?

Still waiting on answers to all those tough questions you socialist sheep of a moron.

Your dearest ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I have already ran POV and Cheerleader (tricycle lard) off this site. Want to make it a perfect three?