See other Health Articles
Title: HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMERICANS & EUROPEANS
Source:
doctorwascher.com
URL Source: http://doctorwascher.com/Archives/2-22-09.htm
Published: Feb 22, 2009
Author: Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS
Post Date: 2009-11-02 16:41:11 by Destro
Keywords: None
Views: 2201
Comments: 150
By, Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS Last Updated: 02/22/2009 HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMERICANS & EUROPEANS I have commented before about the striking discordance between the amount of money that we spend on health care in the United States and the health outcomes that we achieve with all of those dollars. At more than $2 trillion dollars per year, or more than $7,000 per citizen per year, the U.S. spends more on health care than virtually every other country in the world. One would, therefore, assume that all of those trillions of health care dollars would translate into a globally unsurpassed level of health and wellbeing in America. However, one would actually be mistaken in this assumption, as the United States lags behind many other countries of the world, including a few relatively underdeveloped countries, in several very important public health benchmarks. As if this were not bad enough, the world’s richest nation has an estimated 47 million uninsured citizens, with millions more possessing utterly inadequate health insurance coverage (millions of us in this country are just one serious illness away from financial ruin). Health care reform in the United States continues to be a political “third rail,” although virtually all stakeholders are in agreement that our healthcare system is dysfunctional and inefficient, and that it offers the American people very poor value for their money. However, there is considerable disagreement regarding the root causes that underlie the acknowledged deficiencies in our health care system, which means that there is also pervasive disagreement regarding the best interventions to undertake. Amidst the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and with no end in sight to the ongoing Not-Quite-As-Great-Depression, it is unclear whether or not the fledgling Obama Administration will be able to assemble the political capital and the will to wade into the treacherous waters of health care reform within the foreseeable future. A new research study, just published in the American Journal of Public Health, provides a rather stark comparison between the health status of rich and poor adults in the United States and Europe. In this study, more than 17,000 adults between the ages of 50 and 74 years were interviewed from among 10 European countries. Nearly 7,000 Americans of similar age were also interviewed for this study. The researchers assessed these 24,000 middle-aged and elderly adults for 6 chronic illnesses that are commonly accepted as indicators of the overall health of a society. In general, the American adults reported poorer overall health than their European counterparts. While the differences in health between the two groups of adults were, not surprisingly, more pronounced among poorer patients, even the wealthier Americans reported more problems with their health when compared to wealthy Europeans. At the same time, the gap in health status between rich and poor was much smaller among Europeans than was observed among the American patients who participated in this study. (As a striking example of the health disparities between Americans and Europeans, heart disease, the number one cause of death in most developed countries, was present in 18 percent of Americans, but in only 11 percent of Europeans, in this study.) This study puts some important numbers on health trends that have become increasingly obvious over the past few decades. When comparing health outcomes between two populations of patients that live in similarly modern, industrialized, and western societies, the United States fares very poorly, indeed. Our nation’s focus on disease prevention is haphazard and poorly executed, resulting in unacceptably high rates of preventable diseases and disease-related complications. Rather than investing our nation’s wealth in disease prevention and screening programs, we, instead, backload our inefficient and byzantine health care system with trillions of dollars, every year, to treat the complications of diseases that are, in many cases, almost entirely preventable. European countries spend, on average, only 50 to 60 percent as much on health care, per capita, as we do here in the United States, and yet their health outcomes frequently exceed ours in multiple critical areas of public health. While we may not all agree on every detail, almost all of us agree that our health care system is fundamentally broken, and that we cannot go on with “business as usual” any longer. Despite the ongoing implosion of the economy, we must somehow find the will and the foresight to overhaul our current fractured and wasteful health care system, including a much greater emphasis on promoting healthful lifestyle habits, and improved disease prevention and screening programs. As the average age of our population continues to rise, our ongoing failure to step up to the plate and fix our dysfunctional health care system will, increasingly, cost our nation dearly. Poster Comment: Doctor Wascher's Biography@ http://doctorwascher.com/Doctor%20Wascher%20Bio%20-%202008.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-110) not displayed.
.
.
.
#111. To: Cynicom (#109)
(Edited)
But, Cynicom, as I recall, Ron Paul stated right from the start that he was not planning to run as anything but as a GOP Pres candidate. He made it abundantly clear that he would not be switching to run as a Third Party Pres candidate so that meant he was willing to ride out the predictable back stabbing from his own party to get media exposure for his conservative ideas. He also made no bones about the fact that of the 2 national parties we currently have, he identified more closely with the GOP. The fact that in current federal elections, conservative candidates are actually challenging GOP anointed RINO ones, is not accidental - I think it comes from Ron Paul's GOP Pres candidacy run - he has given courage to other conservatives within the GOP who would otherwise be silent, and that in itself is quite an accomplishment. I'm guessing this is what Ron Paul came to realize over the years he's served in Congress - ie. that this nation will continue to have a 2 party political system for many many years to come and of the 2 parties the one that might have an iota of hope for reform from within is the GOP, and not the Dem Party. You can argue that this type of thinking may seem too pragmatic or too pessimistic, but I don't think you can label it a double cross or a betrayal or Trotsky-like. Ron Paul ran his GOP Pres candidacy campaign as long as he could. He called it quits when the numbers clearly showed there was no chance and that point he focused his attentions on campaigning to retain his congressional seat. What else should he have done, in your opinion? Regarding Ron Paul's call for donations, paying for a Pres candidate campaign is an incredibly expensive undertaking. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul profited personally from the donations he collected - that he didn't use the $ to pay off the campaign debts he had accumulated? Regarding Ron Paul's son using his father's donor list, it's to be expected - Rand is an aspiring politician - where else would he start to find potential donors for a platform that is based on conservative principles he shares with his Dad?
Anyone that seriously concerns themselves with politics has to sweep from their minds those arcane labels that are so easily applied to politicians. Left, right, lib, con, moderate, extremist and of course republican and democrat. All of those labels are used for a purpose, in theory, to assure the voters that there are differences across the political spectrum. In practice, ALL politicians have but one goal in mind, the possession of power, no exceptions. If acceptance of that premise is not possible, any further study will be flawed. My political awakening was way back, when the most used terms were dem and pub, and Eisenhower was considering running for president. Both major political parties overwhelmingly offered Ike the candidacy on a silver platter, with NO pre conditions, with NO examination of his views, none. Mind you, both major parties were made up of all those labels above, left, right etc etc, yet no one asked what label Ike was under, no one. How was this possible entered my mind. The answer is really quite simple, all of those labels are there to program the voters, to make sure he knows dems are all bad and out to destroy capitalism and that pubs are equally bad and will aid only the super rich. Proof you ask??? Statistics gives you the answer, do you find it odd that there is a huge difference in parties, and yet in most national elections there is but...one or two percent difference...in the total vote count???? Just perhaps it is manufactured that way??? Just perhaps there are a few people staging the entire charade. I had doubt about "parties" from that time on. Ike as a pub had his turn, then it went to the dems for eight years, then back to pubs for eight years, with few exceptions it is akin to a pendulum. Evenly balanced, back and forth, very nicely orchestrated, fifty fifty, with the voters fully convinced they are making a choice.
I would have never used or thought to use that term until I saw your reply. So I replied to you in kind. So by virtue of the fact that scrapper used the term "goose stepper," she is therefore a fascist, nazi, goose stepper - whatever. Tautologically tremendous & splendid logic. We'll keep you around for laughs.
I take offense when anyone uses twenty dollar words.
You may safely ignore my nickel-plated diction. When I get a wild hair, I like to brandish it at odd moments like a cheap revolver.
What you say, Cynicom, is true and as you point out has been known for a long time - both parties are slimey and corrupt and have become more similar than dissimilar. BUT as abraxas pointed out, and I agree with abraxas, whether we like it or not, our nation is based on a 2 party system. Ron Paul years ago thought that a Third Party was viable and he quickly found out he was wrong. And he came to the realization that the system is what it is - he did not create it but he needed to work within it in order for his conservative ideals to have any hope of seeing the light of day in the public political theater. Ron Paul made a considered pragmatic decision that of the 2 parties, the GOP was the best vehicle to use for getting those ideals out for the public's consideration and possibly to even effect changes within the GOP party itself by attracting other conservatives. As I stated previously, you may not like Ron Paul's decision but I don't think you can fault him for keeping his decision under raps, and only revealing his intentions to his surprised supporters at the last minute. From the get go, Ron Paul said he was planning to run as A GOP CANDIDATE and whenever he was asked if he would consider running as a Third Party candidate, he said "no." Ron Paul did not deceive his supporters but some had hopes that he was going to eventually change his mind and were disappointed when he simply followed through on what he said he'd do.
Exactly correct. I only wish that he'd spoken out, and challenged, the electronic vote fraud that began in NH and continued throughout the country.
In fact it is NOT true. We have a one party system of government. One last example. If Ike had run as say a socialist, he would not have won, if he ran as a dem or pub, he was a shoo in. How can that be? Same man. How is that possible? Ron Paul was the best man on the platform to be President. He never got out of the gate, he was laughed off stage with the merry help of the media. He was the hope of this country, at least those that resist the current one party system.
let me ask a question. do you believe that US presidential elections are legit or do you believe, as i do, that they are a complete fraud, and that the winner is chosen by the shadow government (years in advance, imo)?
that's where i'm going with my question.
Never at any time did Paul defend himself, never. Voting fraud. Laffed off stage, nothing. Total apathy.
I think the Presidential candidates of both parties are selected by very powerful movers and shakers and quite possibly there's collusion in that one party's selected candidate in recent years especially seems weaker, ensuring that the other party's candidate will win. However, with our two party system firmly entrenched, with our electorate having become sufficiently dumbified over time through our public system and Third World immigration, and with our MSM being controlled by a handful of owners frankly the moneyed powerful people don't need to engage in collusion. Regardless of which party's candidate wins the WH, the rich and powerful always win. Postscript: I don't think Pres candidates are selected years in advance, although there is "spotting" of those with potential or who have dark horse candidate possibilities years in advance eg. Obama and appropriate leg ups given to that person for upward mobility in the party hierarchy due to anticipated future return favors. Yes, voter fraud is rampant.
Yes, that I found curious indeed. But things have come to such a pass that the federal railroad and the coroner decide these things. The federal railroad for Traficant, Nixon or whoever sets up significant roadblocks to "operations." The coroner for those who know too much, may say to much, or who might actually take undesirable action: Tower, Wellstone, Kennedys, etc. RP is squeaky clean and it would be hard to put him on the federal choo-choo. But my prediction is that he will survive to retirement.
....like your LP rifle. lololol. I haven't posted on El Pee since I was banned about 5 years ago To say you are totally full of shit is an understatement, now go screw yourself... lololol
Ted Kennedy Is Now Eligible To Vote In Chicago.
Americans do not have any different quality of life, other than the fact that our taxes have to subsidize people like you who come here illegally and suck the teat of America. We work longer hours to pay taxes to a government who spends our money like drunken sailors on the whores of Europe and the third world. To think that you are telling me that this man is smarter or more accomplished than I am is laughable. The idea of a European Socialist, telling me what it's like to live in America, is akin to you telling me what it's like to be a man. You didn't get Goldi banned, how could you? It's her website. Christine, if you have a brain in your head, you'll ban this clown. He's nothing but an American Hating traitor and disruptor. Oh, and by the way, I posted here long before you did Destro.
Better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not.
I'll agree with this scrapper, but I'd like to add the following. RP entered the race as an after thought. He never expected his effort to grow as it did. It took him off balance, and he said as much. When the money and movement he benefited from was at it's zenith, he then had an opportunity to change American political history. That would have meant him leaving the Rs and either going as an I, L, or create a new party. The *record breaking money* he was raising made his opportunity unique to all others to date. It was pure grassroots and Internet driven. The establishment was dazed and confused. When he chose to remain loyal to the Rs and not the movement, his political soul was exposed. If the nation was at the precipice he claimed it was (it is), wasn't a chance to save it the only option for him? For him to claim he wouldn't have been reelected to his TX seat as anything but an R was a bucket of Texas hogwash. He had money, name recognition and volunteers enough to easily pull out a district victory. In the end, RP will best be remembered as a loyal Republican who occasionally authors bills that go nowhere. Give me Traficant.
Destro(y) is gone. None of my business really, but I would have counseled that action although I am really opposed to bannings. Anyone who starts talking about lawsuits in respect of a forum owner's interests is asking for it. This person was already spinning fantasies of what the lawyers would be asking for in discovery. I'll own that some disgusting stuff was said over that at the place-we-needn't- name, but the poster in question is master at the art of stirring up the rubes.
We have a one party system of government. Respectfully I'd submit that is your opinion, not fact. I don't agree with your opinion. Though both parties have drifted more left ward over time -both parties promise entitlements up the wazoo to the increasingly more benefit conscious electorate and though both parties have become equally militaristic inclined due to campaign donations from similar sources [MIC and AIPAC], I think there still are enough intrinsic differences in the parties' membership composition that eschews a 1 party label. For example, the extremist element of the GOP are the evangelicals whereas the extremist element of the Dems are the socialists - there's no similarity what so ever in their respective aims. Another example of irreconcilable differences are the traditional constituencies the 2 parties serve - the GOP are more small business friendly/supported ( Chamber of Commerce) whereas the Dem Party is more labor union friendly/supported (IBT, SEIU,UAW).
But then as some cynics will claim, the result is WAR and SOCIALSM. That's the proof in the pudding for those that hold with the "one party" hypothesis.
Jethro - you're a dreamer with respect to what Ron Paul "could have/should have" done. Imo, Ron Paul followed through with the only option available to him that guaranteed a modicum of success for himself and for the conservative movement politically speaking. On the one hand you admit that Ron Paul's candidacy run was a spur of the moment decision and that he was genuinely surprised, even shocked that there was such a ground swell of support for his ideas and for him. But then you say after being shocked at the support, he should have jumped ship and run as a Third Party Pres candidate. Wow! That's a tall order for a humble 74 year old obgyn turned Congressman from Texas. Grassroots financial support via the internet is one thing but it's quite another thing altogether to field viable Third Party Senate and House candidates across the 50 states in such a limited time frame to stand as a credible political party to vote for to the electorate. Ron Paul recognized that there was no way a Third Party could mount a successful campaign in the November 2008 election. What he saw as possible and a realistic goal to achieve was what he pursued - he was able to give a higher profile to common sense fiscal conservative small gov't ideals - which had never been done before in a reasonable and respected fashion -for the general public's consideration and the popularity of his views has given confidence for other conservative minded political candidates "to come out." Also, Ron Paul was able to keep his political seat as Congressman to continue to represent his constituency's interests in DC and to speak out to Americans at large about the wasteful and perfidious legislation being promoted. Without his insider's voice who else is there in Congress who would fill RP's role as DC's good conscience?
Bump this.
He's 74 going on 60. He looks fit and trim, and if McCain at 70? garnered 48% as a surviving cancer victim, Sir Paul could have done 12-15% as an Independent. Winning was never in my calculation with Paul but a permanent movement was, and it could have been. I'd like to know one thing RP has in common with today's Republican party. For the life of me I can't think of any. If he's there for the ease of ballot access alone, he isn't the man many think/thought he was. The real sad part about the entire Paul affair for me was watching well meaning people give him their precious little money and time, while I knew the establishment (read GOP/DNC) would never put forward a man with his convictions. I'll never believe a man with his political acumen didn't realize that either. Those that know me best will tell you I saw the RP effort for what it was; he was never, ever going to be selected as the GOP nominee. Last year's fisaco was about him, not the nation. In that respect, Paul was the dreamer, not me.
Now Paul is allowing his son to use his donor mailing lists to solicit more millions for his run for the Senate. Total loss of integrity there. I watched all the debates and felt that Paul was excellent, gracious and demonstrated the highest level of integrity among those on the stage. Would you have preferred that Paul threw a tantrum or kept his demeanor and answered the questions as hand truthfully and in the best interest of this nation, despite the pathetic middle school responses by other candidates? I did not find his responses apathetic in the least, nor did the viewing audience that gave him the largests rounds of applause of any candidate on the stage. He knew his audience and it wasn't the other idiots sharing the stage. It was the American people. That's why on those opinion polls he won every debate. Again, I completely disagree. His son is the best candidate running for the Senate seat. I have no qualms with being on his mailing list. I agree with most of his positions. No loss of integrity when the candidate has America's best interests as his main reason for running. Also, he's not paid off by a bunch of lobbyists. He's running a clean campaign based on the will of the people like his father did. There could be no more integrity than a politician running on that platform. By the way, Cyni, you speak of all these viable and legitimate third party candidates. Who are they? Can any of them get on a ballot in all 50 states? This second question is key as that's the only way they can be considered viable, even if they are legit.
LOL! Maybe the cynics are correct after all? No, the results you name have come into prominence because the extremist elements of the 2 parties got their "man" in the WH - W and O. But this was not a result of collusion and the power of the extremists will wane in time. I have a strong belief in the seductive nature of power to individuals and I don't think power is as satisfying if it is made to be purposely shared by taking orchestrated turns. That's why I don't see a 1 party system ...yet...our politicians crave absolute power for themselves and are unwilling to be told that this year it will be theirs to enjoy for a while but come the next election, they need to agree to stand down and let the other party's candidate win. It goes against human nature.
HE DEFENDED HIS POSTITIONS, which is what a candidate should do. Others tried to make it all personal, but Paul refused to take the bait. For this he should be respected, not ridiculed. Geez, should all races and debates be denegrated to the level of school yard insult exchanges? I, for one, am sick of that crap. It's a damn shame that more politicians do not demonstrate Paul's level of integrity and character.......sad that the people do not lament this as well and, instead, lament that he didn't sink to the level of idiocy that the other candidates wallowed in.
Bravo Scrapper!! Nicely stated.
Explain Ron Paul and "911 The Official Government Story®" stamp of approval plz...
Explain where you are getting your information. Paul stated, affirmed and reiterated throughout his campaign that he supported a new, independent investigation into 911.
Ron Paul Doesn't Accept 911 Investigation
I understand he wants a new 9-11 investigation, I can't think of anyone who doesn't. But tell me this; how would he enter a new investigation after having dismissed the message of the Truthers? I'm not trying to be argumentative, abraxas, but an open mind is first and foremost to getting to the truth.
First, that question by the moderator was nothing more than a red herring to divert Paul from responding to key issues. The question was quite pointed, questioning a belief in the US goobermint being "complicit" or "covered up" the events of 911. Paul responded on behalf of the First Amendment. He was the ONLY candidate on that stage to support a new 911 investigation AND the only asked about what his supporters think on any issue. Paul dismisses the key elements involved in THAT question, while offering many pragmatic questions of his own regarding the events of 911. Must one fully and unequivically accept ALL truther messages to cut the mustard? Afterall, not ALL truthers accept that the government pulled a false flag, while most question the complete and utter lack of competenance and integrity in conducting the investigation. On many issues, Paul agrees with truthers, like government incompetence, while not accepting that the government pulled off the attacks.
Well not one other Republican POTUS candidate, nor most of the Dems with the exception of Kucinich. MOST politicians do not want a new investigation into 911. Less than a handful support this.
oh, but it pains me to hear RP blame it on suicide terrorists and OBL--the official government fairy tale, in the second clip.
RP was clear to me. He divorced himself from Truthers, which is his right. The problem remains, he'd be biased for the government version of events if he were leading a new 9-11 investigation.
An independent investigation into the goobermint would not be conducted by the goobermint.........at least that was my understanding on this issue.
I don't know what other response would have been been better. What do you feel would have been a better response? He points to ineptness and "looking outward, not inward" which indicates the blame is not so squarely placed. He specifically states that the US ignores the causes of suicide bombings, which is true and, I think, needs to be stated for the best interests of our nation. In a short time span, Paul was able to bring up many issues that actually are central to much of the work done by truthers. Although there are many valid issues regarding the government fairy tale, one peep in response to this line of questioning and Paul would have been carted off to Kookyville. The interview would have denegrated into a pissing match, rather than allowing for civil discourse and very relevant topics to be broached. IMHO, he used his time wisely and for the greater good.
Thanks, scrapper. I always enjoy your thoughtful responses to provocative propositions.
i think it would have been better had he not said that he had abandoned the view that it was an inside job, had not said it was 19 suicide bombers, and not said that it was OBL. recall OBL was a friend of the bushes and that he was flown out of the country. i think he should have limited his comments to calling for a new investigation and not been so explicit in his eschewal of an inside job. how does Paul explain, i wonder, the total NORAD standdown of the most protected airspace in the world. (having said that, i can understand your point of view)
I agree, a bit more omission would have been better. He was under an attack with very pointed questions that were only for this candidate and no others, so I don't know if omission would have worked so well. IMHO, the media was out to send Paul to Kookyville from the get go and any little opportunity would have been pounced on and then aired on every channel ad nauseum. I think Paul agrees that NORAD is part of the "ineptness" he talks about that needs an independent investigation.
And then out of the blue, after collecting millions of dollars from the rubes, came the Trotski memo. What an oddity that was. Paul went to great extreme to profess his fidelity to the republican party and he would always remain a republican. How odd, he quit to "fight" for his seat in congress. He won easily as usual.
#112. To: scrapper2, Jethro tull, randge, All (#111)
#113. To: Fred Mertz (#105)
Here's the difference between what you said and what I said, Fred.
#114. To: randge (#113)
Tautologically tremendous & splendid logic.
#115. To: Cynicom (#114)
#116. To: Cynicom, abraxas, Jethro tull, randge, All (#112)
#117. To: scrapper2. all (#116)
From the get go, Ron Paul said he was planning to run as A GOP CANDIDATE and whenever he was asked if he would consider running as a Third Party candidate, he said "no." Ron Paul did not deceive his supporters but some had hopes that he was going to eventually change his mind and were disappointed when he simply followed through on what he said he'd do.
#118. To: scrapper2 (#116)
BUT as abraxas pointed out, and I agree with abraxas, whether we like it or not, our nation is based on a 2 party system.
#119. To: scrapper2, abraxas, mininggold (#116)
#120. To: Lod, scrapper2, abraxas, mininggold (#117)
only wish that he'd spoken out, and challenged, the electronic vote fraud that began in NH and continued throughout the country.
#121. To: christine (#120)
#122. To: christine (#119)
(Edited)
#123. To: Cynicom (#121)
(Edited)
#124. To: mininggold (#71)
And on other forums you are yukon's side kick or are you afraid to admit it to your "friends" here. Bragging there how you post here ands everyone thinks you are just one great poster. lolol
#125. To: Destro, christine (#7)
#126. To: scrapper2, Cyni, christine, all (#111)
But, Cynicom, as I recall, Ron Paul stated right from the start that he was not planning to run as anything but as a GOP Pres candidate
#127. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#125)
#128. To: Cynicom (#118)
(Edited)
In fact it is NOT true.
#129. To: scrapper2 (#128)
For example, the extremist element of the GOP are the evangelicals whereas the extremist element of the Dems are the socialists - there's no similarity what so ever in their respective aims.
#130. To: Jethro Tull (#126)
RP entered the race as an after thought. He never expected his effort to grow as it did. It took him off balance, and he said as much. When the money and movement he benefited from was at it's zenith, he then had an opportunity to change American political history. That would have meant him leaving the Rs and either going as an I, L, or create a new party. The *record breaking money* he was raising made his opportunity unique to all others to date. It was pure grassroots and Internet driven. The establishment was dazed and confused. When he chose to remain loyal to the Rs and not the movement, his political soul was exposed.
#131. To: scrapper2. all (#130)
Ron Paul recognized that there was no way a Third Party could mount a successful campaign in the November 2008 election. What he saw as possible and a realistic goal to achieve was what he pursued - he was able to give a higher profile to common sense fiscal conservative small gov't ideals - which had never been done before in a reasonable and respected fashion -for the general public's consideration and the popularity of his views has given confidence for other conservative minded political candidates "to come out." Also, Ron Paul was able to keep his political seat as Congressman to continue to represent his constituency's interests in DC and to speak out to Americans at large about the wasteful and perfidious legislation being promoted. Without his insider's voice who else is there in Congress who would fill RP's role as DC's good conscience?
#132. To: scrapper2 (#130)
But then you say after being shocked at the support, he should have jumped ship and run as a Third Party Pres candidate. Wow! That's a tall order for a humble 74 year old obgyn turned Congressman from Texas
#133. To: Cynicom (#109)
The other debates played out much the same way, with Paul seemingly unconcerned by the abuse heaped upon him by his fellow republicans. Anyone remotely vetted in politics cast a jaundiced eye on such apathy.
#134. To: randge (#129)
But then as some cynics will claim, the result is WAR and SOCIALSM. That's the proof in the pudding for those that hold with the "one party" hypothesis.
#135. To: Cynicom (#121)
Never at any time did Paul defend himself, never.
#136. To: scrapper2 (#130)
#137. To: abraxas (#135)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#138. To: Rotara (#137)
Explain Ron Paul and "911 The Official Government Story®" stamp of approval plz...
#139. To: Rotara (#137)
#140. To: Jethro Tull, Rotara (#139)
#141. To: abraxas (#140)
#142. To: Jethro Tull (#141)
how would he enter a new investigation after having dismissed the message of the Truthers? I'm not trying to be argumentative, abraxas, but an open mind is first and foremost to getting to the truth.
#143. To: Jethro Tull (#141)
I understand he wants a new 9-11 investigation, I can't think of anyone who doesn't
#144. To: abraxas (#142)
#145. To: abraxas (#143)
#146. To: Jethro Tull (#145)
he'd be biased for the government version of events if he were leading a new 9-11 investigation.
#147. To: christine (#144)
oh, but it pains me to hear RP blame it on suicide terrorists and OBL--the official government fairy tale, in the second clip.
#148. To: scrapper2 (#134)
#149. To: abraxas (#147)
(Edited)
What do you feel would have been a better response?
#150. To: christine (#149)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest