Leftist societal parasites HATED the Apollo program

On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:02:18 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

Interesting analysis, Mike.

The simple explanation is also the correct one:

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/re...ag/chronic.htm

However, even simple is beyond your comprehension.

wrote:
On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:02:18 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

Interesting analysis, Mike.

The simple explanation is also the correct one:

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/re...ag/chronic.htm

However, even simple is beyond your comprehension.

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

On Friday, September 19, 2014 4:40:20 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

However, even simple is beyond your comprehension.

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

That link is -simplistic-, not simple. Although, under "caveats," it does begin to touch on the truth somewhat, the article's "conclusion" seems to be

"This leaves us with the theory that higher drug and imaging prices, along with higher physicians' fees and income are driving our healthcare costs"

which is of course nothing but very thinly veiled leftist propaganda.

Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:02:18 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

Interesting analysis, Mike.

The simple explanation is also the correct one:

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/re...ag/chronic.htm

However, even simple is beyond your comprehension.

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/201...sversuseurope/

They miss a huge source of extra cost, the inefficiency caused by the
insertion of insurance companies into the healthcare system.
You have to pay all these salaries of useless middlemen.
The dominance of small hospitals in the US and lack of central bargaining
power also contributes to this waste of money.


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ.../mirror-mirror

On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:13:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:35:04 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

On Friday, August 15, 2014 9:58:19 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:



On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:38:52 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:



The excise tax collected on cigarettes does not automatically pay smokers' health care costs.



No reason it can't be used for that, however.



No reason they should use state resources to care for people who willingly harm themselves. People who do that should be institutionalized.



Taxes collected on cigarettes do not begin to cover the external cost of tobacco use.

True. One reason they banned it in businesses and public buildings is the cost of cleaning the places where it is used and the devaluation of property values. A second-hand car used by a smoker is worth at least $2000 less than a non-smoker's car.

Debate is what they do in democracies to pretend that they are discussing all sides of an issue. The leader of the party with a majority then makes a decision based on motives and agendas completely unrelated to the public debate. The larger their majority the more they can afford to ignore all dissenting voices. Party discipline ensures that only the foolish and the brave speak out. The all-powerful leader ensures party member compliance by threatening expulsion or loss of perks and opportunity. Much as do religious organisations.

We may hate the dictators of every shade from communism to fascism but they are intrinsically no different from the broken mess we call democracy. Those seeking election can tell any lies they like and their electorate will still choose them despite everything. Who you actually vote for matters not a jot. What the candidates claim they will do, once safely in power, is always garbage. The party members have no power. Neither when in power nor in opposition. They are as powerless as the man in the street to achieve any positive change.

To have a heated debate on politics is to show complete ignorance of the real truth. Democracy is a public sham. Supported and endlessly discussed by the mutually-parasitic media. Left and right are football team colours with no meaning except to their loyal fans. Tribal headdresses, masks, tattoos and Apple iSlave and coffee worship mere symptoms of the day.

A closely balanced democracy ensures that the wishes of almost 50% of the electorate are completely ignored for a fixed period. Voting on any single issue is no different from praying for a lottery win. You get no more than you deserve. This is not paranoia and I point no fingers. To do otherwise is to cloud the real issues. It quickly becomes empty racism or class hatred..

If we could rely on least damage management it might be something. In the absence of a voice, youth can only turn to revolution. There is no other way to be heard in a broken democratic system. Youth is easily bent to follow any whim or cause. It's loyalties are easily bought. Their energies usually wasted through heated discussion on the minutiae and complete irrelevancies. Arming them will only lead to a bloodbath and cancel out the demands for change. There is far too much emotion and not nearly enough logical thought when everybody else is an enemy of your own cause.

The constant trend to democratic dictatorship and obscene, economic inequality is driving our race ever closer to an extinction event. Migration of such large numbers of people is rapidly diluting the social standards once held dear. As robots and cheap "foreign" labour undermine our core values and respect for our traditional neighbours we allow our potential enemies to live right amongst us. Ironically, it may be mass surveillance which saves us from the coming chaos more than the over-hyped, security leaks.

We place increasing trust in global, untaxed, commercial monopolies with incredibly doubtful morals. Their drive for personal wealth and power exceeds greatly their ability to provide for our own security and safety. Add in the increasingly ineffectual societal controls and incredibly weak political leadership [often without any clear or recognisable mandate] and it can only end in tears.

A man without a paid job, or an education, is like a dying man. He has no investment in society so cannot benefit from inclusion. He has nothing to lose except the pent up anger at the hideous unfairness of it all. He who professes anger automatically becomes an enemy of the state. A self-reinforcing, positive feedback loop to global chaos and sprawling prison camps guarded by robots.

On Monday, 22 September 2014 23:00:12 UTC+2, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Perhaps now with automation, the kind of workers that were vital to the economy back in 1905 are obsolete? How do we distribute the wealth being generated, or do we even want to?

The advancing tidal wave of intelligent automation is terrifyingly similar to the societal abyss of the agricultural revolution in Europe. There were no safety nets back then. The loss of a farming job literally meant the loss of the roof over their heads and food in their family's bellies.

The threat of starvation drove hundreds of millions to the cities. Where many paid to lean on a rope in some stinking attic. Rather than try to survive overnight on the dangerous streets. Or paid to share dank cellars with literally hundreds of others in appalling, unsanitary conditions. Many left as ballast on the trans-Atlantic ships. Probably robbing Europe of many potential entrepreneurs.

No doubt the rich of the time sneered at this underclass as being non-contributory to their own wealth accumulation. Yet few saw the advantage of providing jobs and affordable services and reasonable accommodation to lift those desperate millions out of their abject misery. NO doubt there were a few new jobs as prison guards. Some built dark satanic mills to house their highly profitable slaves and made a vast fortune. While simultaneously aggrandizing themselves by building a new church near their suitably vast, sprawling mansion. While simultaneously acting as the local magistrate. What price justice from a dyed-in-the wool sociopath?

The unemployed, which the wealthy so detest (as non-contributory) are often the collateral damage from takeovers and export of manufacturing capacity. "Lean manufacturing" and efficiency drives increased profits and dividends for the parasitic investor. But how many other real people became direct victims of this unchecked greed?

Who exactly were these "big name" companies competing against when "competition" was actually just another name for reducing real jobs at home? Wasn't it really a remote competition between Asian slave drivers? Those most willing to pay their slaves less and erase their slave's working rights and conditions to ensure a nice, fat contract?

And we are supposed to admire those same company directors [and investors] who manufactured this fake "global competition" just to maximize their own wealth? Why is this behaviour admired simply because it makes even greater wealth for the true parasites of our world? i.e.The non-contributory investors and their equally immoral bankers.

All of this does not bode well for the future of human society. AI and automation threaten the loss of countless "safe" jobs throughout the present workforce. All rule-based employment will soon vanish along with their manufacturing cousins.

There is precious little sign of any new technology to take up the dangerous slack. The unemployed cannot afford to invest in solar panels to take unfair advantage of middle class tax breaks! By the time solar is truly affordable there will be no customer base left.

No job ever exists in isolation. Each and every job lost is a new hole in the fragile network of local and regional service providers. Before you know it the industrial estate is growing weeds and the high street is completely devoid of once thriving shops. The cascade effect can still be seen in many parts of Europe. And what did their governments do? They punished the unemployed and cut their benefits. More positive feedback to the coming chaos..

On 9/22/2014 3:24 AM, Chris.B wrote:

We may hate the dictators of every shade from communism to fascism
but they are intrinsically no different from the broken mess we call
democracy. Those seeking election can tell any lies they like and
their electorate will still choose them despite everything. Who you
actually vote for matters not a jot. What the candidates claim they
will do, once safely in power, is always garbage. The party members
have no power. Neither when in power nor in opposition. They are as
powerless as the man in the street to achieve any positive change.

That said, democracy (in the USA) does allow for individual citizens to
have hope in the very system of laws they (voluntarily) agree to have
regulate their lives.

If they don't like it, they are totally free to leave the country, but
more importantly, equally free to stay and fight for what they believe
is a better way without too much concern for reprisal from the
government itself.

Democracy is also a primary motivator in people taking personal
responsibility for their lives rather than developing dependence on
government programs. It is in fact how most of us define the foundation
of our freedom and our independence.

There are those who choose to either live on or benefit from public
funds extracted from private citizens and corporations through taxation,
and they are a drag on the economy. But worse, those includes not only
individuals, but collectives of individuals who incorporate.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:59:59 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul wrote:
On 9/22/2014 3:24 AM, Chris.B wrote:



We may hate the dictators of every shade from communism to fascism

but they are intrinsically no different from the broken mess we call

democracy. Those seeking election can tell any lies they like and

their electorate will still choose them despite everything. Who you

actually vote for matters not a jot. What the candidates claim they

will do, once safely in power, is always garbage. The party members

have no power. Neither when in power nor in opposition. They are as

powerless as the man in the street to achieve any positive change.



That said, democracy (in the USA) does allow for individual citizens to

have hope in the very system of laws they (voluntarily) agree to have

regulate their lives.



If they don't like it, they are totally free to leave the country, but

more importantly, equally free to stay and fight for what they believe

is a better way without too much concern for reprisal from the

government itself.



Democracy is also a primary motivator in people taking personal

responsibility for their lives rather than developing dependence on

government programs. It is in fact how most of us define the foundation

of our freedom and our independence.



There are those who choose to either live on or benefit from public

funds extracted from private citizens and corporations through taxation,

and they are a drag on the economy. But worse, those includes not only

individuals, but collectives of individuals who incorporate.

As citizens we are all quite dependent on our government services, not just the poor, but everybody. We depend on the government for our common defense, for our roads and bridges, airports and seaports, the regulation of our airwaves, our justice system, general education, our health in case of epidemics and pandemics, the purity of our food, water and air, regulation of various civil engineering codes and standards, weights and measures, regulation of commerce both here and with overseas entities, financial regulations, and so on.

I have barely scratched the surface. As citizens we deem these to be important functions which cannot or should not be privatized. We all benefit from them. people like these government services and countless more, but nobody really likes to pay taxes to support them. I feel that taxes buys us all a high level of security and civilization. I don't know any other way to pay for them.

On Wednesday, 24 September 2014 00:59:59 UTC+2, Stephen Paul wrote:

That said, democracy (in the USA) does allow for individual citizens to

have hope in the very system of laws they (voluntarily) agree to have

regulate their lives.



If they don't like it, they are totally free to leave the country, but

more importantly, equally free to stay and fight for what they believe

is a better way without too much concern for reprisal from the

government itself.



Democracy is also a primary motivator in people taking personal

responsibility for their lives rather than developing dependence on

government programs. It is in fact how most of us define the foundation

of our freedom and our independence.



There are those who choose to either live on or benefit from public

funds extracted from private citizens and corporations through taxation,

and they are a drag on the economy. But worse, those includes not only

individuals, but collectives of individuals who incorporate.

An interesting twist which completely ignores the global monopolies which enjoy the fruits of their country's protection and support without paying [taxes] for them. How is Google's "personal responsibility" any different from the "layabouts" you so despise and which drove you to post your later paragraphs?

"Non-contribution" is still the name of the game even if they do employ a lot of people who actually do pay some tax. Google is just the tip of the iceberg in global, corporate, tax "avoidance" schemes. As are plenty of millionaires and billionaires. You really can't have it both ways. One rule for the rich and another for the poor has started quite a few revolutions when there was no cake to be had anywhere. Not unless you took it by force.

Democracy may be the world's present best bet, at least so far, but most national elections are so flawed by wealth that they might as well not exist. Just let them choose each other and let them get on with the job. It would be no different from the present reality.

You could also say that executive decisions, made when the elected representatives shut down for all business which does not suit their extreme party dogma, further distances the electorate from wielding any power.[At all]

Moreover, the protester is very likely to become an enemy of the state just for daring to question his elected representatives' morals and hidden agendas. Why should a tax payer go abroad to protest at his/her total lack of representation?

The man in the street is supposedly the buyer of one unit of democratic power. He is a customer who should enjoy some rights and guarantees for putting his one-man-one-vote token into the one-arm-bandit election machine. The elected are the suppliers of a service and are thus the servants of the voting public. There's precious little sign of that in any recognisable, Western democracy.

Meanwhile, Europeans can't even elect those few who rule their every waking moment. Their vote for their national parliaments and even the European Parliament, offer far worse odds of producing [any] change than even the American gambler with his token vote. Fortunately [?] those in power so far are a bunch of rather benign, reverse-Robin Hoods. What if this changes for the worse?

Non-contribution to society is rarely a deliberate choice. It is often the symptom of a lack of say about anything relating to one's life. Feeling powerless, unemployed through other's actions, poor living conditions, poor security and being poorly educated by order of the day are not the stuff for building loyal members of any society. You don't need a regular, subsistence job, nor even an education, when the rich [who so detest you] need your drugs to shield them from the chronic pain of modern life.

According to the statistics at least half of all American are taking active, but slow steps towards eventual suicide. By means of drugs, alcohol, lack of exercise or dangerous obesity they all march to an early grave. It seems as if they are opting out of living a full and contributory life en-masse! The bloodthirsty media list the violent deaths by crime. While largely ignoring the millions who shuffle more quietly to their own deaths. Each at god knows what expense to those they leave behind.