Bill Maher on the teabaggers...
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 10 years ago
http://www.mediaite.com/t...g-fathers/

Could someone take the video out of that article and post it properly on here please...thanks very much...
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
Once again, Bill was spot on. I looked on YouTube for this, but it is not available.
Top
Posted by Ben Dover (+113) 10 years ago
Are the founding fathers even relevant anymore? They created the kind of country they wanted. Why 200 and some years later should we be stuck with their way of thinking?
Top
Posted by polar bear (+509) 10 years ago
Excellent!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Our Founding Fathers were the intellectually, economically, educationally and socially elite. That's why they had time to think about things like starting a new country and why they were worried about taxes. The average farmer didn't give a hoot. He was too busy surviving.

If "Tea Baggers" consider anyone with a college education 'elitist,' they would have been mighty uncomfortable amongst the wealthy, powerful and well-educated who made up the folks at Independence Hall.
Top
Posted by Leif Hope (+94) 10 years ago
Maher called Thomas Paine an atheist...and as the article corrected, Paine was a deist. Maher is an apatheist, so what was his point in targeting Paine as an atheist?
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
maybe instead of the name calling you folks could try argueing the ideals of the tea party. lower taxes, smaller government, less intrusion of the government in our professional and personal lives. argue those points. and the reason that the founders ideals are relevant is this....what the government does needs to be regulated by the people...federal local and state. so if the people of the nation want a quasi socialistic government in the good times they can certainly have it, however when spending and over regulation get to be too much we have the opportunity to quell the behavior. under the constitution we can go socialist and we can also lean towards self reliance.....socialists are running up against the self reliant people in the country and the last election is just a foreshadowing of things to come. have a nice 2012 commies
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
and to call the founders the rich and the educated is funny..everyone could read in the colonies, education was huge in protestant movement....look it up, it is fact. and as far as rich...washington was not rich, jefferson was not rich..hell he was in debt all his life and died that way. try looking at the honor of the group, they signed the declaration of independence, knowing it was a death sentence. they gave hope to all humans in this country that they could become whatever they wanted to be. they set up the abolition of slavery that was an english law. why do you people hate freedom? the constitution gives you freedom. further more it is the oldest written document to govern a nation in the world. read it and learn its principles and i believe you will appreciate it more. east germans were killed fleeing communist east germany, and when the wall came down they flocked to the west......everyone loves freedom except you folks
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
they set up the abolition of slavery that was an english law.


Right. That's why Jefferson had hundreds of slave during his lifetime. You need to read real history, not Glenn Beck's version. The Declaration of Independence doesn't contain any references to slavery; nor does the Constitution until 1865 with the enactment of the 13th amendment. So what are you talking about?

and as far as rich...washington was not rich, jefferson was not rich..hell he was in debt all his life and died that way


Right. Washington inherited 500 acres of land when his father died. While many of the Founding Fathers were not wealthy, most had good financial situations. They weren't standing on street corners selling vegetables. And they owned property which was the measure of the man in those days. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the folks who signed the of Declaration of Independence but they were people, not gods. Deifying them doesn't benefit anyone.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
ok wendy, the three fifths clause purpose was to bring slavery to an end period you know it said slaves were three fifths a person not that blacks were three fifths a person. there were many more wealthy people in the colonies than the founders, they were middle class to upper middle class citizens and that is a fact. the rich of the time were called the loyalists, and they were loyal to the king because they had the most to loose with the country going to war, win loose or draw. the revolution was fought and the country was created by the middle class and the poor lookin for something better. these are facts.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
My uterus was tasty. And that is a fact.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
the three fifths clause purpose was to bring slavery to an end period you know it said slaves were three fifths a person not that blacks were three fifths a person


Ok, aaron. Here's a history lesson for you. The 3/5 clause was a compromise between the slavery opponents and slavery owners. The slave owners wanted their slaves to be counted in the census so that those states could have more representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Since slaves couldn't vote those who could had more say in those states. The abolitionists didn't want the slaves counted at all. The clause had nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating slavery.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
If "Tea Baggers" consider anyone with a college education 'elitist,


Let me guess, Bill Maher told you...
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 10 years ago
Not to get into this too much, but Jefferson was an anti-slavery slave owner if you can be such a thing. He felt that slavery was morally wrong and favored making it illegal but he was in too much debt to free his own slaves as they were considered collateral by his creditors. He did manage to build himself quite a nice mansion on the other hand. Whether he would have done it if he could have of course, we'll never know, but it's somewhat unfair to say that "he was a slave owner" and leave it at that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...nstitution

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (1/17/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
I don't think there's one right single answer on why the founding fathers are given the deference they are.

But it is accurate to say that they were powerful Enlightenment thinkers that stood at a huge crossroads in history and made the most of it.

The system they constructed to contain power for the sake of freedom has an unparalleled record. I think we're so used to it, we take it for granted somewhat.

But one universal principle I believe they all agreed on was that working against the creep of central power was the duty of every generation, no matter what name that central power gave itself.

I think the people that disagree with that premise are less likely to view the founders as a semi-sacred authority, as some others do.

Oh, and Bill Maher is pretty much a mirror image of the worst 'teabaggers' he makes fun of. The other side of the same coin.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
You know what I love. Literacy. Boy, when people can express themselves clearly, it makes it so much easier to read what they have written. When the writing is a mess, then it makes me suspect their thinking is a mess.

How come Liberals are assumed to hate freedom? I hate to point this out but our Founding Fathers were about as Liberal and Progressive as they came. The Conservatives of the 18th century were Royalists.

I believe that government should be paid for and carefully overseen but the devil is in the details. The farm state folks met recently and after blathering about cutting the deficit, were asked what they wanted to see cut from the next Farm Bill. What subsidies? What programs? What sacrifices were THEY willing to make for the greater good?

You can guess their answer, can't you?

I want my taxes lowered but I also want my services and benefits increased. 'Tis human nature and was always thus. We are particularly short on the concept of 'sacrifice' in this day and age, as rather than tax hikes and rationing, we were asked to buy more crap to support the wars.

Shakes head.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
wendy, here is a lesson in logic...if the debate on how to count slaves was between the slave owners and the abolitionists it would stand to reason that the debate would concern owning slaves or abolishing slavery. and look where that debate ended up.abloitionists 1 slave owners done.

as for bill maher..i wonder if that spineless puke would have the stones to say the koran is full of poop?? you all know the answer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
The sit down strike of 1936 on GM created the middle class and until then there was no such thing as the middle class. Before that you were either rich or poor. Another term for that could be called Feudalism or post industrial Feudalism.

Thomas Jefferson was rich but he became poor financing his own presidency because the government would not pay for the things that modern Presidents take for granted. If foreign dignitaries came to the capital to meet with Jefferson he paid for the meal with his own money. In essence the government was not socialist enough for it to even exist, monetarily.

Anybody that owned land was considered rich in an agrarian economy. Only a white male that owned land could vote.

Lets go back to that way of life, so that people that rent and women could not vote. That sounds great.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
I hate to point this out but our Founding Fathers were about as Liberal and Progressive as they came. The Conservatives of the 18th century were Royalists.


I think I've made that point myself a time or two. But using the brand names used 200-years ago to decide what we should do today doesn't make any sense.

I don't think there's any doubt that the founders saw just as much danger in an unbalanced democracy as they did the Crown.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
amorette, you and your hang up on punctuation....get over your self.

you know i was readin a little Twain....and he used a particular spellin and punctuation style that i am sure you are above also.

speakin of halls of power, would you consider Sarah Palin to be a walkin in them there halls...seeins how she was instrumental in kickin the hell out of the dems this year....halls of power,,, sarah palin looks good in them too.

other than that i agree with you on your last post except that the founders were liberals and progressive. they were constitutional, the opposite of progressive, and the opposite of liberal. the federal government back then had little influence in social issues, those were left up to the individual states to deal with.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
hey stone you are argueing symantics. the idea of middle class may be a new idea but the fact of the matter is that there were people that had nothing, some that had a little, some that had plenty, and some that had more than enough. think about it. we have poor in the united states.compare that to the poor in some third world country. our poor would be considered pretty well off compared to their poor. and to say that jefferson was rich...hell he was in debt all his life man. the man sucked with money.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 10 years ago
Lets go back to that way of life, so that people that rent and women could not vote. That sounds great.


Where's the like button?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 10 years ago
Speaking of Cross-Eyed Palin...Howard stern had a nice little "talk" about her recently. I think you'd enjoy it, aaron. If you have the orchids.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
wendy, here is a lesson in logic...if the debate on how to count slaves was between the slave owners and the abolitionists it would stand to reason that the debate would concern owning slaves or abolishing slavery. and look where that debate ended up.abloitionists 1 slave owners done.


Aaron, here's a lesson in history and nuance The debate was over power, not slavery per se. The less populated southern states wanted more representation. If their slaves were counted they'd have a lot more power in Congress. The North wasn't fooled but compromised by giving them 3/5 of a person per slave because of the extensive economic benefit the southern states provided. Yes, there were abolitionists at that time but this particular constitutional phrase was not the beginning of any slavery debate.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Trust me, Mr. B. You are NO Mark Twain. Say, has anyone picked up the first volume of his autobiography? There should be some fine readin' in that.

And calling the Founding Fathers Constitutional? Ha! Now that is some humor worthy of Twain. Snort. Very funny.
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 10 years ago
I watched me some Glen Beck the last few days. (Dont ask why) And the pablum Mr Bruce has laid out in his posts is almost word for word what has come out of Glen Becks mouth the last few days.
So there ya go.....
An original thought actually does carry some weight here Mr Bruce. And, lo and behold, it actually lends credence to your argument. But when Glen Beck is the source of all your "wisdom", your words don't carry water. You need a bucket to carry your leaky bucket.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
well it seems i need to go back to the third grade for this one....sticks and stones..people...sticks and stones.. cant win in a debate on the topics, so denigrate.......it would appear glenn beck was right. you people were described to the T. congradulations, now answer me this.....how does it feel to know that beck is walkin the halls of power, one of the most powerful men in the country. have you seen his ratings?????and they keep growing and growing..and the truth of the matter is that you are just this poor little group of sniveling children snot nosed and with your hand out...and loosing...
Top
Posted by Ben Dover (+113) 10 years ago
We need a constitutional convention every 50 years in this country to update the constitution to the current times. The notion that the founders were "holier than thou" and thus created an irrevocable document is nonsense.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
The halls of power? Who wants to be the leader of a bunch of lemmings?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
how does it feel to know that beck is walkin the halls of power, one of the most powerful men in the country.


Uh, Mr. Beck is a talk show host. If you think that makes him powerful then no number of lessons will educate you. Maybe for balance you should be watching Oprah?
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
um wendy hello,,,,MLK was a powerful man and he didnt have a television show....but he enspired people, and that is what beck is doing...he is your biggest enemy...and very powerful, but he doesnt exploit his power, he educates. informs...which is more than i can say for you. and to the bendover...what part of the constitution do you want to change? seems to work fine..it is the rules and someone said that if you want the government to follow the rules and spend within its means they are lemmings???you people are so sad, it is pathetic really....I pity you all. what is so wrong with following the damn rules??can anyone answer a question without the denegration?

here is one for you..how to fix health care in the country

first you stop subsidizing colleges and stop the guaranteed student loan program

second you make all health insurance illegal except catastrophic health care

tort reform

tell drug manufacturers in the US that they have to sell their drugs for the same price from country to country.

look no socialism,,actually an elimination of it.

[This message has been edited by aaron bruce (1/18/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
first you stop subsidizing colleges and stop the guaranteed student loan program


All that book learnin really does scare you doesn't it Mr. Bruce.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago

here is one for you..how to fix health care in the country

first you stop subsidizing colleges and stop the guaranteed student loan program

second you make all health insurance illegal except catastrophic health care


Seems non-sequiter to me. How is discontinuing the student loan program going to make any change in "fixing" healthcare? In your opinion how is healthcare "broken" so that it needs "fixed"?

Isn't making healthcare illegal a totalitarian idea. Why should we mandate what services can be marketed in this country? You decry socialist ideas and then promote ideas that are an over-reach to the extreme other side.


tort reform

tell drug manufacturers in the US that they have to sell their drugs for the same price from country to country.

look no socialism,,actually an elimination of it.


Why should drug manufactures not be able to recover their R&D cost? The facts are that drugs cost more here because we require a higher level of assurance about the safety of those drugs. Is there some over-regulation with the FDA? Probably. But mandating that drug companies establish a world-wide price for their product is ridiculous.

Seems like you are not really as liberty and free-market oriented as you want us to believe.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
it seems to me that colleges charge what the students will be loaned by the government. if they could only charge what the people could afford then maybe a doctor wouldnt have to pay back a quarter of a million dollars when they go to work, lowering their cost of doing business.

health care is broken in the fact that insurance companies and lawyers have priced medical attention well above what the average citizen could afford. i paid 140,000 for my sons broken leg. it would have only been 70000 but the hospital screwed up and had to redo the surgery. well i get to pay for their screw up so there you go 140,000.

as far as drug companies go...united states citizens donate, subsidize, and pay for the r&d. we pay for the assurances of the safety of the drug while canada and mexico reap that assurance for free. and it is not unconstitutional to tax a product that is being exported, there by making it cost the same in mexico as it does here at the wholesale level. what happens after that is their business. look we spend a boat load of tax dollars in medical research, if they accept government grants for research then they are not free market.

as far as making health insurance illegal, is prostitution legal? look there is an industry that is outlawed, what about drugs? cant sell cocain, another industry is made illegal, when you price a necessary product out of the reach of the noninsured you have just caused as much problems for society as prostitution and recreational drug sales. they made their product a manditory item to get health care.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
If I read Aaron correctly (and that's never a sure bet)... I think he's calling for Single Payer. I approve.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
bridgier, you want the government to pack your lunch for you too, hows bout the government come over and set your alarm clock so you can get up in the morning...see that is the difference i want to be able to pay my own way. you want me to pay your way for you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Aaron, I'm pretty sure I've got more of your back than you've mine.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
I wonder if Mr. Beck's lack of college education is part of the reason why he despises people with college educations? Could jealousy be part of his ratings ploy? Or does he just know that his audience is also lacking in higher education and wishes to pander to their prejudices?

Were knitting the big ratings grabber, Mr. Beck would be sobbing over a dropped stitch. He is an entertainer, nothing more. And he IS entertaining. Some of the funniest stuff on TV today.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
see that is the difference i want to be able to pay my own way. you want me to pay your way for you.


Noble goal. Reality is however the opportunity for that idea to happen has long passed. The sooner we move to a single payer system the better.
Top
Posted by polar bear (+509) 10 years ago
Based on the type of callers Beck accepts on his show, I would have to say that he fears having to debate educated people--and for good reason..
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 10 years ago
Using this logic, Howard Stern is "walking the halls of power" as one of the country's most powerful men.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
it would have only been 70000 but the hospital screwed up and had to redo the surgery. well i get to pay for their screw up so there you go 140,000.


Uh, why are you paying for the hospital's error? They should eat the extra cost. Have you no balls?

second you make all health insurance illegal except catastrophic health care


I can't wait for the day when the local pusher adds healthcare insurance to his list of goods for sale. "Hey, buddy! Wanna buy some dope low-deductible insurance? For you I'll thrown in some longterm care too."
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
He's all about tort reform, Wendy. He's keeping costs low to benefit all of us, what a pal.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
i guess my idea would work. if it would not work someone would have a reasonable reason why, bonine i am sure that there is more than one way to skin a cat. i want to shrink the government and eliminate its funding of universities and drug companies to acomplish my goals. you want to expand government that has brought us a 14 trillion dollar pile of debt. the time to think clearly is now..the government is a 600 lb child...if operating correctly it should be more like bruce lee. bloated is not effficient, 14 trillion in debt and you want the government to take over health care...i cant wrap my mind around that at all...if that is how most of you think.well then i am glad i am an idiot, cause it dont make no damn sense being as smart as yall.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Disagreeing with your misguided belief that universities and drug manufacturers are the root of all evil and/or somehow responsible for the high cost of health care is not the same as, "MAKE GOVERNMENT BIGGER, WE LOVE DEBT."

Quit listening to the talking heads and start thinking for yourself. When you start repeating what they say, you sound like a hypocrite and a communist (universal drug prices are a commie move).

"Government takeover of health care" is a fallacy, too. When they begin the repeal process, just have a listen what they're going to take away. It's going to sound super, right up until all the goodies get snatched away. Then we're going to get another ear full of "Keep your hands off my Medicare." Hypocrites and communists.

Single payer is really where it's at. You can't imagine the number of mouths a doctor bill is feeding. More payers = more staff.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (1/19/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
First item up for repeal (symbolic, as it will die in the senate or suffer a veto): elimination of the requirement that insurance companies spend 80% of their premium income on claims.

So, if rates rise on most years, but the companies need to be forced to spend that money on patients, what, exactly, is being funded by these "necessary" rate increases?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
i guess my idea would work. if it would not work someone would have a reasonable reason why, bonine i am sure that there is more than one way to skin a cat. i want to shrink the government and eliminate its funding of universities and drug companies to acomplish my goals. you want to expand government that has brought us a 14 trillion dollar pile of debt. the time to think clearly is now..the government is a 600 lb child...if operating correctly it should be more like bruce lee. bloated is not effficient, 14 trillion in debt and you want the government to take over health care...i cant wrap my mind around that at all...if that is how most of you think.well then i am glad i am an idiot, cause it dont make no damn sense being as smart as yall.


I reject the notion that just because it is a "government program" it has to be big, inefficient, and budget busting. This is the United States of America, the land of opportunity and creativity. If we would quit bickering about this issue, and willingly beat or swords into plowshares, we can modify our existing healthcare system (which is pretty darn good) into one that is still excellent and remains or becomes affordable for all. Rather than have individual pools of people in individual plans, and having the costs spread across that small group, we should all join into one pool. The cost for each individual should be lower because it is spread across the entire citizenry.

I think it will actually cost more to remain with some bastardization of the current system, pretending that there is choice and flexible in a semi-free market system than if we just bit the bullet and went to the single payer system. It is the current system that is bloated with regulations to attempt managing costs that is expensive. The longer we delay, the more expensive it is going to get.

As we are the last country in the free-world to adopt some sort of single payer system, we have the distinct advantage of learning from the mistakes of other countries as we modify our system to provide healthcare benefits to the citizen of this country.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (1/19/2011)]
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
all right buck, if a company is taking tax dollars and government grants then the citizens paying them their hard earned money should be the ones reaping cheaper product and not foreign schmucks.if that sounds ludicrous then i am sorry. companies get subsidized by u.s. citizens are not private enterprise they are national socialist organizations. i could give a crap what a private self sustaining enterprise charges for a product, but that does not describe universities or drug companies, now does it.

you are so hung up on going to the doctor and not paying them for their services that you dont see the free market capitolist idea in my proprosal. and you do not even try to see the truth in what i am saying...the reason medical attention is as expensive as it is is because of government and lawyer involvement period. if the health care system were free market with no government intrusion then it would have to lend itself to what the market could bear. and that means people would not have to pay a year or two wages for a week in the hospital. no wonder countries that go socialist dont last, it is based in idealism and not in reality...hell china is more capitolist than the united states, and what happened when they went capitolist??they started kicking our ass in business....so while china becomes america and america becomes russia you lull your self to sleep with the peace of mind that you lived in america in its best times and dont have to suffer the consequences of your pan handeling the world owes me a living doctrines.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
hey bonine, you got an idea of fixing it and i got an idea of fixing it...and you and i debated the issue...you seem to be the only socialist here that is willing to argue correctly, and this was my point to begin with...i am not sure i believe anything i argued. there are unintended consequences with every action. but i wanted to make a point that commies call names and have no logical arguement. you are the only one to prove me wrong on that issue. i do believe you failed to render a compelling arguement that my way is not the cheapest easiest way to fix a problem as i see it. but congradulations to you....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 10 years ago
"but i wanted to make a point that commies call names and have no logical arguement."

You're right, Commie.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
i want to shrink the government and eliminate its funding of universities and drug companies to acomplish my goals.


Mr. Bruce,

Have you thought about what eliminating government funding will do to the medical research departments of universities? It would either eliminate them or require the university to fund them directly from tuition. Have you any idea how that would price most kids out of a college degree? Is that your intent? Do you really want to create an elitist class and widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor?

And have you thought about those folks who suffer from conditions so rare that most commercial research firms don't even bother with them? Much of the research for those diseases comes out of federally funded labs. Would you deny a child born with Batten disease or harlequin ichthyosis a chance for a cure or treatment? Perhaps they had better die and reduce the surplus population.

One thing that many folks don't realize is that education is a vital element of a healthy economy. But in the US what is the first thing that is targeted for decreases when the economy is lagging? Education funding. It's utterly backward. Sometimes I think people are actually afraid of education. WTF? (This means "what the fudge" here in Utah.)

Instead why not focus on eliminating the massive inefficiency that occurs in the military? I'm not talking about reducing our forces, just eliminate the waste and redundancy. It would save millions, if not billions.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
you are right bob, my wanting the federal government to stop giving my money to what should private enterprise is communist. i guess national socialist is the correct definition. isnt that what nazi germany was? pretty sure they were called the national socialist party....so if you want national socialism doesnt that make you like hitler? i guess that is a little off topic but people that are for the health care bill are creating the same government that hitler did. funny isnt it. now lets see you argue that point,,,you cant.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Aaron, I could point you to the literature that shows that malpractice insurance only accounts for 2% or so of health care costs - how wedded are you to the idea that it's the lawyers running up the costs?

Actually, Never mind. I just read your reply to Bob and am going to have to invoke Godwin's law.

There's really no point in interacting with you beyond poking you with a rhetorical stick (which is fun, don't get me wrong), simply because there's no point in it. You're not going to engage any arguments presented to you, you're simply going to call people nazis and scream ahistorical "facts" at us.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/19/2011)]
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
thank you wendy, those are the unintended consequences that i was talking about. i am not an economist, and i am not a fly on the wall in every corner of conversation regarding this issue. but through debate and conversation we learn the unintended consequences and get to make a decision based on what is in the best interest of the people of the country....mounting debt vs medical advancement. colleges trimming their fat and what they pay their staff vs an open check book and a bloated university system...i am not sure what would happen if my plan was implimented, but i am as equally unsure the unintended consequences of a 2000 page bill that no one read before voting on it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
What evidence do you have that the public university system in the US is "bloated and inefficient"? Given the cost of public vs private tuition, I would argue that state universities are an amazing deal for their students.

Yes, a large amount of that tuition is subsidized by taxpayers - but as Wendy pointed out, an educated populace is a productive populace.

What evidence do you have that "no one read" the bill? It was debated and tinkered with for 12+ months prior to passage, anyone who wanted to learn about the contents of the bill had ample opportunity.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
bridgier i am not wed to anything...though i am skeptical of literature that says tort is 2% of health care. does that literature account for malpractice insurance costs? that is where most of the tort expenst comes from.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
hey bonine, you got an idea of fixing it and i got an idea of fixing it...and you and i debated the issue...you seem to be the only socialist here that is willing to argue correctly,


Now THAT is a first. Never been called a socialist before. Do I do my snoopy happy dance or hang my head in shame?
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
nancy pelosi said that you have to pass it to find out what is in it.

when dems were asked if they read it they said no, one said he didnt read it because it was so full of legal ease that you would have to have a lawyer present to understand it.

i believe that they had a couple of days to read the bill that was voted on. not a year.

as far as the universities go, the professors and staff are union, that alone is bloat.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
bonine you want single payer and your stance on that issue makes you a socialist on the issue...as far as other aspects of government i dont know. but a single payer system as obama sees it is government collecting taxes and managing all medical costs...that is socialism buddy
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 10 years ago
"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It's a silly place."

Monty Pythons, The Holy Grail
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Here's the Pelosi quote:
you've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention - it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President's economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation - innovation begins in the classroom - clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.


Not so that the legislators can see what's in the bill, but so that consumers can actually begin to understand the tangible benefits without people shouting about "death panels" and "takeovers" Perhaps it could have been worded better so as not to lend itself to context-free misinterpretation.

Equating union membership with inefficiency is question begging.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Glen beck didnt needno collich edicaation and he noes everathin ther is too no.

Although I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Mr. Beck hires hisself some high-priced Harvard lawyer boys when his contract is up for negotiation.

If socialized medicine is so bad, why aren't we dissolving the VA system? It is true socialized medicine and therefore EVUL.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
why are unions counter productive to business, and inefficient.

how much money do unions make? look at the lifestyle of the union leaders how do they live? who pays for that lifestyle? the workers. so not only do they pay state and federal taxes they pay for the wealth of union leaders. that makes non union workers less expensive, you can pay an non union worker x amount of dollars but you have to pay union workers more for them to take home the same amount as the non union fella. that is just the start of it. I bid against union crews all the time...and i beat them by 30 to 40 percent. every time. odd thing though most government work goes to unions...or it is davis bacon wages so independants have to compete with unions wages when bidding. check out toyota, look at their business model, and look at general motors. then ask your self why they needed a bail out. find out what unfunded liabilities are. then check out california and see why they are bankrupt. unions are a thing of the past..they served their purpose and are cancer on the economy now.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
amorette, finally i can understand what the hell you are saying. way to keep with your stereotype beck is right about you...i finally figured out what you were talkin bout with the halls of power coment...extra strength cough drops,,,good idea since it is cold and flu season. and oh yeah, the va..that is just a model of efficiency, isnt it. that is why the citizens donate millions to help wounded vets...neglected wounded vets..

[This message has been edited by aaron bruce (1/19/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Wal-Mart, the perfect model of effinciency, is union free. You want to meet some people who are satisfied with their jobs and lives? I'm sure you'll find them at Wally World.

That's why your ideas are bad.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
why are unions counter productive to business, and inefficient.


Unicorns are very messy and, frankly, with that big horn are quite dangerous in a store. They can't work a cash register with their hooves and thus must use their horns. So they are very slow.


Oh, wait. You meant unions.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
At least unicorns shower regularly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
Ah, never mind.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 10 years ago
thanks to unions I am alive today...Our health insurance thru the Steel Workers Union saved my life many times over the years...I am deeply grateful to this union and to all of them for standing up for the working man...
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Unions and liberals brought us eight hour days, 40 hour weeks, minimum wage, worker safety, retirement and health care. They are obviously evil.

Are some unions corrupt? They certainly were 30 years ago but that element seems to have moved out. Are they pushing for benefits beyond what are reasonable? It depends on if you are the one receiving the benefits.

Should we go back to the days when you could shoot workers for not going into unsafe mines? I know that would delight the rich and powerful but what about the actual workers? Would that benefit them?
Top
Posted by Maryann McDaniel (+249) 10 years ago
Who today works 40 hour weeks? Not too many people I know in management and in educational positions. Also, if you are a school district employee working in a district that does not pay into social security, you lose all the social security you paid in during prior employment.

For example, I worked all my life -- from age 14 at A&W Rootbeer in Miles City to age 50 in various professions outside of education paying into social security. Today at age 62 I am the mathematics coordinator for a school district. About ten years ago, the feds decided that if you have a retirement system (in Texas TRS), you receive those retirement funds, not any social security, including any you would be entitled to under your spouse's SS. What I am entitled to as a payer into SS is offset by any funds I get from TRS. However, since I have only been an educator for 12 years, my entitlement through our retirement system is quite restricted. And there will not be any supplemental SS.

Soooo, for the rest of my life I will be working because I cannot even think about taking my current income and cutting during retirement to about 38%, with no SS backup. I can, have done, and double checked the math, and I have been screwed. Our retirement system reps confirm my calculations. Several bills were introduced over the past 10 years to correct this, but always failed. I do not see the feds adding us back into the system.

So those of you who receive SS -- enjoy what I contributed -- because I will not..
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
just google union slowdown snow removal new york...
that is what your beloved unions do. besides destroy economies and push socialist agendas through politics. you guys dont want corporations contributing to campaigns but you want unions to be able to contribute...yeah that is fair..
unions are holding tax paying citizens hostage with their out of control greed. montana will be a right to work state...and you will have glen beck to thank for it...people are getting wise to the unions down side except you sheeple. wise up
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
aaron bruce = dead horse
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
montana will be a right to work state...

Rube or toady? Discuss.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 10 years ago
Aaron,

If you want to find out what unions have done for ordinary workers just Google "China sweatshops and the ipad". Young people in China were having heart attacks or dying of exhaustion working 35 hour shifts. Or perhaps you could Google the pay gap between management and workers. I am wondering why you don't carp about how much less the average worker makes compared to management. It used to be somewhere around 40 to 1 now it is 400 to one. Unions protect the little guy. Looks as though you are barking up the wrong tree!
If you are getting your news, (used in a sarcastic manner) from Glen Beck, you are being fed a bunch of BS! And you have no idea what is going on in the world.

I am not sure if you are a so called "patriot", but if you are please enlighten me on what is so patriotic about moving your headquarters over to a small island to avoid paying taxes to the country you purport to love? Or shipping jobs over to a country that does not have a food and drug administration, or a wage and labor board and then selling the "crap" in the US for the same price? Unions will not be the down fall of our country, ignorance will be.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 10 years ago
Maryann,

Not sure what the problem is with your Social Security, but I know lots of people that collect both a pension and Social Security. My husband collected both.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Sounds as if Maryann's problem is the state of Texas.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Texas? Noooo.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
http://www.creators.com/l...chers.html

This specifically addresses Maryann's issue. In short, she is wrong and needs to read this article.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
She's not wrong, she's feeling entitled.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
well souix, general motors union problems was bailed out by united states citizens, so basically the union and obama own general motors right.......well where is their next expansion? what happened to inccandescent light bulb companies? they are gone....done, and why? so that u.s. citizens can only purchase these crappy florsecent light bulbs filled with mercury and made in china....have you seen how to clean up after a breakage of mercury light bulbs? why is there no louisianpacific in belgrade? environmentalists, cmon souix this stuff is elementary.......get enlightened.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
hey guys, now there is a black tea party, the lady interviewed was apotheosis. "new word of the day, had to use it." she was spot on, how all black districts have been run by liberals for the last 40 years and they look like a nuclear bomb went off there. no black business, only rich black politicians.....hehe.......dems and libs are loosing their base because of glen beck and sarah palin,,,,once you loose your base of black people to the truth about you, yall gonna loose ur mexican base too.....liberal ideals create ghettos conservite ideas create nations....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
I'm going with rube.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Rube. And it's not close.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
hey bridgier you can assume what you want. i have presented a more sophisticated arguement than you. more than wendy and certainly more than amorette. as a matter of fact not one person here has presented an arguement that does not have a reasonable rebuttal, and for a rube like me it would seem that your arguements are less than rubish.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 10 years ago
The Government bailed out more companies than just General Motors, or did you forget about AIG, Citi Group, Bank of America and Goldman Sacks? Goldman Sacks received 12 Billion in bailout money and gave out 14 Billion in bonuses. I am sure that Beck et al did not report this, only the companies that had unions. As for your wondering what happened to manufacturing in the US, it is hard to get anyone in America to work a 35 hour shift. Also the wages in China are about $200-300 per month and they work 6 to 7 days a week. Now do you understand what happened to the light bulb companies?

As for the environmentalist, thank god we have people concerned about our surroundings, even a pig knows not to dirty up the place where they sleep.

To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. ~Confucius
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 10 years ago
Souix - He doesn't know what's right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
Mr. Bruce failed his Logic 101 class. Couldn't deal with the Socratic method.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
I will give him credit. Blaming health care costs on higher education is new to me.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
everyone working in a hospital are college educated. as an employer you know this, and when you decide what to pay a person you have to start them out at bare minimum a livable wage. student loans impact what a person needs to get paid to simply make the bills on the first. so you see i am not blaming higher education on more expensive health care but i am incorporating it into the problem. think about how much money is spent on educating medical professionals every year in this country. that is the start of the problem. because those getting the education need to recoup that money.

unions......
ca.19.2 billion
tx.7.4 billion
il.15 billion
ny.9 billion
nj.10.5 billion

these numbers represent the budget gaps in these states. over all there are 113 billion dollars in 40 states worth of budget gaps. now there is a push to pass legislation to create state bankrupcy. this will allow the unions the states and a judge to decide how to fix this mess. and union pensions are probably gonna get a hair cut. this is what unions do to the country. those of you that are pro union and think this is sustainable obviously hate your country. government workers make more than private sector workers. and guess what 70% of montanans work in government jobs, so i cant wait to see what my taxes go up to to pay their unfunded liabilities. that will probably inhibit my ability to put away from my own retirement. thanks guys......later traitors
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 10 years ago
First off, I have skipped a lot of this thread, and I am by no means throwing in with Mr. Bruce's idea that medical professionals are too well educated. It did remind me of something sort of interesting that I heard a few weeks ago.

Peter Thiel Has New Initiative To Pay Kids To "Stop Out Of School"

http://techcrunch.com/201...of-school/

The idea is that potential young entrepreneurs are stifled by student loan debt. Really smart kids get out of places like Stanford $150K in the hole and no matter how bright they are, they can't afford to take a chance on a startup because they have this $1000/month student loan payment and they need a stable job so they wind up languishing in some giant corporate dinosaur like Hewlett Packard where their chances of really changing anything are minimal.

I don't know if he's right but I thought it was an interesting idea. Sorry for the off-topic post.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
government workers make more than private sector workers. and guess what 70% of montanans work in government jobs, so i cant wait to see what my taxes go up to to pay their unfunded liabilities.


No they don't. http://www.epi.org/analys...earn_less/

Public employees doing the same job as a private employee are somewhat under compensated.

70%? Really? Where did you hear this statistic, because it sounds... highish.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
"government workers make more than private sector workers"

By Bob Braun

"Nothing destroys the fun of an argument more than facts. They get in the way of rhetoric and turn black-and-white issues into muddy shades of gray. That's nowhere more true than in the fight over pay for New Jersey public employees.

Leave it to Rutgers, New Jersey's state university, to hold a conference that raises questions about popular contentions - for example, that public employees make much more than private, that they are the highest paid anywhere, or that their numbers are multiplying out of control.

Not necessarily so, say some experts on labor and management relations who presented their findings in New Brunswick the other day. Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at the university's School of Management and Labor Relations, said public employees do not make more than comparable private employees.
Previous coverage:

According to Keefe, comparing private and public employees with the same educational level, experience and work schedule shows private employees make 11 percent more in wages and 5 percent more in total compensation than public workers.

"It's hard to show that public workers are overpaid compared to private sector workers," said Keefe, but he quickly added: "Even though their wages are lower, it's also hard to argue they are underpaid.''

In other words, it's not simple.

Using the latest federal data, Keefe said the average total compensation for workers in the private sector with bachelor's degrees is $89,041 compared with $56,641 for public workers.

For workers with professional degrees - lawyers, say, or doctors - the gap is more dramatic: $175,141 in the private sector, $79,330 in the public..."
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Some might find this interesting: http://www.vanityfair.com...ott-201102

A blogger named David Seaton provided the keenest insight into the tactical superiority of Beck's home-brewed surrealism. "To understand what Beck is doing, to understand him, you must suspend your capacity for rational thought and just let the emotions wash over you and try to take note of them as they assault your endocrine system," Seaton wrote. As America enters the downward slope of empire-its debt mounting, the disparity between wealthy and poor continuing to chasm, the environmental ravages becoming irreversible, high unemployment becoming the cruel norm-the Richie Riches have a vested interest in misdirecting people by blaming the powerless for the sins of the powerful. Incoherence isn't a bug in Beck's software program, it's the primary directive. Seaton: "That is what the Tea Party, Fox, etc is all about: keeping people from thinking straight. The idea is to play on people's emotions: fear, hate, racism, xenophobia, just to keep them from doing the math. The Teabaggers, Beck, [Gingrich] and Fox [News] are often criticized for not making any sense This is not a failure of communication or an error on their part That is the object of the exercise: to make rational thought difficult or impossible due to emotional overload."


Seems to be working.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
think about how much money is spent on educating medical professionals every year in this country. that is the start of the problem. because those getting the education need to recoup that money


Mr. Bruce is correct that medical professionals often come out of college with a lot of debt which requires them to have higher salaries to cover their living expenses. But what is his alternative to this? I certainly want my surgeon to have had a high quality education before he cuts into me. That kind of education is expensive. I think what's happened is Mr. Bruce has let his unfortunate experience with his son's broken leg overshadow his reason. It seems to me that it would be better to subsidize medical professionals' education so that they wouldn't need such massive starting salaries. Perhaps some of the farmers could give up some of their subsidies.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
everyone working in a hospital are college educated.


Tell it that to the asswipers, receptionists, billers, housekeepers, food prep folks, and all the other people that make a hospital go and get no credit. Heck, tell that to everyone in every business that you find evil and overeducated.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
If 70% of the people in Montana are government workers, that would account for our low per capita income, because government workers earn less than employees in the public sector. Of course, the 70% of workers in Montana being employed by the government is a made-up number someone hallucinated.

Education is expensive. Deal with it. And then get some and stop being envious of people who have it.

No, not everyone who works at the hospital has a college degree. My guess is the majority of employees do NOT have post secondary educations because the majority of employees are not the health care professionals but the support staff. And they deserve every dime they earn and then some because imagine how lovely a hospital visit would be if there were no one to clean or cook or do the laundry.

Also, remember that medicine is not an exact science. Sometimes the horse does turn out to be a zebra or someone has an unexpected reaction or all the tests in the world can't explain what is wrong because the human body is damned complicated. However, I want the person figuring it out to be the smartest and best educated they can be.

Unions are also not the cause of your failure to achieve. For starters, a smaller and smaller percentage of American workers are covered by unions. Employers like Wal-Mart will shut down a store that tries to unionize.

Miles City used to have unions for every carpenter, every plumber, every food server, every musician. They no longer exist. I don't know if this is for the best but blaming something like 30% of the population for all the economic ills we suffer is stupid. It wasn't union employees who screwed over the banking sector. Nor was it public employees.

Making up people to blame for your failures or for the real problems facing us do not deal with the situation. Getting facts (actual facts, not Faux News pseudo-facts), asking questions of both sides of an issue, THINKING FOR YOURSELF, and trying to determine the best solution is the way to solve problems, not calling names and making stuff up.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Mr. Bruce wrote:
everyone working in a hospital are college educated.



I are college educated too.
Top
supporter
Posted by Dona Stebbins (+819) 10 years ago
I are, too.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
I are another college graduate.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
well there we go, say what you will to denegrate me. i could care less. i certainly spawned some good debate, and presented yall with something to think about. i live in the gallatin valley and the impact of the university on the state and bozeman is a topic discussed daily, pro and con. the impact locally here is huge, and in the state it is also an entity that has both negative and positive impact. take for instance affordable housing in bozeman, that is a problem in bozeman. and that is just one of the cons, while on the other side property values are good.
I hunt, and upon deciding on a rifle to use i had to think about recoil verses energy and trajectory of the bullet. what i have found is that there is a happy medium in calibres, the 7mm mag. tolerable recoil, and enough horse power to get the job done on most of north americas big game. the approach to government and spending is similar, you gotta find a happy medium. the unions up the pay grade for non union shops, and that is good. but they are getting too powerful, do they have a purpose, i dont know anymore. without them could we see employers exployting its employees? possibly. but if the unemployment rate is 3% then the employers would need to pay better to keep good employees. so you see there is a happy medium to sustain any entity. there is no perfect, and universities need to become more efficient as does unions, and government. but the fact that yall are willing to listen to me and discuss the issue is a start. i am not sure that you know any more than i do as far as the facts of the topic but we are headed in the right direction....finally
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
look up the numbers of montana citizen governmental employees, you will be shocked. look up unfunded liabilities and who causes it, and find out how much the states and the federal government is going to have to pay..i believe that is part of the socratic method.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
hey amorette what are some of the potential down falls of union workers having discovered this country, settled it and explored it? foughting for the liberation of the country? what are the pros and cons? please do not let ideology or smart assed coments polute your response, just historical fact. where would we be right now?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
More heads in barrels of concrete?
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 10 years ago
Oops. I will have to post from my account. Sorry, dear.

[This message has been edited by Steve Allison (1/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Mr. Bruce:

Can you share your views on:

--- Immigration
--- Bilingual education

with this forum?

Thanks in advance.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
I think Mr. Bruce was making a joke but it is hard to tell. I can't see any other reason for that ramble about the founding fathers and unions.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
mr bruce needs to watch this evening's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher. It would make his head spin. I'll post some clips if I can find them.
Top
Posted by aaron bruce (+193) 10 years ago
we have laws regarding immigration. they need to be followed. i think that we need to adopt mexicos emmigration laws. that would be fair in my opinion. all the leftists want mexicans to be able to vote so they got a larger base to press thier agenda. it has nothing to do with what is right. look at how they treat black republicans, gay republicans, republican women....

i lived in houston texas, and unless you have lived around illegal mexicans you can not speak intelligently on this topic. well i have lived around them...and they create ghettos. they take a nice predominantly hispanic area and destroy it. the majority of legal mexicans and hispanic citizens, people whose families have been here longer than some european people, are pissed over this invasion of people wanting nothing more than to exploit their country. there are a boat load of hispanics in this country whose ancestors fought mexico to become a state, and now we got people spitting on what their forefathers died for. and if you want bilingual you saddle the debt....did you not read the previous posts? we cant afford to teach our children in one language, and now you want to double down? that is something moronic people would do.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Mr. Bruce:

I know a bunch of illegal immigrants who use better English than you. Just sayin'.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
Found it...



DAMN!

[This message has been edited by Kelly (1/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 10 years ago
Yeah, I tried to watch your video but HBO had already zapped it away...thanks for trying at least...
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
So the attempt was "Mahered"
Top