Health Care Debate

[BoulderDawg]

Just heard today there is some movement in getting the bill through congress.

Sen. Snow(GOP-Maine) has just agreed to vote for the bill in committee.

Hopefully we can get this though and all Americans can have health care.

The latest threats from the health care industry to triple prices if the bill went though are simply disgraceful. I guess they worried that the billions they make in profits will be reduced. Greed and shame.

[xcakid]

Sure would love to have someone else pay for my knee surgery. :D

[BoulderDawg]

That would be your choice. You could either pay for out of your own pocket and maybe have some private practice rick folks doctor work on you or you could have the surgery in a public hospital with the government paying the entire bill.

Either way you would get the same quality of treatment.

In any case I admire Sen Burris who has said he will absolutely not vote for a bill without the public option.

[xcakid]

That would be your choice. You could either pay for out of your own pocket and maybe have some private practice rick folks doctor work on you or you could have the surgery in a public hospital with the government paying the entire bill.

Either way you would get the same quality of treatment.




Government paying the bill??

Same type of care??

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH :D

No it's some other poor hard working fV<k paying for the bill.
And it will be the bargain basement doctor that will be performing my surgery cause the "goverment" will not pay out the patootie for it. And if something goes wrong, that bargain basement doctor will not be liable.

I know one person whose grandma is in Canada that had to come here for surgery because the "government" was taking too long to approve her surgery even though her pain was so bad she was bed ridden 50% of the time.

I have a cousin in the UK. Healthy as hell, yet she is paying for health care for all the lazy a$$e$ that "can't afford" healthcare. Which seems to be growing each year. Why bother doing anything meaning full to make money and get taxed like crazy when "the goverment will provide" A friend also in the UK who's family come here to the US to get surgery done cause the "government" option doctors are incompetent.

There's the reality of socialized health care you will never hear about. No thanks!!

[BoulderDawg]

Then what's the problem? Obama has already said people like you can keep their medical coverage and do whatever they like. So under his plan you're going to able to have your private white rich folks doctor.....good luck to you.

However the rest of us will now also be able to get medical care without having to make a choice between medical care or our kids eating for the next year.

[1bad65]

Why bother doing anything meaning full to make money and get taxed like crazy when "the goverment will provide"

And that is why socialism is ALWAYS doomed to fail.

Excellent post. ;)

[xcakid]

However the rest of us will now also be able to get medical care without having to make a choice between medical care or our kids eating for the next year.

So I should bust my a$$ so that I can be taxed like crazy and barely afford to provide for my own family so you can have health care. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN CRAP!! I'LL TAKE CARE OF MY OWN FAMILIES BILLS. HOW BOUT THAT.

[BoulderDawg]

So I should bust my a$$ so that I can be taxed like crazy and barely afford to provide for my own family so you can have health care. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN CRAP!! I'LL TAKE CARE OF MY OWN FAMILIES BILLS. HOW BOUT THAT.

That's right. By the way my tax dollar paid for that road you're driving on. Get the hell off of my road.

[xcakid]

That's right. By the way my tax dollar paid for that road you're driving on. Get the hell off of my road.

The problem with the logic is my tax dollars also pays for the road. However, my tax dollars paid for welfare and I don't see a dime for it. Yet I see people driving BMW's while using food stamps. See it at WalMart over here all the time.

My tax dollars paid for apartments for Katrina "victims" years afterwards. I too was in New Orleans and was displaced, yet I worked my behind to get a job 3 months after relocating to Dallas without a dime of govt. help. Did not even draw unemployment. So how about people just become a contributor to society instead of just sticking their hand out and making excuses for their misgivings.

Contribute to society, work hard get what you got. Do not look for handouts. The government is not your daddy and mommy or anyones personal cash machine. Take care of your own.

I say cut welfare. That is enabling people to drain the working class. F'ing MacDonalds is hiring all the time. Oh wait you can't support 6 kids with that kind of money. Why the F' did you have 6 kids in the first place? I should not have to support stupidity and lack of discipline.

[BoulderDawg]

The problem with the logic is my tax dollars also pays for the road. However, my tax dollars paid for welfare and I don't see a dime for it. Yet I see people driving BMW's while using food stamps. See it at WalMart over here all the time.

My tax dollars paid for apartments for Katrina "victims" years afterwards. I too was in New Orleans and was displaced, yet I worked my behind to get a job 3 months after relocating to Dallas without a dime of govt. help. Did not even draw unemployment. So how about people just become a contributor to society instead of just sticking their hand out and making excuses for their misgivings.

Contribute to society, work hard get what you got. Do not look for handouts. The government is not your daddy and mommy or anyones personal cash machine. Take care of your own.

I say cut welfare. That is enabling people to drain the working class. F'ing MacDonalds is hiring all the time. Oh wait you can't support 6 kids with that kind of money. Why the F' did you have 6 kids in the first place? I should not have to support stupidity and lack of discipline.

According to your profile you are unemployed. So that means your tax dollars aren't going anywhere because you don't have any!:D

Just who exactly is paying for the roof over your head?

[xcakid]

According to your profile you are unemployed. So that means your tax dollars aren't going anywhere because you don't have any!:D

Just who exactly is paying for the roof over your head?

Just never updated my profile since I signed up.

[1bad65]

Xcakid is owning the thread.

[BoulderDawg]

Xcakid is owning the thread.

Looks like that's about all he owns!:eek::D

[BoulderDawg]

I noticed this guy shut up once I pointed out he is one of these people "sticking their hand out and making excuses for their misgivings".

This guy is the absolute worse type of hypocrite. He sits on his ass all day long expect mommy and daddy to pay his bills then he has the gall to complain about people getting aid to feed their kids. No wonder Bad loves this guy so much.

Also I don't have to advertise on a Kung Fu BB for women. As far as I know he's the only one here doing that. He should put that on a flyer and go stable it around his local high school. There is a lot of 17 year old girls there. What a creepo!:eek:

[xcakid]

Dude if you must know. I work for a financial services firm here in Dallas. Have been a bond trader for 14yrs now. I worked in New Orleans in 2005 and got displaced due to hurricane Katrina. I was unemployed for 3 mos until I decided to do some contracting work. In that time frame, I did not collect unemployment or even go to FEMA for a handout.

I got laid off back in 2003 and was unemployed for 9mos. And yes I did use unemployment for 3 of those 9mos. That's it. I lowered my sights after realizing I was not getting back to a salary I was accustomed to. I sold cars, worked as a teller at a bank and worked my way up to being a financial advisor. Then got the position in NOLA.

I come from a middle class immigrant family. Graduated College. Served in the US Military, Navy, for 4yrs active and 2 years reserves.

I have been working since I was sixteen. From working at McDonalds to waiting tables.

I quit answering your post because your views are idiotic and it will never change. There is no point in arguing with an idiot on the internet.

So make no mistake, I practice what I preach.

[xcakid]

Oh and my sig line is a joke :D

[Drake]

Dude if you must know. I work for a financial services firm here in Dallas. Have been a bond trader for 14yrs now. I worked in New Orleans in 2005 and got displaced due to hurricane Katrina. I was unemployed for 3 mos until I decided to do some contracting work. In that time frame, I did not collect unemployment or even go to FEMA for a handout.

I got laid off back in 2003 and was unemployed for 9mos. And yes I did use unemployment for 3 of those 9mos. That's it. I lowered my sights after realizing I was not getting back to a salary I was accustomed to. I sold cars, worked as a teller at a bank and worked my way up to being a financial advisor. Then got the position in NOLA.

I come from a middle class immigrant family. Graduated College. Served in the US Military, Navy, for 4yrs active and 2 years reserves.

I have been working since I was sixteen. From working at McDonalds to waiting tables.

I quit answering your post because your views are idiotic and it will never change. There is no point in arguing with an idiot on the internet.

So make no mistake, I practice what I preach.

SQUIDDDDDD!!!! :p

Just kidding, bro... thanks for your service. :D

[ittokaos]

Class bro. That is all I can say, my hat's off to you. Thanks for putting that up but you never had to. It is foolish to argue with someone that speaks about what they dont know and when confronted by one that does, gets personal. That is just a sign of immamurity that i myself struggle with and I know that when i get like that it is because I lost and have nothing else to say.

[BoulderDawg]

Dude if you must know. I work for a financial services firm here in Dallas. Have been a bond trader for 14yrs now. I worked in New Orleans in 2005 and got displaced due to hurricane Katrina. I was unemployed for 3 mos until I decided to do some contracting work. In that time frame, I did not collect unemployment or even go to FEMA for a handout.

If your going to lie at least pay attention to your time line.....you joined 01/07 when you said you were unemployed.

Also Joke? Sure man!:D If I was you I would put that little "joke" on my resume! Employers like funny employees.

[solo1]

since when is anyone "entitled" to health care that is funded on someone elses back? The government is there to produce things we cant do for ourselves namely a military. There is no where in our founding documents that says a word about taxing one guy to death to make sure some slob has access to health care. If anything it should be a states rights issue. If in my case Ohio wants to provide a safety net for some then fine, put it up for a vote but for the federal government to attempt to ram this power grab down our throats is cause for alarm and a strong reaction from the taxpayers, which it has gotten. Maybe Obama could do something beside jetting off to Paris with his wife for date night on our tab and shore up our borders ( defense againest threats foriegn and domestic). Maybe he could give the US military the supplies and manpower they are asking for for Afghanistan instead of bowing to Saudi kings and apologizing to tin pot dictators for Americas existence.

[1bad65]

There is no where in our founding documents that says a word about taxing one guy to death to make sure some slob has access to health care. If anything it should be a states rights issue.

Thank you. 100% true.

Of course the Constitution doesn't say a "pay czar" has the right to dictate what people at PRIVATE companies earn either, but that won't stop Obama.

[Drake]

I do believe it is explicitly mentioned that all powers not mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the States.

[BoulderDawg]

There is no where in the Constitution that says the state has to provide for roads. No where in the Constitution that says churches should be tax exempt. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

There is a lot of stuff not in the Constitution. My Constitution doesn't say anything about fighting wars against countries that have not attacked us.

I can't decide how my tax money is spent. If it was up to me the war machine would not get a penny.

I believe there will be a health care plan that includes a public option. Of course once the neos get another conservative president in there he can end all of those programs if he likes.

Truth is the neos have simply ran out of argument and the people want the plan. Of course as I've said rich white neos can opt out of any plan but that's not good enough for them. As seen on this board they truly don't believe people who who can't afford health care should be treated.......I'm glad I'm a liberal!:D

[1bad65]

I do believe it is explicitly mentioned that all powers not mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the States.

You are correct.

[Drake]

Wrong, BD. Congress has the right to wage war, regardless of what you think of it. And the Gulf of Tonkin resolution provides the Executive Branch rights to send troops in during times of emergency, and has been used before Iraq and GWOT took place.

Taxation is also covered in the Constitution as well, and was heavily supported by the founders of the nation, in moderation. The States also have the right to tax you.

You are remarkably ignorant when it comes to what the fed and states can and cannot do. Read the thing instead of simply guessing.

[Drake]

And since I KNOW you are too lazy to read it, here you go, ignorant fella.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution (officially, the Southeast Asia Resolution, Public Law 88-408) was a joint resolution of the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964 in response to two alleged minor naval skirmishes off the coast of North Vietnam between U.S. destroyers and Vietnamese torpedo ships from the North, known collectively as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty." This included involving armed forces. The unanimous affirmative vote in the House of Representatives was 416-0. (However, Congressman Eugene Siler of Kentucky, who was not present but opposed the measure, was "paired" with another member who favored the resolution — i.e., his opposition was not counted, but the vote in favor was one less than it would have been.) [1] It was opposed in the Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK). Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated." [2] The Johnson administration subsequently relied upon the resolution to begin its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict.[3]

Which lead to...

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.



You have NEVER backed up your facts. Not once. Yet you still tatter on with groundless accusations with nothing to show for it. You are playing one huge burden of truth logical fallacy. Epic FAIL.

[BoulderDawg]

What's you point other then a bunch of insults?

War hasn't been declared since WW2 and no where did I read the word "Moderation" when it came to taxes.....

You don't have much of an argument but you're reaklly good at rudeness and insults....a true neo!:D

[Drake]

I read that as "I got nothin' "

You can't even read the references correctly. Weak. No wonder you fall for con artists.

And FYI... I was an Obama supporter. Again. Wrong. You're like, what... 0 for 300?

[1bad65]

LMAO at a liberal complaining about taxes.

[1bad65]

You can't even read the references correctly. Weak. No wonder you fall for con artists.

:D


And FYI... I was an Obama supporter.

I'm curious, are you one of those voters who now has 'buyers remorse'?

[Drake]

:D



I'm curious, are you one of those voters who now has 'buyers remorse'?

Not really. I think he overestimated his influence going in, and I also think he misjudged the situation with GWOT. Human mistakes, really, just like his predecessor. I think, if anything, he now understands what Pres. Bush was going through. He's finding out it's not so simple.

[1bad65]

Not really. I think he overestimated his influence going in, and I also think he misjudged the situation with GWOT. Human mistakes, really, just like his predecessor. I think, if anything, he now understands what Pres. Bush was going through. He's finding out it's not so simple.

GWOT? :confused:

[Drake]

GWOT? :confused:

Global War on Terror

[1bad65]

While I won't sit here and say Bush handled it perfectly, you must admit America is alot safer from terrorism in the US than under Clinton.

[BoulderDawg]

While I won't sit here and say Bush handled it perfectly, you must admit America is alot safer from terrorism in the US than under Clinton.

Tell that to the families of the three thousand people who died in New York, Penn, and Washington on 9/11.

[Drake]

I wouldn't attribute our "safety" to any president, especially considering the fact that we are still extremely vulnerable to attack, and considering TSA and security faults around the nation. We are not safe, safer, or defeating terror, due largely to the fact that it cannot be defeated. We thwart terrorists left and right, but there is always the potential for the next 9/11. Like my 1SG said downrange... " Hajji only has to be lucky once... we have to be lucky every day."

[1bad65]

I wouldn't attribute our "safety" to any president, especially considering the fact that we are still extremely vulnerable to attack, and considering TSA and security faults around the nation. We are not safe, safer, or defeating terror, due largely to the fact that it cannot be defeated. We thwart terrorists left and right, but there is always the potential for the next 9/11. Like my 1SG said downrange... " Hajji only has to be lucky once... we have to be lucky every day."

I think Bill Clinton erecting the 'Wall of Silence' between the FBI and CIA made the US alot less safe.

And I think Bush taking a hardline approach in fighting terror (Gitmo, deposing and hanging Saddam) have made the country safer. Not completely safe by any means, but safer than under Clinton.

[Drake]

I don't think we've been safe since Reagan.

[1bad65]

I don't think we've been safe since Reagan.

Man, did he know how to deal with terrorism.

Kaddafy was a serious problem in the region, until Reagan bombed one of his palaces and killed one of his kids. Reagan was feared by terrorists, they knew he meant business.

[BoulderDawg]

That's funny. You talk with pride about killing children then accuse others of being terrorists!:rolleyes:

[Drake]

Do us a favor and actually look into the bombing, BD. Your ignorance shines again.

[BoulderDawg]

Do us a favor and actually look into the bombing, BD. Your ignorance shines again.

Yes I know, we were justified because we were the goods knights in shining armour trying to make the world safe from the bad evil devils......

[Drake]

Because Lockerbie was justified? Or blowing up nightclubs? Sending assassins to kill Libyans who fled the country? The Munich Massacre?

Ignorance. Feel free to show support to terrorists. You only get to do so because of the government you despise. You are a confused person.

[BoulderDawg]

Because Lockerbie was justified? Or blowing up nightclubs? Sending assassins to kill Libyans who fled the country? The Munich Massacre?

Ignorance. Feel free to show support to terrorists. You only get to do so because of the government you despise. You are a confused person.

Yes yes I know. I would NOT be alive to spew my anti-American commie terrorist trash if not for you.:D

Heard all of that before.

[1bad65]

Because Lockerbie was justified? Or blowing up nightclubs? Sending assassins to kill Libyans who fled the country? The Munich Massacre?

Ignorance. Feel free to show support to terrorists. You only get to do so because of the government you despise.

Exactly


You are a confused person.

Well, he does think a white, pathological liar is an Indian. ;)

[1bad65]

Because Lockerbie was justified? Or blowing up nightclubs? Sending assassins to kill Libyans who fled the country? The Munich Massacre?

And notice Kaddafy was not linked to new terrorist attacks after Reagan took bold action.

[BoulderDawg]

Back to health care:

Harry Reid just announced they will introduce a bill with a public option.

Good news. Had they of wimped out the only vote they would have gained would have been Sen Snow. It jusr wasn't worth it.

Now we have to see if we can get 60 votes to prevent a filabuster. I look at it like this: If I was a democratic blue dog senator I believe I would at least give my party a straight up and down vote on the bill. I would vote against the filabuster and against the bill. I think that's fair. If a Democratic senator feels he has to vote for the filabuster then I don't why he would call himself a democrat. The one that concerns me is Leiberman. I think if he destoys the health care bill in the senate he should just quietly move to the other side of the room.

[Drake]

How dare people think outside of party lines and instead focus on what they think is right. Evil folks, going against the status quo. :rolleyes:

Not every democrat universally accepts the health care plan, just as not every republican is against it, nor should they be.

[Drake]

And notice Kaddafy was not linked to new terrorist attacks after Reagan took bold action.

Too bad Bush v1.0 and 2.0 couldn't amount to even a quarter of Reagan's ability. I definitely feel Reagan would not be too approving of the mudslinging tactics going on from the Republicans these days. I think the harshest he ever criticized a political oppenent was to say " There you go again..."

McCain flat out lied when he said he'd bring back honor to politics, and then became one of the most vile campaigners ever. Not McCain himself, per se, but his campaign managers ruined his chances at election.

[MasterKiller]

http://i.imgur.com/Q9UP0.gif

[BoulderDawg]

Anyway, just heard that Leiberman will vote for a filabuster. Rachael Maddow said tonight that this is a first. No senator has ever filabustered his own party to keep a bill from being voted on.

I think it's time Leiberman just announced he was a GOP and be done with it. I do think after this he'll have zero power in the Democratic party should he decide to stay.

[ittokaos]

http://i.imgur.com/Q9UP0.gif

Funny. Would be believeable too if Socialists multiplied before they took and gave to someone else. That way I would still have mine you just have some too.

[1bad65]

Funny. Would be believeable too if Socialists multiplied before they took and gave to someone else. That way I would still have mine you just have some too.

So true.

And remember, Jesus advocated people working to better themselves, not just sitting around expecting others to take care of you.

[BoulderDawg]

So true.

And remember, Jesus advocated people working to better themselves, not just sitting around expecting others to take care of you.


Who doesn't? It's the liberals who advocate jobs training programs, day care programs for workers and continuing education for adults. The neos have fought them tooth and nail to strip money from these programs.

Once again, the vile nature of the attacks by the right is disgusting. I don't know of any group of people that avocate people doing nothing. To suggest as much is just playing vile game of politics.

What's bad is the further we get into the Obama admin the worse these type of attacks go. Noticed Bad's attempt to paint those on the left as anti-semantic. Notice the increased attacks on civil rights leaders like Rev Sharpton and Rev Jackson.

Is this where the conservative right really wants to go?

[MasterKiller]

So I should bust my a$$ so that I can be taxed like crazy and barely afford to provide for my own family so you can have health care. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN CRAP!! I'LL TAKE CARE OF MY OWN FAMILIES BILLS. HOW BOUT THAT.

You better start your own Fire Dept in case your house catches fire. Wouldn't want your tax dollars contributing to anything you didn't use while other people did...

While you're at it, better start your own school system so you can teach your kids. And make sure you coach them in all the sports, act as cheerleader, and pay for the equipment they use and the upkeep of the facilities, both practice and gameday, plus travel.

And since your wife isn't currently being raped at this moment, I guess you don't need the benefit of the local police. God forbid your tax dollars pay to catch some other lousy rapist. You catch your own rapists, I'll catch mine!

All those d@mn welfare moochers using 9-1-1 paid for by my tax dollars better recognize!

[1bad65]

You better start your own Fire Dept in case your house catches fire. Wouldn't want your tax dollars contributing to anything you didn't use while other people did...

While you're at it, better start your own school system so you can teach your kids. And make sure you coach them in all the sports, act as cheerleader, and pay for the equipment they use and the upkeep of the facilities, both practice and gameday, plus travel.

And since your wife isn't currently being raped at this moment, I guess you don't need the benefit of the local police. God forbid your tax dollars pay to catch some other lousy rapist. You catch your own rapists, I'll catch mine!

Get real. :rolleyes:

First off, those are LOCAL examples. Not FEDERAL. Second, show me where the Constitution says it's the taxpayers/Governments job to give checks to people who have made irresponsible decisions....

The system in place now is ridiculous. If a 15 year old girl gets knocked up, she gets free checks. We can argue whether or not that's a good idea. But look at it this way; If she gets knocked up again at 17, we give her BIGGER checks! Is that a good system? Why reward someone for repeatedly making bad decisions? How is that helping them better themselves?

[1bad65]

All those d@mn welfare moochers using 9-1-1 paid for by my tax dollars better recognize!

Many conservatives, me included, do not agree with them getting checks. So don't say that's something conservatives are for.

[1bad65]

Notice the increased attacks on civil rights leaders like Rev Sharpton and Rev Jackson.

Is this where the conservative right really wants to go?

Dude, Sharpton got found liable by a jury of his peers for LYING (slander) about another man. Jackson knocked up a mistress. Those racist pieces of garbage are not Christians. They give Christians a bad name.

Does the liberal/Democrat Party really want to claim them? ;)

[MasterKiller]

First off, those are LOCAL examples. Not FEDERAL. Second, show me where the Constitution says it's the taxpayers/Governments job to give checks to people who have made irresponsible decisions....
Not everyone seeking government assistance does so because of poor decisions. When I was 20, my appendix popped and the state covered it because I was a full-time student and under 21. If I would have had to pay for it (the bill was over 15K for a two-week hospital stay), I would not have been able to finish school. I was on scholarship as it was, and was already working.

Being healthy is a fundamental human right.


The system in place now is ridiculous. If a 15 year old gilr gets knocked up, she gets free checks. We can argue whether or not that's a good idea. But look at it this way; If she gets knocked up again at 17, we give her BIGGER checks! Is that a good system? Why reward someone for repeatedly making bad decisions? How is that helping them better themselves?

If you make a 15 year old girl quit school to pay for a baby, she has no option to better herself. She's doomed herself.

If a 15 year old commits a crime, they aren't usually even tried as an adult. But you expect a girl, just because she had a baby, to grow the f@ck up and pay for her mistake.

Multiple babies is abuse. But rich people abuse systems, too.

But if you don't provide kids, especially low-income kids, with access to proper sex education in the first place, you are pretty much dooming them to a self-fullfilling prophecy.

[MasterKiller]

And btw, I know plenty of active military personnel that qualify for food stamps and use them.

[MasterKiller]

Many conservatives, me included, do not agree with them getting checks. So don't say that's something conservatives are for.

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.

[BoulderDawg]

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.


Yep! Seems I read something in the Constitution about 911 and how if you didn't contribute to society you should not allowed to use it.

Also, as far as protecting me from terrorism.....:D Don't waste your time I can do that myself. I haven't seen any terrorist lately while jogging down the street or at the grocery store.

[1bad65]

Being healthy is a fundamental human right.

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it....


If you make a 15 year old girl quit school to pay for a baby, she has no option to better herself. She's doomed herself.

If a 15 year old commits a crime, they aren't usually even tried as an adult. But you expect a girl, just because she had a baby, to grow the f@ck up and pay for her mistake.

Multiple babies is abuse. But rich people abuse systems, too.

But if you don't provide kids, especially low-income kids, with access to proper sex education in the first place, you are pretty much dooming them to a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Again, I asked if it's fair that she gets bigger checks if she messes up AGAIN.

My stance is that if you are on Government assistance and you fail a drug test, get convicted of a crime, or have another kid, the checks stop. It proves you are not trying to better yourself.

FYI, I didn't get sex-ed in school. And I don't have any illigitimate kids. It's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.

[1bad65]

I know. So they shouldn't be allowed to use 9-1-1. No work, no 9-1-1. That's in the constitution, right?

And while we're at it, only taxpayers should be protected against terrorist attacks. Anyone not paying taxes to support the military, FBI, or CIA shouldn't be protected by them. I don't want my tax dollars paying to save poor innocent people. That's for sure.

The first part is true. I agree with you.

The second part is ridiculous, and you should know that.

[MasterKiller]

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it.... True.


Again, I asked if it's fair that she gets bigger checks if she messes up AGAIN. Not fair, no. It's not fair to that baby that he has a d1psh1t mom, either. Is it fair to let him starve because him mom is ignorant?


My stance is that if you are on Government assistance and you fail a drug test, get convicted of a crime, or have another kid, the checks stop. It proves you are not trying to better yourself. I don't have much of an issue with that stance. Seems reasonable, but by doing so you are leaving children unprotected and stuck in a lifecycle of poverty.


FYI, I didn't get sex-ed in school. And I don't have any illigitimate kids. It's the parents responsibility, not the Governments.Neither did Sarah Palin's kids. Oooops.

[ittokaos]

Multiple babies is abuse.

Abuse to who? The mother who refused to stop having sex without a condom or birth control? Perhaps masochism considering she did it to herself. I imagine you aren't talking about rape victims here.

As for better sex ed, it is the responsibility of the parent to do it. The reason we have it in school in the first place is the fact that the parents were dropping the ball. It was never the Govts sole responsibilty to teach the kids about condoms, they just helped to pick up the slack. Also, there are after school specials, condom and birth control commercials, planned parenthood centers, education in school, billboards, and tv shows with information on how to either be abstinant or have sex using contraception in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If after all that you still make a "mistake" then perhaps a slap upside the head is in order, not free money.

[BoulderDawg]

But it's not a right granted by the Constitution.

And if you use that argument, explain why it's perfectly legal to suck a healthy child from the womb and kill it because the mom doesn't want it....


Because that is in the Constitution:

Admendant 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

********

There is it in black and white. If you are not born or naturalized then you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

I know you're going to say "That's not what that means." But you neos tell me to read the Constitution exactly how it is written.

[1bad65]

Not fair, no. It's not fair to that baby that he has a d1psh1t mom, either. Is it fair to let him starve because him mom is ignorant?

I honestly doubt we would see children starving to death. The able-bodied parents would just get jobs, or stop having kids they can't afford. Problem solved.


I don't have much of an issue with that stance. Seems reasonable, but by doing so you are leaving children unprotected and stuck in a lifecycle of poverty.

But as it is now, children born to unwed mothers have a much higher rate of ending up on Government assistance than those raised by responsible parents.

You do realize that about 1/2 of all black children born in the US are born out of wedlock? That's reprehensible. And it's because of welfare and other programs. Government has assumed the role of the father, and compounded the problem. Women used to look for a provider in a man. Now they know they don't need a provider. The taxpayers/Government will provide for them.

When a system rewards bad judgement, it's doomed to fail.


Neither did Sarah Palin's kids. Oooops.

That's a low blow. You're above that.

[Drake]

And btw, I know plenty of active military personnel that qualify for food stamps and use them.

Because BAH and BAS do not count as income. It's a loophole. We had this discussion at my unit today, and much of it revolves around soldiers who don't know how to budget money. I also work with an NCO who is our unit finance advisor, and it's his job to help soldiers learn how to budget their money.

Between base pay, BAH, and BAS, no soldier actually needs food stamps, ESPECIALLY when BAS is more than enough for a family of 3-4 to get groceries. The rent is covered too, so unless their spending habits need adjusting (which has always been the case), they should be fine. I have yet to see a junior enlisted without a PS3/XBox360 and a nice HDTV to play Madden on.

What active duty personnel do you know? What are their pay grades? Because this doesn't pass the smell test. Bear in mind, I was an enlisted soldier, later an NCO, and now a commissioned officer, so don't try and blow smoke up my tailpipe.

[ittokaos]

Because that is in the Constitution:

Admendant 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

********

There is it in black and white. If you are not born or naturalized then you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

I know you're going to say "That's not what that means." But you neos tell me to read the Constitution exactly how it is written.

That is very true, however just because the Constitution doesn't directly say it doesn't mean that one's humanity shouldn't compel them to save a child, born and protected by law or otherwise, from being terminated. The constitution is a piece a paper that we use to govern ourselves and nothing more. Now before anyone climbs on a soapbox, sticks their "enlightened" nose in the air and call me an ignorant "neo"(I have not now nor have I ever been a Matrix character ;D), let me say that I am not. I am simply a man that believes that people should stop hiding behind something to make themselves feel better about their actions. Be it religion or law or whatever everyone should at least know right from wrong. Just because law says one thing is ok doesn't mean it is not wrong. Also, just because the law says something is bad doesn't mean that it is. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If i had a license to kill and killed someone's family because the govt. wanted me to I would still be wrong even though I wouldn't get punished by the law because in this case I would be well within my right. The fact that law says it is ok doesn't make dead feel happy about being killed nor does it help the remaining friends and family with their grieving.

Another example, i was recently pulled over. The officer was a motorcycle cop (or CHIPS as we call them in these parts) who, in my city, look for the most random reasons to pull you over in order to meet their quota. The reason, I believe, was because I swerved as to not hit a driver that was jstu trying to force his way into my lane without signaling. His reason was that my windshield was cracked which it was. The officer was behind me the whole time and thus was not able to see my windshield. Once I was pulled over he walked to the front of my car, stopped and stared at my windshield for a few seconds, then asked me if I knew why i was pulled over. I gave my reason and then he gave his.

I presented him with the items he requested and he proceeded to review my information. Then, he began questioning me about why the car is in someone else's name. I told him the car is technically my mother's and I make the pymts on it. After about 10 mins, he asked to step out and informed me that the insurance card had expired, the car was not mine, and my license didnt look like me. He impounded the car. I offered to give him my mom's ph # so she could straighten all this out he laughed and had me sign the ticket.

Now, the insurance card was old but the insurance was still active, something that he could have checked easily. He didnt believe the car was my mom's because she has a french last name and mine is clearly hispanic(my stepdad is french). I tanned over the summer so the license, that I recieved during the fall season, didnt look like me. I also overheard him say something about my friend, who appears middle eastern but is greek, and myself probably stealing the car(none of which did he feel the need to whisper). One of the back up officers called my mom and because of that neither of us were arrested but we did get some tickets. I got one for not having a license and a fix it for the windshield. My mom got one for having no insurance, one for letting an unlicensed driver drive her car, and one for having a cracked windshield.

Most of it we were able to straighten out but the car was impounded for 2 weeks while we did so. Even though we were in the right with the tickets we still had to pay a small fine(like $25) for each just for getting them as well as $1300 to get the car out and $130 to fix the windshield.

Now, legally, the cop was in the right. However, that did not make what he did right.

In my opinon anyway...

[Drake]

I think a lot of people aren't aware of requirements for driving, and what is expected of them. I can't say it's their fault or not, because this is a local issue, and we were discussing a federal issue. My only advice for folks is to educate themselves on local laws and requirements when it comes to driving. For all you know, the cop may have had no choice but to follow those rules. His comments were not appropriate, however, and though nothing may come of it, I'd suggest reporting him on that part.

[BoulderDawg]

Keith Olbermann made a good point about the latest protest in Washington by Michelle Bachman and her ilk against the health care bill. That was the fact that the protest was held in Washington and the area around Washington is a black majority area yet when they panned the crowd you could not find one black face...not one...in the entire crowd. That kinda tells you something doesn't it.

Also a word about Michelle Bachman.....She's one of the crazies. No doubt about that. Both sides have them. However the problem is she's also a freshman congressperson. How does she find time to service the people of her district in between being on TV and rubbing elbows with Glenn Beck and others at all sorts of neo rallies?

[BoulderDawg]

The Neos are at it again....

Trying to put abortion debate into the health care bill......not surprising.

You know what, I think it's time to call their bluff. It's obvious they are trying to make the hurdle so high that the bill will die.

I say give them whatever they want, pass the bill and then introduce legislation to correct it.

Of course no matter what health care bill is introduced no GOP member is going to vote for it. But hopefully they can get the handfull of blue dogs on board. If not have then move over to the other side. That's where leiberman belongs anyway.

[BoulderDawg]

Just saw it on the news.....

The so-called "progressives" in the senate have caved in and dropped the public option....the insurance companies are throwing parties in the street.

And people wondering why I don't support anyone in congress...

[BoulderDawg]

The vote on this will be interesting.

The 40 teabaggers in the senate...how will they vote? Don't know don't care.

The blue dogs (90% of the Democrats) will probably vote for it.

The rest who call themselves liberal....I guess we'll see. I only know of three senators who I think will vote against it (Sen Burris, Sen Sanders and Sen. Franken).

I know if I were in the senate I could never vote for anything that did not include a public option.

[1bad65]

The blue dogs (90% of the Democrats) will probably vote for it.

LMAO at your complete ignorance and stupidity.

[dimethylsea]

Boulder,

Actually this is a classic kindof reframing of the terms (a brilliant political maneuver to outflank the GOP and their financial supporters).

Basically after the GOP and the turncoat independants and blue dogs have insisted on concession after concession without conceding support.. Reid and company have turned the arguement around.

The GOP's talking points have been trying to frame a public health plan as a threat to Medicare (despite the fact they've hated Medicare for years). Now by the simple tactic of reframing the health reform debate as a Medicare expansion the GOP is hoist on their own hypocritical petard.

It doesn't matter "What" it's called.. as long as we get something closer to universal coverage. The GOP's hypocrisy in being obstructionist by acting pro-life and pro-Medicare (one is irrelevant to the health care reform issue and the second is political opportunism on the part of the GOP) is coming back to bite them.

Let's just see how it plays out.. I think we have seen immense party discipline and I'm frankly in awe of the stamina of Reid and his camp. They are confronting that which is closest to true evil in the halls of our government and fighting evil is never easy.

Leiberman will get his. The net roots are watching.. and we are already looking for a candidate to replace his wrinkled ass in the Senate. I (and about quarter million other progressives) are waiting for a chance to donate to the person who makes him unemployed.

[BoulderDawg]

Leiberman still has three more years and he'll be 70 next time around. He'll probably retire.

Anyway, they might take this S the way it is written now. However I believe the teabaggers know that Obama and the blue dogs will cave into anything. I believe they'll push for more and well probably get it.

In the end there might be something passed called the "Health Care Plan" but you can rest assured the only people who will benefit will be the insurance companies.

[1bad65]

The GOP's talking points have been trying to frame a public health plan as a threat to Medicare (despite the fact they've hated Medicare for years). Now by the simple tactic of reframing the health reform debate as a Medicare expansion the GOP is hoist on their own hypocritical petard.

How can you say the GOP hates Medicare? Other than a manufactured Gingrich quote he never said, what evidence do you have?

Now this Democrat bill does have REAL cuts in Medicare in it. I love how you guys called people like Reagan and Gingrich Nazis for these made up Medicare cuts, yet when you guys are REALLY trying to cut it, it's suddenly a compassionate thing to do. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

How can you say the GOP hates Medicare? Other than a manufactured Gingrich quote he never said, what evidence do you have?

Now this Democrat bill does have REAL cuts in Medicare in it. I love how you guys called people like Reagan and Gingrich Nazis for these made up Medicare cuts, yet when you guys are REALLY trying to cut it, it's suddenly a compassionate thing to do. :rolleyes:


I thought Medicare was socialized medicine......sounds like you people are trying to have it both ways....no surprise there.

What reputable liberal called Reagan and Gingrich "Nazi"? As far as I know no one has. We leave comparisons to nazis and Hitler to you teabaggers!

[1bad65]

What reputable liberal called Reagan and Gingrich "Nazi"? As far as I know no one has.

Are you in denial, or living under a rock?

[BoulderDawg]

Are you in denial, or living under a rock?

Notice there is no names here of liberals who call people "Nazi".......wonder why?:D

[1bad65]

Notice there is no names here of liberals who call people "Nazi".......wonder why?:D

Here is the ex Klansman, Democrat Robert Byrd comparing Republicans to the Nazis on the floor of the US Senate:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_309392.html

Kinda ironic isn't it?

[1bad65]

Looks like Al Franken did it too:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/Liberal_radio_airing_bad_jokes_05_2004.php

[BoulderDawg]

Right! I guess I'm suppose to take that article about Al Franken on it's word!:D I didn't hear him say anything of the sort.

As far as Byrd, He's a good man but he's not a liberal. He also explained he was talking about the situation not about any certain person.

[1bad65]

As far as Byrd, He's a good man but he's not a liberal.

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
-Robert Byrd

Sounds like your kind of guy.

[BoulderDawg]

So what? That statement was made in 1944. Byrd's record speaks for itself and he has overwhelming black support in his state. Who cares what you teabaggers say?

Liberals are different than the teabaggers. We understand people change. No way would we use a 65 year old statement against a man who's had over a half century of outstanding service in the fight for civil rights.

By the way, if the teabaggers care so much about black men and women then how come you don't see any black faces at their rallies. Of all the footage I've seen on TV with their signs of Obama looking like a monkey and about half the crowd carrying a gun I've never seen any black people there.

[1bad65]

So what? That statement was made in 1944. Byrd's record speaks for itself and he has overwhelming black support in his state.

Byrd also used the N-word on the floor of the Senate a few years ago as well. Once a racist,.... I guess you should know that though. ;)


By the way, if the teabaggers care so much about black men and women then how come you don't see any black faces at their rallies. Of all the footage I've seen on TV with their signs of Obama looking like a monkey and about half the crowd carrying a gun I've never seen any black people there.

You're racism is showing again. Actually, the most common Obama pic I see at those rally's is the one where he has the Joker make-up on. Can you perhaps post some of those monkey pics you claim you see? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Notice EVERY TIME you ask me for proof I provide it.

You on the other hand, NEVER do. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Here is the Klansman Byrd using the term "white n*****s" in 2001 on a national broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

[BoulderDawg]

Knock yourself out!:D Believe what you want to believe.

The amount of support you Neos have in the black community is way under 5%....way under!

Every time you attack you attack Sen Byrd, Rev Sharpton, Rev Jackson or the Obamas.....

Every time another monkey poster comes out.......

Every time you neo teabaggers yell, "So and so liberal called someone a N"........

You lose more support!

The liberals I know are just just sitting back and laughing.

[1bad65]

The liberals I know are just just sitting back and laughing.

We agree there.

Why one group has chosen to support a political party who openly despises it is beyond me.

An interesting note; while the national unemployment rate is at 10%, among blacks it is ~15%. The Republican Party has a golden opportunity to sway black voters in the next few years.

[Drake]

Have we forgotten Barack the Magic Negro?

[1bad65]

Have we forgotten Barack the Magic Negro?

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein first called then candidate Barack Obama that.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

[BoulderDawg]

I've been listening to all of this stuff about Joe Lieberman....He had no intention of supporting any health care bill. Isn't it time that he just went across the aisle? To me it's amazing how much Reid has kissed his ass.

[1bad65]

I've been listening to all of this stuff about Joe Lieberman....He had no intention of supporting any health care bill. Isn't it time that he just went across the aisle? To me it's amazing how much Reid has kissed his ass.

Good for him if he does.

Let me ask you another question that I'm sure you will duck; why is it one group of Americans responsibility to pay for others healthcare?

[BoulderDawg]

It's really sad what's going on the senate with this health care plan. While they are standing there reading a 700 page document, some child in the US is dying some where because of lack of health care. People like Leiberman and his ilk have lots of blood on their hands.

I gained so much respect for Bernie Sanders during this debate. We need 99 more like him in the senate. To be honest he's the only person in congress right now that I would actually vote for. That says a lot if you know how strict I grade a candidate.

They are going to get their bill passed but Dr Dean is right. It's morally wrong to support a bill that will kill thousands of Americans while lining the pockets of the insurance companies.

[1bad65]

It's really sad what's going on the senate with this health care plan. While they are standing there reading a 700 page document, some child in the US is dying some where because of lack of health care. People like Leiberman and his ilk have lots of blood on their hands.

No, the people who chose to have children they could not support have blood on their hands.


I gained so much respect for Bernie Sanders during this debate.

Of course you do, he is a socialist. An admitted one, actually.

Again I ask you; why is it one group of Americans responsibility to pay for others healthcare?

[1bad65]

It's really sad what's going on the senate with this health care plan. While they are standing there reading a 700 page document, some child in the US is dying some where because of lack of health care. People like Leiberman and his ilk have lots of blood on their hands.

LMAO at your continued stupidity.

What are Senators supposed to do in your opinion? Just vote on proposed legislation without reading it? :confused:

[MasterKiller]

LMAO at your continued stupidity.

What are Senators supposed to do in your opinion? Just vote on proposed legislation without reading it? :confused:

Well, that is how the Patriot Act got passed....

[1bad65]

Well, that is how the Patriot Act got passed....

So, you agree with me that they should actually read the bills for voting on them, correct?

[MasterKiller]

So, you agree with me that they should actually read the bills for voting on them, correct?

Hell yes. I think rushing any bill through, especially one of this nature, is a bad idea. I understand why they feel they won't get it passed next year, and they probably won't.

I tell people at work all the time "Do you want it fast or do you want it right?"

[SanHeChuan]

Again I ask you; why is it one group of Americans responsibility to pay for others healthcare?

I ask you; why is it one group of Americans responsibility to pay for others education, or mail service, or roads, or police, or military?

The answer is because all American’s have the right and the responsibility, to not just look out for ourselves but for each other as well. It is moral required and socially beneficial. As much as we all like to pretend that we are independent individuals the fact is we are a part of a society which if you don’t know is where the members of a community live together for their mutual benefit.

Why pay for a police force to patrol other people’s neighborhoods when you can just buy a gun and look out for yourself? I mean they are just wasting tax payer’s money arresting degenerate poor people. You don’t need to pay for that right? :rolleyes:


No, the people who chose to have children they could not support have blood on their hands.

That you would advocate for the death of an innocent child because of the actions of another speaks volumes about your moral compass. It is worse even than supporting abortion, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t support abortion because ultimately that would be better for you, with less people to pull you down. :rolleyes:

You’re not a republican you’re an anarchist. :p

[BoulderDawg]

LMAO at your continued stupidity.

What are Senators supposed to do in your opinion? Just vote on proposed legislation without reading it? :confused:

Yes I had forgotten that congressmen can't read bills themselves or have their staff read them because they don't receive any copies!:D

If someone didn't read it aloud no one would know what was in it.:eek:

[BoulderDawg]

That you would advocate for the death of an innocent child because of the actions of another speaks volumes about your moral compass. It is worse even than supporting abortion, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t support abortion because ultimately that would be better for you, with less people to pull you down. :rolleyes:

That's old news for the teabaggers. They do favor abortion. However their abortion comes after the child is born.

[1bad65]

I ask you; why is it one group of Americans responsibility to pay for others education, or mail service, or roads, or police, or military?

Because the Constitution calls for the Federal Government to provide for those. Very explicitly in the case of the military, the post office, and education. Where does it call for the Federal Government to provide healthcare to the citizenry?


The answer is because all American’s have the right and the responsibility, to not just look out for ourselves but for each other as well. It is moral required and socially beneficial. As much as we all like to pretend that we are independent individuals the fact is we are a part of a society which if you don’t know is where the members of a community live together for their mutual benefit.

No, we have zero responsibilty to others. If YOU want to give YOUR money away to others, have at it. Just don't try and FORCE ME to do the same.


Why pay for a police force to patrol other people’s neighborhoods when you can just buy a gun and look out for yourself? I mean they are just wasting tax payer’s money arresting degenerate poor people. You don’t need to pay for that right? :rolleyes:

Well, areas that do not have restrictive gun laws to have less crime. It's a fact. Washington DC, Detroit, Newark, etc have some of the highest crime rates in the country. They also have some of the most restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens being able to own firearms. Go figure.

As for getting rid of police, that's ridiculous.


That you would advocate for the death of an innocent child because of the actions of another speaks volumes about your moral compass. It is worse even than supporting abortion, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t support abortion because ultimately that would be better for you, with less people to pull you down. :rolleyes:

You’re not a republican you’re an anarchist. :p

It shows my compass points to 'Personal Responsibility'. If more's people's did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

And yes, I've been called an anarchist. However, I do believe we need some Government as a society, we just need the smallest one possible. Read the Constitution, you will see some very great men believed that same idea.

[SanHeChuan]

Because the Constitution calls for the Federal Government to provide for those. Very explicitly in the case of the military, the post office, and education. Where does it call for the Federal Government to provide healthcare to the citizenry?

How many amendments to the constitution are there? Oh that right 27. All added after the fact, why because society changes.


No, we have zero responsibilty to others. If YOU want to give YOUR money away to others, have at it. Just don't try and FORCE ME to do the same.

Well that ship sailed 5,000 year ago. :D


As for getting rid of police, that's ridiculous.

I think the same way about our current system of health care. Not having universal health care would be ridiculous.


It shows my compass points to 'Personal Responsibility'. If more's people's did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Well if conservative Christians would allow actual education, we would have more people with the knowledge to successfully use birth control. Instead we have this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/sex.report/index.html).

I agree we should have more personal responsibility, but what responsibility does a child have? :confused:

[1bad65]

How many amendments to the constitution are there? Oh that right 27. All added after the fact, why because society changes.

You asked why it's the Government's responsibility to provide the military, the post office, and education. I showed you and asked where it says it's the Government's responsibilty to provide heathcare. You did not answer my question, unless it's in one of those 27 Amendments you mentioned. And we all know it's not. One more thing, the Constitution did not need to be amended for it to be the Government's responsibility to provide the military, the post office, and education. Do you think that just maybe that should tell us someting?



I think the same way about our current system of health care. Not having universal health care would be ridiculous.

Everywhere they have that system it's a disaster! Why should we choose to emulate a failing system?


Well if conservative Christians would allow actual education, we would have more people with the knowledge to successfully use birth control. Instead we have this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/sex.report/index.html).

I agree we should have more personal responsibility, but what responsibility does a child have? :confused:

You do realize that Christian private schools always have higher standardized test scores than public schools, right? Surely, this cannot be news to you, can it?

And let's get real here, teen pregnancy is an enormous problem in inner city public schools, not in private Christian schools.

[SanHeChuan]

One more thing, the Constitution did not need to be amended for it to be the Government's responsibility to provide the military, the post office, and education. Do you think that just maybe that should tell us someting?

Well consider there were no health care institutions in 1776, why on earth would base your opinion be based on something created before the issue ever arrived. Is the constitution supposed to be clairvoyant like the I Ching now?

And there is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.

So if we are going to be sticklers about answering questions...

So why do you feel it's ok to make you pay for public schools?


Everywhere they have that system it's a disaster! Why should we choose to emulate a failing system?

Well that just ignorance or lies you can fill me in on which.


You do realize that Christian private schools always have higher standardized test scores than public schools, right? Surely, this cannot be news to you, can it?

Rich kids. (http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=332679&paper=63&cat=104)


And let's get real here, teen pregnancy is an enormous problem in inner city public schools, not in private Christian schools.

Are you saying Inner city kids aren't Christian? Do you think that might be a function of poverty and not religion? Private Christian schools kids are in a higher socioeconomic bracket. :eek:

Red Sex, Blue Sex (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot)

[Drake]

Reducing teen pregnancy is not the responsibility of the States OR the Fed. It's a family ethics issue, and the family should determine how they go about dealing with it, and using THEIR methods.

I do find it particularly interesting that conservative republicans are against abortion, but doctrinally believe in no government intervention.

Sort of like how big gov't democrats are upset about public health care.

[1bad65]

Well consider there were no health care institutions in 1776, why on earth would base your opinion be based on something created before the issue ever arrived. Is the constitution supposed to be clairvoyant like the I Ching now?

Do what? :confused: Of course there were doctors and medications. And of course they cost money. Knowing this, why didn't the Founding Fathers say it was the Government's role to pay for the citizens healthcare costs?


And there is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.

Even if this is correct, it still explicitly calls for the Federal Government to defend the nation, ie the military, and to run the Post Office. And still not one word concerning healthcare.....


So if we are going to be sticklers about answering questions...

So why do you feel it's ok to make you pay for public schools?

I'm actually for the voucher system.


Well that just ignorance or lies you can fill me in on which.

Dude, Canada's heathcare system is teetering on bankruptcy. In the UK they ration out healthcare. Does that sound like success to you?


URL="http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=332679&paper=63&cat=104"]Rich kids.[/URL]

Vouchers would give every child the same opportunity. Are you anti-voucher?

Also, the last two Democrat Presidents sent their kids to a private, religious school (Sidwell Friends). The last Republican one sent his kids to public school (Austin High). Oddly, the two who paid alot of money for the private education for their kids are against vouchers which would enable poor children to attend schools of their parents choice. Care to try and explain why that is?

It's amazing that the liberals want to force us to give everyone equal healthcare (while exempting themselves, of course), yet fight tooth and nail against laws that would give children equal education. It really should make people think.


Are you saying Inner city kids aren't Christian? Do you think that might be a function of poverty and not religion? Private Christian schools kids are in a higher socioeconomic bracket. :eek:

Red Sex, Blue Sex (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot)

Not at all. I'm saying that their education is not Christian.

[1bad65]

I do find it particularly interesting that conservative republicans are against abortion, but doctrinally believe in no government intervention.

What do you mean by this? I'm having trouble seeing your point the way you wrote the sentence.

I have an idea what you are saying, but I want to be sure.

[Drake]

What do you mean by this? I'm having trouble seeing your point the way you wrote the sentence.

I have an idea what you are saying, but I want to be sure.

My point is that abortion is not the domain of government. I DO feel that there shouldn't be such thing as federally funded abortion, but that's basically the reverse of the same mistake.

[1bad65]

My point is that abortion is not the domain of government. I DO feel that there shouldn't be such thing as federally funded abortion, but that's basically the reverse of the same mistake.

Ok, I see your stance now.

I will say I disagree with it. And unlike many others, I'll explain why. The Fathers gave every American citizen the unalienable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I feel that the word "life" in that context is proof positive that abortion should be illegal.

[Drake]

Ok, I see your stance now.

I will say I disagree with it. And unlike many others, I'll explain why. The Fathers gave every American citizen the unalienable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I feel that the word "life" in that context is proof positive that abortion should be illegal.

You aren't an American citizen before birth, and many would argue that human life isn't valid until then. I'm no biology expert, so I'll refrain from any decision on the latter. My personal, non-scientifically backed up belief is that you are just a big clump of cells and tissue until the third trimester.

[1bad65]

You aren't an American citizen before birth, and many would argue that human life isn't valid until then. I'm no biology expert, so I'll refrain from any decision on the latter. My personal, non-scientifically backed up belief is that you are just a big clump of cells and tissue until the third trimester.

Ok. I know that your stance is fairly common.

I'll also run this by you. The Founding Fathers were very much into personal responsibility. If you read the Constitution and their other writings, this should be fairly obvious. Because of that, I honestly cannot fathom they would be ok with someone having the right to kill an unborn child, and thus deprive someone else of life, simply because they made some bad choices and are trying to avoid the consequences of those choices.

[Drake]

Ok. I know that your stance is fairly common.

I'll also run this by you. The Founding Fathers were very much into personal responsibility. If you read the Constitution and their other writings, this should be fairly obvious. Because of that, I honestly cannot fathom they would be ok with someone having the right to kill an unborn child, and thus deprive someone else of life, simply because they made some bad choices and are trying to avoid the consequences of those choices.

At any point does the Constitution mention abortion specifically, or even about the rights of a pregnant woman? It doesn't, thus we had Roe Vs. Wade. This is high level research, and I trust those in the judicial branch to have done the right thing. I haven't the time or resources to study this to the extent they did.

[1bad65]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I have few more points on this.

First, I simply do not see how any physician who took the Hippocratic Oath can perform an abortion on a heathy fetus. I honestly cannot see how you can take that oath and then agree to abort a child simply because having a baby would be an inconvenience for someone.

Second, in this country the man has ZERO say. Even in marriage. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and he simply cannot support the child, he cannot force her to have one. On the other hand, if the man is overjoyed at the prospect of being a parent, he can do nothing if the woman chooses to abort THEIR child.

So in a nutshell, the laws say this: If a man who cannot, and does not want to support a child, he will be forced to if the woman decides to have the child. Yet even if he offers to take full responsibility for the child she doesn't want to have, she can still kill his child with no legal recourse for him. And this is true even in marriage, where the laws clearly state that anything acquired while married is joint property until decided otherwise by a court of law.

[Drake]

I can see the legal grounds if one person wants to keep the child. While it is her body, it is also his potential offspring, and just because he isn't carrying the child, doesn't make it any less a part of him.

However, that is a separate issue from the outright legality of abortion.

[BoulderDawg]

Whoa!

I just saw on Chris Matthews show where Sen Franken shut down Leiberman today in the senate. Leiberman was up there mouthing off his usual garbage and he went over time. Al told him to shut up and sit the hell down!:D

It's about time somebody did!

[SanHeChuan]

Reducing teen pregnancy is not the responsibility of the States OR the Fed. It's a family ethics issue, and the family should determine how they go about dealing with it, and using THEIR methods.

Very true, in a perfect world the parents should be responsible for properly educating their children. But not all parents are equipped/informed/able to teach their kids either geometry or sexual education, and many have abdicated their responsibility to educators. It is then the school systems responsibility to teach geometry and sexual education to the best of their abilities, however in the case of sexual education the existing social pressures for the promotion of ignorance sometimes gets in the way.


Do what? Of course there were doctors and medications. And of course they cost money. Knowing this, why didn't the Founding Fathers say it was the Government's role to pay for the citizens healthcare costs?

The costs were nowhere near what they are today. And the care was abominable, nobody wanted to go to the doctors, you didn't go to get better. You went to save your life, at any cost, even a leg. Going to the doctor was something you avoided because of the care you would get, not the cost. Today it is opposite. It's not the doctors that have driven up costs, it's the technology. How much did a hacksaw cost?

Our Socialist Founding Fathers (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers.php)


The Fathers gave every American citizen the unalienable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I feel that the word "life" in that context is proof positive that abortion should be illegal.

And yet you avocate letting a child die, after it is born?

So even though it does not explicitly state that abortion is illegal, and the government should step in, you think it applies it. Wouldn't the advocacy of personal responsibility allow the individual to take the responsibility to decide for themselves, and NOT have the government decide for them?

But then you want the constitution to explicitly state we should have health care. Because being buried under unreasonable bills over circumstances we cannot always control has nothing to do with the pursuit or life, liberty, and happiness?
Without access to health care would we not die, under the burden of enormous bills do we have liberty, and if we are unhealthy can we be happy?

If the goverment can protect the life of a unborn baby then it can protect the lives of it's citizens by making sure they ALL have access to health care.

Hypocrisy.


Dude, Canada's heathcare system is teetering on bankruptcy. In the UK they ration out healthcare. Does that sound like success to you?
:rolleyes:
Do you have any primary sources on that maybe some peer reviewed studies?
How about testimonies from boardmembers from those contries?
Canada (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i) Canada2 (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers)
UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7071660.stm)


Vouchers would give every child the same opportunity. Are you anti-voucher?

I’d give vouchers a go if they use the Swedish system, but I don’t think they are a cure all. We could see modest improvements but mostly in the middle class. Culture plays a huge role to play, if you don’t care about education, then you’re not going to do well in school not matter what.

Vouchers is just a way for the private schools kids parents to not have to pay public school taxes and there for reduce the amount of money available to public schools, and subsidize private schools with public funds. The result will be an incentive for those able to, to send their kids to private schools and an increase in private schools. The increase in schools available could reduce the number of students per class which would be benefical. As well as government intrusion in to private schools. ;)

They will not make schools equal because geography will still play a very important role in school selection just like now, and schools in high demand will have to become selective in who they let in. First choosing those geographically close, then those academically gifted. The most sought after schools will do better because they will have more of the best students available, while the less sought after schools will do a little worse.

The way people choose schools would be the same, you move close to the one you want. The schools aren’t going to send buses across town to pick up kids, and poor parents won’t be able to afford to transport their kids across town every day. Not to mention the children whose parents don’t give a **** about their education. Most of the benefit would be for the middle class, but it could be worth testing.

But since the vouchers would be worth the same amount regaurdless of how much taxes you pay, it is effectively the redistabution of wealth, where schools in areas of higher tax value would be giving up funds to those in poorer areas. Isn't that socialism? :eek:

I would like to education in the US more more in the direction of Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland). Free Higher education, and more focus/prestige for vocational training.

And why is socialism only ok if it was in the constitution? And why did the founding father allow for amendments to be added to the constitution if they had everything perfect, accounting for all future possibilities, no matter how distant, the first time?

[1bad65]

Very true, in a perfect world the parents should be responsible for properly educating their children. But not all parents are equipped/informed/able to teach their kids either geometry or sexual education, and many have abdicated their responsibility to educators. It is then the school systems responsibility to teach geometry and sexual education to the best of their abilities, however in the case of sexual education the existing social pressures for the promotion of ignorance sometimes gets in the way.

It's never the schools responsibility. First off, they refuse to just teach abstinance, which the only way that is 100% effective in preventing STDs and pregnancy. And don't make excuses that the parents are not "equipped/informed/able to teach their kids either geometry or sexual education". Are you actually trying to say that there are parents out there who have no idea how human beings get pregnant?


The costs were nowhere near what they are today. And the care was abominable, nobody wanted to go to the doctors, you didn't go to get better.

The cost is moot. Especially if you are correct and costs were cheap back then. That would have made it easier for the Founders to demand the Government pay for it. And they did not. And there is a reason for that. Of course the Constitution also never said it's the Federal Government's responsibility to run the citizenry's retirement plan either.



And yet you avocate letting a child die, after it is born?

This right here is the main philosophical difference between a Constitutionalist like me, and a big government guy like you. It really is as simple as that sentence you typed.

I believe it's the child's right to live. He is a human being, who will be able to choose his own path. He doesn't need a nanny government to tell him how to live his life. I, and every other conservative, believe it is an individuals right to make his own decisions, not the governemnts right to make his decisions for him.


Vouchers is just a way for the private schools kids parents to not have to pay public school taxes and there for reduce the amount of money available to public schools, and subsidize private schools with public funds. The result will be an incentive for those able to, to send their kids to private schools and an increase in private schools. The increase in schools available could reduce the number of students per class which would be benefical. As well as government intrusion in to private schools. ;)

Please educate yourself on this issue. Parents are not doing this to avoid paying school taxes, they are doing it so they can choose where their kids go since they did pay the taxes. Look at it this way, what if we all just paid a blanket 'Vehicle Tax'. This is to cover the cost of a car. Now the Government would then tell you which car you must drive. Is this fair? Hell no, but that is how education works. The only people with the ability to choose are the ones with enough money left over after taxes to be able to afford to then pay for private schools. So in effect, those people pay for education TWICE. Is that fair? How about giving them a tax emeption for the amount they pay in private school tuition? Hmm....

And the schools will never be equal, even with vouchers. But the difference will be that that poorer performing schools will be that way because that is where the kids of the parents who do not care go, while now the poorer performing schools are where the poor kids go. How is that fair that the very kids who need an education the most are FORCED to go to the worst schools?


But since the vouchers would be worth the same amount regaurdless of how much taxes you pay, it is effectively the redistabution of wealth, where schools in areas of higher tax value would be giving up funds to those in poorer areas. Isn't that socialism? :eek:

But yet you are for a distribution of wealth in terms of healthcare. :rolleyes: That is hypocracy.


And why is socialism only ok if it was in the constitution? And why did the founding father allow for amendments to be added to the constitution if they had everything perfect, accounting for all future possibilities, no matter how distant, the first time?

I never said socialism is ok for any reason. I bring up the Constitution not to say socialism would be ok if it was in there, but to show why it should not be allowed into law using Constitional arguments.

[1bad65]

Here is an article stating that the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association saying ""We all agree that the system is imploding,.."

http://chaosinmotion.blogspot.com/2009/08/canadian-medical-association-says.html

I can post many more links showing their healthcare system is a money pit, and that the care is subpar (waiting lists, etc).

Are you really going to deny the obvious and force me to post a ton of links? :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is an article stating that the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association saying ""We all agree that the system is imploding,.."

http://chaosinmotion.blogspot.com/2009/08/canadian-medical-association-says.html

I can post many more links showing their healthcare system is a money pit, and that the care is subpar (waiting lists, etc).

Are you really going to deny the obvious and force me to post a ton of links? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't put to much stock on what any politican has to say.
Our system is far from perfect but it is one of the best in the world.

My mom got her knee operated on, cartilidge issues, and since she wasn't an emergency she waited about a month, today, one week later, she was in to remove her stitches and is home and doing just fine.
Last time I took my wife to emergency for a kidney infection we were in and out with diagnosis and prescription in less than 90 min.
When I got that inner ear problem a few months ago I was in and out of emergency in less than 2 hours, including travel time.
I could go one.

[1bad65]

But Sanjuro, you must admit it is not uncommon for Canadians to come here for treatment, right?

[sanjuro_ronin]

But Sanjuro, you must admit it is not uncommon for Canadians to come here for treatment, right?

I don't doubt it at all, I am sure those that can afford it will go to the Us or Europe, yes.
Some don't want to wait, others are "too important'" to wait, some have the "what others have is better" view of things.
I can cite one personal example that I know, this person went to Europe for cancer treatment, the same treatment that he would have gotten here at Princess Margret, one of the best cancer hospitals in the world.
The treatment was given to him and when he came back and went to PM for follow up exams, the doctor that treated him in Europe was there on a "training session".
He spoke to the doctor and the doctor told him that, " PM has the best cancer doctors and researchers around" and he asked him why he didn't go their to begin with.
Reason?
He had a one month waiting list.
In Europe? 2 weeks that turned into 3 in reality.
So...

[BoulderDawg]

But Sanjuro, you must admit it is not uncommon for Canadians to come here for treatment, right?

BS, You're talking out your ass. That is unless you have some sort or facts and figures to back that up.

It took me all of about two minutes to find this article:
:-)


http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=snow&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1

[SanHeChuan]

Are you actually trying to say that there are parents out there who have no idea how human beings get pregnant?

Yes. There are adults out there who have no idea how to properly use birth control of any kind, or how effective it is. Yes abstinence is effective as long as you stay abstinent, which is fine when they are minors, but what about when they become adults and still don’t know what’s up? What if they are taught nothing but abstinence and STILL decided to have sex, would you rather they knew how to use birth control, or just go bare back. Because they do do that.
With birth control you get the best of both worlds. :D


It's never the schools responsibility.

Education is the schools PRIMARY responsibility.


I, and every other conservative, believe it is an individuals right to make his own decisions, not the governemnts right to make his decisions for him.

Children can make their own decisions once their born? Or should governments look out for the welfare of a child when their parents won't or can't?


But yet you are for a distribution of wealth in terms of healthcare. That is hypocracy.

I didn't say I was against the former. I just pointed out its flaws.


I bring up the Constitution not to say socialism would be ok if it was in there, but to show why it should not be allowed into law using Constitional arguments.

A, you brought up the Constitution. B, that just make no since in the context of your previous arguments. The fact is the Military and post office are socialist entities empowered by the constitution, now either you believe some socialism is ok, or we shouldn't have a Military and post office. And I’ll throw public education in there too since vouchers are still socialist in nature.


Are you really going to deny the obvious and force me to post a ton of links?

Yes please do. I like to be educated. But better links than that, a political blog is not really an objective source of information, not to mention it won’t even get past my firewall at work.

I'm with Sanjuro on this.

[BoulderDawg]

I believe if the rich want their own personal doctors and hospitals then they can knock themselves out.

As far the rest of us, I say

"What's the big deal with insurance?"

I should be able to walk into any hospital or doctor's office and receive free care. No need for any insurance.

[1bad65]

I should be able to walk into any hospital or doctor's office and receive free care. No need for any insurance.

Yes, we all know this is exactly what type of person you are.

But hey, why stop there? Human beings need food to survive. You should be able to walk into any grocery store and just take what you need. For free of course. :rolleyes:

[SanHeChuan]

But hey, why stop there? Human beings need food to survive. You should be able to walk into any grocery store and just take what you need. For free of course.

After a fashion. (http://www.tprf.org/ffp/index.htm)

[1bad65]

Yes. There are adults out there who have no idea how to properly use birth control of any kind, or how effective it is. Yes abstinence is effective as long as you stay abstinent, which is fine when they are minors, but what about when they become adults and still don’t know what’s up? What if they are taught nothing but abstinence and STILL decided to have sex, would you rather they knew how to use birth control, or just go bare back. Because they do do that.
With birth control you get the best of both worlds. :D

Once again you show that liberals really do feel human beings are so stupid, helpless, etc that they need people like you to help them do everything.


Education is the schools PRIMARY responsibility.

I agree. But not sex education. The job of the public school system should be to prepare students for life. Whether thats going to college, or trade school, or the military, or straight into the workforce, that's their job to teach those skills.


Or should governments look out for the welfare of a child when their parents won't or can't?

Now government should raise children as well. :rolleyes: And where in the world is that money supposed to come from? Oh yeah, we just borrow it from China. Once again, the Constitution doesn't mention this responsibility, just liberals like you.


The fact is the Military and post office are socialist entities empowered by the constitution, now either you believe some socialism is ok, or we shouldn't have a Military and post office.

Oh boy, you're starting to sound a bit like BD. Please tell me you are not this ignorant of what socialism is.

Better yet, please explain how these two entities are socialist. You've really lost me on this one. :confused:

[1bad65]

"Canada is at the bottom of the pack for the consumer friendliness of its health-care system, according to a new report that compared it with 29 European nations.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Winnipeg-based think tank, used Canadian data to see how the country would score on the Euro Health Consumer Index. It found that Canada ranked 23rd.

And when researchers took into consideration how much countries spend on health care, Canada ranked last on the “bang-for-the-buck” scale."

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/trail/story.html?id=8f2b7b67-5d54-478d-8cea-7ad4de728186&k=18898

A second link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080917/health_care_080917/20080917?hub=Canada

[Drake]

The funny thing is, after tonight, BD will be the only one who hasn't donated anything. Remarkable how the biggest asker of handouts is also the least inclined to give a little. :D

[1bad65]

The funny thing is, after tonight, BD will be the only one who hasn't donated anything. Remarkable how the biggest asker of handouts is also the least inclined to give a little. :D

It may be remarkable, but it is par for the course.

[SanHeChuan]

Once again you show that liberals really do feel human beings are so stupid, helpless, etc that they need people like you to help them do everything.

If you don't educate them how do you expect them to know anything? They need people like me to make sure they are educated about the real world and not some Conservative Christian Fantasyland, were no one has sex, everyone believes in god, and ignorance is bliss. :p


I agree. But not sex education. The job of the public school system should be to prepare students for life.

I'm pretty sure everyone has sex. It's a pretty intergral part of life. Something everyone should be well educated about.


Now government should raise children as well.

Exibit A. (http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/) :rolleyes:


Please tell me you are not this ignorant of what socialism is.

I'm using the same definition that conservatives are using to define health care reform as socialist. Anything paid for with tax money that benefits everyone, with equal access to resources for all individuals.

Please correct my ignorance, what definition are you using the characterize Socialized medicine, that contrasts it from these other public institutions.



Ask and ye shall receive


Austria (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/361394/a_look_at_the_austrian_health_care.html?cat=5)rank ed first on the index, followed closely by the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France), Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland)and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany).

They all have some form of socialized medicine, and several have universal coverage. So compared to other forms of socialized medicine Canada isn't doing so well. Is that your point?:confused:

[BoulderDawg]

The funny thing is, after tonight, BD will be the only one who hasn't donated anything. Remarkable how the biggest asker of handouts is also the least inclined to give a little. :D


According to you neo teabagger I don't have a job, make any money or pay taxes. If all of that is true how am I suppose to donate to charity?

Anyway, I'm at peace with what I give. I don't have to brag about it or challenge others. I don't really expect a whole lot from the teabagger crowd. They will give money to the so-called "approved" charities(church, religious organizations). As far as other charities it's "I gave at the office!" :D As far as giving time goes....forget it. That's what I like about the volunteers in a soup kitchen. You know dam well everyone there will be liberal.

[BoulderDawg]

If you don't educate them how do you expect them to know anything? They need people like me to make sure they are educated about the real world and not some Conservative Christian Fantasyland, were no one has sex, everyone believes in god, and ignorance is bliss. :p


Man if you want some of the best sex you ever had go to one of those christain colleges. Those girls are well experienced going in as freshmen!

[Drake]

Excuses are tools of the incompetent used to build monuments of nothing.

[BoulderDawg]

The health care bill.......:D

This is so funny. The teabaggers destroyed the bill. They got every concession they asked for and yet they still complain.

What's even going to be funnier is that this bill is a watered down peice of S. Once it starts to fail the Democrats will be blamed.....par for the course!:p

I loved the guy who got up and said he wanted to pray for a senator to die to avoid voting for the bill. They are showing something on the news about some guy who called into a talk show who was crying over this!:D

[1bad65]

According to you neo teabagger I don't have a job, make any money or pay taxes. If all of that is true how am I suppose to donate to charity?

Actually, YOU said you don't work. Do I need to post it to remind you?

[1bad65]

What's even going to be funnier is that this bill is a watered down peice of S. Once it starts to fail the Democrats will be blamed.....par for the course!:p

When it does fail, they should be blamed. They were the only ones who voted for it! If they didn't like the bill, why did they vote for the stupid thing?


I loved the guy who got up and said he wanted to pray for a senator to die to avoid voting for the bill.

Really? This is news to me. Can you back that assertion up with proof? :rolleyes:

[IronWeasel]

Man if you want some of the best sex you ever had go to one of those christain colleges. Those girls are well experienced going in as freshmen!




Post a link....


:D

[BoulderDawg]

Actually, YOU said you don't work. Do I need to post it to remind you?

There ya go! It must be true! :D:D:D

[BoulderDawg]

Post a link....


:D

Hard to post a link on that!:D

However if you have ever been to Oral Roberts university you know that name has a double meaning!:p

[1bad65]

There ya go! It must be true! :D:D:D

Unless you are a liar, it is true.

So knowing you said it, why did you blame someone else for saying it?

[1bad65]

Hard to post a link on that!:D

It's hard for you to post a link to anything you allege because 99% of it is fantasy that exists only in your mind.

[BoulderDawg]

One last question for the teabaggers:

I understand there are people who are against any health care bill.....Why? I don't know.

What I can't understand is the way they attack the people who support health care. It's very subtle but if you listen to what they saying it boils down to "if you support a health care bill in this country then you are somehow anti-American and evil."

I think it's sad that they have resorted to tactics such as this.

[1bad65]

One last question for the teabaggers:

I understand there are people who are against any health care bill.....Why? I don't know.

What I can't understand is the way they attack the people who support health care. It's very subtle but if you listen to what they saying it boils down to "if you support a health care bill in this country then you are somehow anti-American and evil."

I think it's sad that they have resorted to tactics such as this.

For someone who never answers questions yourself, you sure do like to pose them to others.

I'm against it because it's socialistic. I have a very good plan through my job. You see, I earned it by working. Now I'll likely be taxed on it to pay for others heathcare.

What's sad is that the Democrat Party has resorted to literally buying votes by giving people things that are paid for by hard-working Americans.

Since when did it become a compassionate thing to forcefully take money that one person earned to just give it to someone else who did nothing to earn it?

[MasterKiller]

Since when did it become a compassionate thing to forcefully take money that one person earned to just give it to someone else who did nothing to earn it?


“Blessed is he who considers the poor; The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble” (Psalm 41:1).

“[H]appy is he who is gracious to the poor … he who is gracious to the needy honors Him [God]” (Prov. 14:21, 31).

“He who mocks the poor taunts his Maker” (Prov. 17:5).

“One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed” (Prov. 19:17).

“He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be answered” (Prov. 21:13).

“He who is generous will be blessed, For he gives some of his food to the poor” (Prov. 22:9).

“He who gives to the poor will never want, But he who shuts his eyes will have many curses” (Prov. 28:27).

"If you wish to be complete [or perfect], go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Matt. 19:21).

“For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good” (Mark 14:7).

"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)

"Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. " (Matthew 5:42)

[KC Elbows]

For someone who never answers questions yourself, you sure do like to pose them to others.

I'm against it because it's socialistic. I have a very good plan through my job. You see, I earned it by working. Now I'll likely be taxed on it to pay for others heathcare.

What's sad is that the Democrat Party has resorted to literally buying votes by giving people things that are paid for by hard-working Americans.

Since when did it become a compassionate thing to forcefully take money that one person earned to just give it to someone else who did nothing to earn it?

You ust work for a large company. Most of my close friends own small companies. If one employee has an expensive procedure, they often have to change insurance, because the plans become too expensive. They all, fortunately, lack employees with permanent conditions, or they, not the insurance company, would have to consider what to do, and be tempted to drop that employee for outside reasons.

Only large corporations, universities, and such, have reliable policies. If a policy has a small number of people on it, it is only useful in absence of real need. My family mostly work in the medical field, many in insurance claims adjusting, some as doctors, some as nurses, some in accounting for hospitals. They will all tell you exactly what happens to a small policy when you get cancer or a similar condition: they drop you by raising your rates to a degree you won't be able to pay. A working person. The idea that health insurance companies are good for working folk only works for people who don't have real need for health insurance yet.

There could be reform aside from socialist reforms, but if the only possibility offered by ANYONE is socialist, those who offer status quo have little to complain about.

Insurance companies are fleecing the working man, not providing the service he paid for. The current system hurts small business, and has been for twenty years, and makes the only practical choice to be working for larger companies, thus stifling American entrepreneurship. Just as banks that cannot fail underscore the weakening of free trade in the U.S., insurance companies that make money off of small business while doing everything possible to avoid providing service comparable to the money they receive for the promise of service take valuable workers out of small businesses and drive them to the big corporate and government jobs.

Bleh.

[1bad65]

MK, nice collection of Bible verses there, especially coming from a guy who doesn't believe it. :rolleyes:

Again, charity is voluntary. Not Government mandated giving in those verses.

[1bad65]

You ust work for a large company.

Not at all. My company employs less than 500 people.


Only large corporations, universities, and such, have reliable policies.

Again, I'm just thrilled with mine, and I work for a small, publicly traded company. I'm not sure if my policy is a "Cadillac policy" as described the socialists pushing this bill, but I sure don't want to lose it through no fault of my own.


There could be reform aside from socialist reforms, but if the only possibility offered by ANYONE is socialist, those who offer status quo have little to complain about.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Face it, for the most part in this country the producers (those who work) have better healthcare than the consumers (those who live off of others). What's wrong with that?

[BoulderDawg]

Just heard this teabagger say that Americans should have access to the same health care that members of congress gets.......

I'm down with that! Give it to everyone! No problem with that!

[1bad65]

Just heard this teabagger say that Americans should have access to the same health care that members of congress gets.......

I'm down with that! Give it to everyone! No problem with that!

LMAO at that. You do know why people are saying that, dont you? :D

[1bad65]

Give it to everyone!

At last something you are consistent on. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

Another sad state of affairs:

Yesterday Ed Schultz did a live feed from a free medical clinic in Connecticut. Many medical professionals were donating their time and skill to help Americans without health insurance. They even managed to save some lives of people who would soon have died without care.

The problem was there were teabaggers outside protesting and trying to block people from getting into the clinic........Wow! Simply wow!!!!

[1bad65]

The problem was there were teabaggers outside protesting and trying to block people from getting into the clinic........Wow! Simply wow!!!!

Please post a link. Since blocking access to any building is a crime, I'm sure there must have been alot of arrests, right?

[BoulderDawg]

Ed Schultz

No more trusted name in the industry. He witnessed it first hand.

[1bad65]

So you have no proof? I figured as much.

[BoulderDawg]

So you have no proof? I figured as much.

Since when do I need to prove something to a teabagger?:eek:
Take the statement as you like it. All liberals are liars anyway according to you people.;)

[dimethylsea]

. Like my 1SG said downrange... " Hajji only has to be lucky once... we have to be lucky every day."


I once kicked a guy out of my class for language like this. It felt really good to not have to tolerate that crap.

Thanks for the reminder Drake.

[Kansuke]

Since when do I need to prove something to a teabagger?:eek:
Take the statement as you like it. All liberals are liars anyway according to you people.;)

Wow, there's as shameless an evasion as you're going to find this side of sifuabel

[David Jamieson]

Wow, there's as shameless an evasion as you're going to find this side of sifuabel

"hello pot, it's kettle, you are black black black" *click*

:rolleyes:

:D

[MightyB]

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

The US spent over 700 billion on defense spending in 2008, I'm trying to find an update - anyway, China is our nearest competitor at 122 billion.

What would diverting... say 1 or 2% of our defense spending into something like healthcare do?

[MightyB]

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

The US spent over 700 billion on defense spending in 2008, I'm trying to find an update - anyway, China is our nearest competitor at 122 billion.

What would diverting... say 1 or 2% of our defense spending into something like healthcare do?

Senate Dems push $848 billion health care bill
Top Democrats defend their proposal to extend health insurance coverage to 30 million additional more Americans at a cost of $848 billion over 10 years.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/18/news/economy/Senate_health_care_bill_cost.cnnw/

Our priorities are whack.

[MightyB]

I had an insurance guy tell me this same thing: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/10/26/editorial4.html

Fix Medicare first, and then allow people the ability to opt in if they don't have insurance. Made sense to me. We have a "public" system in place. In some ways it works, in a lot of ways it doesn't. Fix it.

[1bad65]

Since when do I need to prove something to a teabagger?:eek:
Take the statement as you like it. All liberals are liars anyway according to you people.;)

Once again you can't prove squat.

I never called Schultz a liar, but he does advocate election/voter fraud:

"tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these *******s out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are." -Ed Schultz

[1bad65]

Our priorities are whack.

Not if your priority is destroying the free market....

[MightyB]

Not if your priority is destroying the free market....

How does diverting 2% of 700 Billion a year into fixing medicare destroy the free market? Especially if we started looking closely at where the waste and fraud is coming from. I know a repub who's running for our Michigan State House seat who has a great platform. It's "send more CPAs to Lansing" (he happens to be a CPA). Maybe he should expand that with: send more "CPAs to Washington".

[MightyB]

http://www.aei.org/press/28295

How to fix medicare.

[MightyB]

more food for thought:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/48611467.html

My solution: Fix Medicare, allow a national opt-in program (that has a copay like regular private insurance) in Medicare for the uninsured, divert a minutia of our grossly overinflated defense spending into the new program to help pay for it.

[1bad65]

MightyB,

I think you misunderstood me. I think jamming this healthcare bill down our throats while we have unemployment hovering at around 10% and we have record deficits is an example of having our priorities out of whack.

We need to fix (or get rid of) the current programs we have that are sucking money, not add more government programs that will invariably become money pits.

[MightyB]

MightyB,

I think you misunderstood me. I think jamming this healthcare bill down our throats while we have unemployment hovering at around 10% and we have record deficits is an example of having our priorities out of whack.

We need to fix (or get rid of) the current programs we have that are sucking money, not add more government programs that will invariably become money pits.

Actually I agree with you. This bill sucks and what's worse is there's this cult-like devotion to it in Congress with the majority. I think it started with all of the right intentions... but- wow. Huge copay and forced premiums (major penalties and no option to opt-out if you're uninsured) with no coverage and nill physician reimbursement. It's like the worst policy ever.