Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Comp., and Welfare are Socialism. Health Care is Socialism.

All Socialism is evil? Canada, UK and France are NOT Communism, Marxism, Nazis, and dictatorial enemies.

As a Libertarian, you want all socialism eliminated. How 'bout people being turned away from emergency rooms based on ability to pay? Isn't that Evil Socialism to save someone's life who cannot pay on the spot for it?


TAL

Social Security is supposed to be a backup retirement plan, not plan A. But so much of your money goes to relatively safe, low yield SS that for many people that's the only retirement they can afford, and it's inadequate. Give people the freedom to make their own retirement decisions. And if someone chooses to blow their savings on Bon-Bons why is it my responsibility to bail them out?

Medicare and Medicaid are fine, but it would be better handled by private industry with regulations.

Unemployment Compensation... why cant people save more? In our society we put so much on credit cards, we buy homes and cars with loans and put ourselves in so much debt, and when we lose a job we're screwed. If we saved more and limited ourselves to buying things we can actually afford there wouldn't be so much need for unemployment compensation would there?

Welfare gives millions of people an excuse to sit on their fat ass and not try to get a job.

And you may think national health care sounds good now. That's because all the gotchas come after BO's first term so they don't mess up his re-election bid. And let's face it, it's all about him now isn't it? That's what he told responsible democrats who were not going to vote for Obamacare until he strong armed them and told them how bad it's going to make him look if Obamacare doesn't get passed. After 2014 get ready to pay out the ass for health care. And before then, your health insurance premiums will go up because insurance companies know they are going to get screwed from Obamacare so they will spend the next 4 years raising their rates.

Unless Obamacare is struck down in court, which is very likely to happen. 37 states are objecting to Obamacare and several have filed lawsuits against it. Obamacare excludes the Amish and Christian science people for their religious reasons. But if you're catholic and object to it because it takes your tax money and pays for other people's abortions you don't get to opt out because of your religious reasons. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state where congress shall make no law favoring any religion over another. And many individuals will file law suits because the government simply has no right (assuming the constitution means anything) to force them to buy health care.

And even if it does somehow bypass all these constitutional potholes, the fact is it will not lower the deficit like BO claims. That's ridiculous. It will raise our debt even more, which we cannot afford, and it will lower the quality of health care for the 85% of Americans who are satisfied with their health care.

It's not as simple as democrats claim: Do you want free health care?? Sure, why the hell not?

If they were truthful about it the question would be: Do you want more expensive health care that's lower quality than what you currently have?
Hell no!

And that's what the vast majority of Americans are telling their lawmakers. But they failed to represent their constituents, and that's why there's the Tea Party movement - No taxation without representation!

[jimnaseum]

The Majority of people favor the Health Bill.

Hee hee hee Haw haw..Hee hee hee Haw haw....

[jimnaseum]

Karl Rove was on MSNBC this morning trying to explain how bi-partisan his Administration was and how pissing a trillion dollars into the Iraq sand was more Noble than funding a trillion dollars for the Health of 32 million Americans.
He took a cheap shot at Chuck Todd on his way out and compared Savannah Guthrie to the vacuuous Bimbos on Fox News.
Looks like the Grand Old Party has been reduced to the bitter snarls and insults of the TeaBag Party.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Karl Rove was on MSNBC this morning trying to explain how bi-partisan his Administration was and how pissing a trillion dollars into the Iraq sand was more Noble than funding a trillion dollars for the Health of 32 million Americans.
He took a cheap shot at Chuck Todd on his way out and compared Savannah Guthrie to the vacuuous Bimbos on Fox News.
Looks like the Grand Old Party has been reduced to the bitter snarls and insults of the TeaBag Party.

And the dems continue to lie. Seriously... I have never seen such a large group of consistent liars. Tell me again how much Bush spent on the Iraq war?

[The Conquistador]

Fat comicbook store guy says:

[ila]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Fat comicbook store guy says:

You're right Postman. This thread has pretty well run its course and is no longer serving any useful purpose.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

You're right Postman. This thread has pretty well run its course and is no longer serving any useful purpose.

I was going to ask other Moderators in a PM whether we should shut down the thread, since it has devolved from a genuine -- albeit sharp and heated -- discussion -- into name-calling primarily between two members. However, since ila posted above, I've decided to make this opinion public.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

I was going to ask other Moderators in a PM whether we should shut down the thread, since it has devolved from a genuine -- albeit sharp and heated -- discussion -- into name-calling primarily between two members. However, since ila posted above, I've decided to make this opinion public.

I think that the thread should remain open. Hopefully it will soon die and go to thread heaven (the back of the forum).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The Majority of people favor the Health Bill.

Hee hee hee Haw haw..Hee hee hee Haw haw....

Now come back to the real world.

In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Fa...care-Plan.aspx

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Social Security is supposed to be a backup retirement plan.

Medicare and Medicaid are fine, but it would be better handled by private industry with regulations.

But they failed to represent their constituents, and that's why there's the Tea Party movement - No taxation without representation!

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in ANY FORM are SOCIALISM, Tracy.

The RR law to NOT turn away people from the ER is socialism, Tracy. Pure capitalism is to make money, not save lives. Ins. Cos. are there to make a profit off of your life, death and sickness. Give a sick person insurance, not in America under pure capitalism.

Teddy Roosevelt & Dick Nixon wanted health care, aka socialism, Tracy.


So, save the socialism-is-Stalin BS for conservative drones.

I say there is good and bad socialism, and we will always differ.

Libertarians believe that you find anything, and everything you can to not give anyone government aid until the pool of people is too small to help even ONE person.

Yeah, the tea party is little old ladies who wouldn't harm a wing on a fly.

Imagine how they are being slimed as slurring congressman: 3 black with the n-word (1 spit on), 1 gay, 1 Mexican. In the face of a man with Alzheimer's, is that even possible? Bricks thru windows of congressional offices of Dems who voted for health care. Assassination threats to congressmen and their families. Point is that they don't want to use fire arms on these dumbocrats for health care. All they are asking in the nicest way possible is for them to change their vote from for to against. That's all they want is to kill the bill, and not the people who passed it.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in ANY FORM are SOCIALISM, Tracy.

Not ANY form. Only in forms that are run by the government. Look up the definition of socialism.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

The RR law to NOT turn away people from the ER is socialism, Tracy.

It is in part. It is also hospitals raising rates for patients with insurance to pay for those who don't have insurance.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Pure capitalism is to make money, not save lives. Ins. Cos. are there to make a profit off of your life, death and sickness. Give a sick person insurance, not in America under pure capitalism.

Insurance companies (yes I'll take the time to type it out just for you) are there to fill a need. People need medical coverage, they are there to provide a way to do that. Yes... big shock, it costs money to do that. Muh ha ha ha... yes MONEY!!!! Ha ha ha!!!!

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Libertarians believe that you find anything, and everything you can to not give anyone government aid until the pool of people is too small to help even ONE person.

Libertarians believe that you actually have to have a balanced budget. We don't have a balanced budget, therefore WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Is that so hard to understand? That you have to pay for these services? If it's not evil corporations paying for it, then it's the government paying for it. Either way the money comes from us, or as the democrats, progressives and socialists would like - from China. Libertarians have the audacity to say we have to pay for our own lifestyle. If we didn't have a debt and had positive money flow, then yeah, national health care would be affordable. But right now our country is broke and we have to get spending under control.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Yeah, the tea party is little old ladies

Is that what they're showing on CNN these days?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Imagine how they are being slimed as slurring congressman: 3 black with the n-word (1 spit on), 1 gay, 1 Mexican. In the face of a man with Alzheimer's, is that even possible?

What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bricks thru windows of congressional offices of Dems who voted for health care.

What was that quote? Something about if the government does not serve its people, the people have a right to revolt? These people do not feel that their representatives are representing them. Whining about a few bricks.... They should be glad they are not being forcefully overthrown.

[GRH]

I'm sorry, I just can't take the babbling of Retard-icans seriously.

[Talvenada]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;139349]Libertarians believe that you actually have to have a balanced budget. We don't have a balanced budget, therefore WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Is that so hard to understand? That you have to pay for these services? If it's not evil corporations paying for it, then it's the government paying for it. Either way the money comes from us, or as the democrats, progressives and socialists would like - from China. Libertarians have the audacity to say we have to pay for our own lifestyle. If we didn't have a debt and had positive money flow, then yeah, national health care would be affordable. But right now our country is broke and we have to get spending under control.QUOTE]

TRACY:

So, you were against The Iraq War, right?

We could not pay for it!!

TAL

[jimnaseum]

Listening to Tracy quote Fox News is like listening to Sarah Connor explain how the Terminator came back from the future to destroy all Mankind.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

So, you were against The Iraq War, right?

We could not pay for it!!

TAL

I was against it for the reasons given. I don't know if those are the real reasons though. I expected Iran to be attacked after Afghanistan. But I could see the logic in invading Iraq next. The stated goal was to attack countries who harbored terrorists. This had a lot of support from Americans at the time. The three main countries in the area that harbored terrorists were Iran, Iraq, and Syria. If we had Afghanistan, then if we took control of Iraq we would have access to Iran from two sides, and Iraq also borders Syria. If that was the reason for attacking Iraq, then I supported it. Either way, we did get Saddam.

If it was for getting non-existent WMD that did not threaten national security, so in that case, no I wouldn't support the Iraq war. If it was part of the war on terrorists, then yes I would support it because protecting national security is not discretionary spending.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Listening to Tracy quote Fox News is like listening to Sarah Connor explain how the Terminator came back from the future to destroy all Mankind.

I am not quoting fox news. And the budget stuff is very rudimentary. Fox didn't invent the concept of a budget. Maybe you should start quoting sources - preferably reliable sources. You're not doing too well with facts.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The stated goal was to attack countries who harbored terrorists.

I'm just wondering: if this is a reasonable justification for the United States to attack a country, would it also justify a Cuban attack on the United States? After all, the United States harbors one of the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, which was brought down by a terrorist attack in 1976, killing 73 people. The CIA later admitted to knowing in advance about the attack, and one of the bombers, Luis Posada Carriles, lives in Miami.

I ask this only because I find Americans often reserve for the United States "the right" or the "justification" for actions that they would not afford to other countries. I do not ask this as a statement of support for Cuba, or in any way taking sides in the Barack Obama debate in this thread.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm just wondering: if this is a reasonable justification for the United States to attack a country, would it also justify a Cuban attack on the United States? After all, the United States harbors one of the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, which was brought down by a terrorist attack in 1976, killing 73 people. The CIA later admitted to knowing in advance about the attack, and one of the bombers, Luis Posada Carriles, lives in Miami.

I ask this only because I find Americans often reserve for the United States "the right" or the "justification" for actions that they would not afford to other countries. I do not ask this as a statement of support for Cuba, or in any way taking sides in the Barack Obama debate in this thread.

I think there is a difference. When Bush talked about countries who harbor terrorists, I'm pretty sure he was talking about major terrorist groups. Not individual terrorists. Since 1998 Bin Laden's terrorist group has been at war with the US. Since al Qaeda is at war with is, we have justification to fight back. Only thing is they have no country. But they are allowed to exist and train for continuing war with the US in certain countries. Some of these countries even provide arms and intelligence to al Qaeda. I think we are perfectly justified to go into those countries and hunt down al Qaeda.

Besides, isn't Luis Posada Carriles in custody now? If not he has been a few times, so it isn't exactly like the US is giving this individual full support.

btw, I'll bet Afghanistan with Taliban rule and Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't didn't think we were justified to invade either, but they had no problem with these terrorist groups attacking the US. So if the US hypothetically harbored a major terrorist group, it wouldn't be the only country that had the double-standard.

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Maybe you should start quoting sources - preferably reliable sources. You're not doing too well with facts.

My diseased brain is my source!!!
When it comes to American Politics, you have one of two choices- Democrat or Republican. Otherwise you're just talking about the weather.

Barack Obama's SAT score was 1530. His IQ qualifies him an invitation to Mensa. He went to Harvard Law School, Constitutional Law. President of the Harvard Law Review. When he dated Michelle his Toyota had a big hole in the floor on her side. He legislates toward 2035, not 1835.

So Tracy, you may be right about everything. So what!!!?? Who do you want to be President in 2012?

[jimnaseum]

I remember hearing that Saddam Hussein said Bush W was hampered by the fact that it takes at least eight years for the leader of a country to figure out what's going on. (that's where we fooled him, Bush NEVER knew what was going on, some backroom branch of the Republican Party called all his shots)
I think it took 14 months for Obama to figure out what's going on. I hope he takes on the Republicans like WAR. I sincerely hope he starts FIXING all the things Bush broke. That little rat prick. I hope he fixes healthcare, wall street, schools, economy, every thing but the middle east. We'll design an electric car instead.
And I hope it's all tied in together, and Americans start to understand what's going on. Because right now the Republicans are defending all the things that are screwing this country. Did they graduate High School, or what?
Cheering Sarah Palin is like admiring Tori Spelling's acting career.
Time for Obama to IGNORE the Tea Party. Leave them jumping up and down in the dust. Let them whine. Fuck 'em. Hang up on their bullshit. Let the Republicans have them. Give them rope. Watch them hang the Republicans in November.
You saw what happened when Obama went into a room full of the most powerful Republicans in Congress last month. He was THE MAN. All the Democrats have to do is hang onto majority of the house and senate in 2010. By 2012- LANDSLIDE.
God bless you and God bless America.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

So Tracy, you may be right about everything.

See you can be right sometimes

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Who do you want to be President in 2012?

Not Obama. Not a progressive or far left liberal. But not a bible thumper either, but given a choice, conservative bible thumpers are always better than progressives.

Even Sarah Palin and all those religious wackos-turned-policicians would be better than a progressive, and they're a theocratic nightmare. Except for Huckabee... he wants to make the constitution conform more to the bible. It's got to be someone who takes the constitution to heart and recognizes no matter what personal background they may have, the constitution represents the fairest way to govern people of all backgrounds.

Until I see who's running in 2012, I think a conservative libertarian like Ron Paul is what the country needs right now. But I'd like someone with his politics with better leadership qualities.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What was that quote? Something about if the government does not serve its people, the people have a right to revolt? These people do not feel that their representatives are representing them. Whining about a few bricks.... They should be glad they are not being forcefully overthrown.

Egads! Someone here actually reads the Constitution!