Barack Obama

[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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

I would hardly agree that Posada is strictly an "individual" terrorist, since he is part of the Cuban American National Foundation, which employs a so-called education and advocacy group as the front for a long history of terrorist activity. And Posada is not in jail. In 2005, he was held in Texas for being in the country "illegally" (not on terrorism charges), but an immigration judge ruled that he couldn't be deported. He was released on bail early in 2007. His latest "trial" is scheduled for later this year.

But the guy has been a CIA operative for decades, and has been convicted in absentia in other countries for his involvement in a host of various terrorist attacks and plots, some of which he has even admitted to (such as several bombings in 1997 of hotels and nightspots in Cuba). And it is clear that he was trained in the United States (after all, he was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion).

It's an interesting discussion when double-standards are involved, eh?

[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.

[CCC]

I hope all your wishes come true Jimbo so that in the fall the Tea Partyers, the Republicans and All the Independants can gatther together and tell you liberal minded people where to go.

I think something has screwed your reasoning processes up so much--very sad

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

You saw what happened when Obama went into a room full of the most powerful Republicans in Congress last month. He was THE MAN.

LOL you're talking about when republicans and many democrats stood against him on the healthcare bill forcing BO to make backroom deals with his own party to support him? LOL oh yeah... that's THE MAN haha

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

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.

Not gonna happen. Your time is coming to an end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

[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!