Obama claims proud family history of service in the Soviet Army

[Ramo]

If you're a moderate who wants to support a Democrat, then support Hillary. Sure, her personality is ****, but at least she is much closer to your views than is Obama.

She has the same views as Obama on domestic policy. Almost entirely. If anything, she's slightly to the left (see the mandate debate). Only on foreign policy is Clinton significantly more conservative.

[Ramo]

Why is this a problem? Well, Obama has somehow managed to convince millions of people - moderate Democrats who have much more in common with McCain, moderate Republicans who might swing to a Democrat based on personality or some other "X" factor, etc. - that he is a consensus candidate for change, and that his policies and beliefs mirror mainstream America.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. Look at his record.

Which policy that Obama supports isn't generally shared by public opinion?

[Arrian]

I love a far-right Libertarian telling me how much of a lefty Obama (or anyone else) is. Thanks. That's like Che telling me how much of a righty he is

Obama is running to be the representative of the American ruling class. He will do what he is told

Kinda like that.

So, he's far to the left of you and far to the right of Che. Sounds like he's pretty centered to me.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
chegitz,

No, because auto insurance isn't actually a requirement, as long as you can prove financial resources. Also, the point of auto insurance is to make sure that if I crash into someone else's car, then I can be responsible for the damage.

It may not be where you live, but it is where I live.

From a GP standpoint, perhaps. What I'm referring to is specialized medicine. If you need extensive surgery, or a transplant operation, or major rehabilitation therapy, you come to the US if you can afford it. Hell, why do you think so many rich foreigners come to the Mayo Clinic, for example?

Well, that's certainly the myth that right wingers spread. I haven't seen any evidence it's actually true though.

That's funny, I'm doing fine. I have a health care plan, that is offered by my company, which I am responsible for paying into. I'm sorry that some people are unemployed, or don't work for a company that offers a solid healthcare package, but that shouldn't mean that I have to pay more money out of pocket for a system that won't provide me with any tangible benefit over and above what I already receive.

#1, you are not General Motors. GM, Ford, etc., are crumbling under their health care burdens.

#2, you assume you'd pay more for a system that in is less expensive everywhere else? Most countries with universal health care, even enforced private insurance schemes like they have in Germany, cost substantially less.

So your point is that the federal, state, and local government's responses to those disasters - especially Katrina - are a point IN FAVOR of the government?

Do you think the people of NOLA were in terror of the Feds when they finally showed up? You're the one who repeated Reagan's moronic quote.

Because I'm in favor of bombing the **** out of a country that sponsors terror? The Libertarian Party sanctioned the war in Afghanistan, FYI.

What terror do they sponsor?

Yes, but look at the military budgets PRIOR TO the war. Still higher than those of Clinton.

Because, as documentary evidence has shown, they were planning to attack Iraq even before they stole the election. Plus, they have a lot of military donors and Cheney even worked for a company that benefits from military contracts. No material interest there, nope.

[The Mad Viking]

DF said:

Yes, yes, so it isn't the same as the health care systems in Canada and Western Europe. Good thing, too, since those systems drive down the quality of health care.

When confronted with:

Only theoretically. Those counties all have better health overall and longer lifespans. Very few people would trade their health care system for our own.

he responds with-

From a GP standpoint, perhaps. What I'm referring to is specialized medicine. If you need extensive surgery, or a transplant operation, or major rehabilitation therapy, you come to the US if you can afford it. Hell, why do you think so many rich foreigners come to the Mayo Clinic, for example?

I love how Americans buy into their myths. And then they call Muslims fanatical.

Your health care system should be an embarassment to you. The business model does not apply to everything in the world. Good health care is not a business, because you cannot construct a system where profit is maximized by providing the highest standard of health care.

The system you have is very costly, and by any objective, democratic metric, of sub-standard quality.

But whatever.

[snoopy369]

I'd argue the difference between auto insurance and health insurance can be summed in one word: Liability.

I must have liability insurance for my car, not insurance for the car repairs themselves. I want to know that the rest of the ******s out there who don't know how to drive will pay for my car's repairs when they change lanes suddenly in heavy traffic and dent my front end (or wreck my car entirely, driving in 70mph traffic and deciding 10 feet is enough stopping distance). I don't give a **** whether their car is repaired or not.

I frankly don't believe 'mandatory health insurance' makes any sense. It's a way of taxing the folks who don't need health insurance; which is another way of saying, taxing the young working poor. Fortunately for our government, they don't really vote ... If you totaled the cost to the government (and/or the healthcare system) of all health related issues caused by folks in this age bracket, and subtract out all of the folks who would get 'free' insurance anyway (would qualify for medicare/etc. under any given poli's plan), you end up with a number far less than the costs that would be born by these folks if they had to pay for health insurance.

Like I said elsewhere - call a duck a duck, and do socialized medicine ****ing properly, or don't do it at all. This half-***ed **** doesn't benefit anyone other than the politicians who use it to buy votes from soccer moms and donations from Aetna ...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian

Indeed, I see from Gramps' thread it has already begun. Scumbags.

-Arrian

Obviously we should not question what is vomited forth from the forked tongue of the latest Democrat fraud. They're only mis-spokes!

BTW I should clarify that I meant a particular type of lie that Dems seem to be fond of that are designed to aggrandize the speaker ie Uncle who liberated Auschwitz, arriving under sniper fire, etc, etc, etc. Ever heard one from McCain. He doesnt have to, he actaully did **** before he became a politician.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I love a far-right Libertarian telling me how much of a lefty Obama (or anyone else) is. Thanks. That's like Che telling me how much of a righty he is



Kinda like that.

So, he's far to the left of you and far to the right of Che. Sounds like he's pretty centered to me.

-Arrian

That doesn't make any sense, and he does do and say whatever will get him elected which is doing what he's told.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kid is right on this one. That doesn't make any sense... especially since Hillary and McCain are also far to the left of Floyd and far to the right of Che.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'd argue the difference between auto insurance and health insurance can be summed in one word: Liability.

I must have liability insurance for my car, not insurance for the car repairs themselves. I want to know that the rest of the ******s out there who don't know how to drive will pay for my car's repairs when they change lanes suddenly in heavy traffic and dent my front end (or wreck my car entirely, driving in 70mph traffic and deciding 10 feet is enough stopping distance). I don't give a **** whether their car is repaired or not.

I frankly don't believe 'mandatory health insurance' makes any sense. It's a way of taxing the folks who don't need health insurance; which is another way of saying, taxing the young working poor. Fortunately for our government, they don't really vote ... If you totaled the cost to the government (and/or the healthcare system) of all health related issues caused by folks in this age bracket, and subtract out all of the folks who would get 'free' insurance anyway (would qualify for medicare/etc. under any given poli's plan), you end up with a number far less than the costs that would be born by these folks if they had to pay for health insurance.

Like I said elsewhere - call a duck a duck, and do socialized medicine ****ing properly, or don't do it at all. This half-***ed **** doesn't benefit anyone other than the politicians who use it to buy votes from soccer moms and donations from Aetna ...

But you owe society, and when you don't produce (or pass on an infectious disease) you are a liability.

It is in the governments interest for everyone to have health insurance.

JM

[Alexander I]

Silly Obama! Trix are for kids!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
DF said:

Yes, yes, so it isn't the same as the health care systems in Canada and Western Europe. Good thing, too, since those systems drive down the quality of health care.

Strange. It's puzzling then that the U.S. has the shortest life expectancy in the industrialized world and the highest infant mortality rate.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Kidicious

And Spencer you are just too funny.

Its strange, but lots of children say that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kid is right on this one. That doesn't make any sense... especially since Hillary and McCain are also far to the left of Floyd and far to the right of Che.

Frankly, it pretty much covers 90% of humanity.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369

I frankly don't believe 'mandatory health insurance' makes any sense.

It is a way of avoiding market failure. It does make sense, but not as much sense as universal healthcare.