I believe Scott Brown's win is a referendum on Obama.

[FromTheSouth]

And so does The President himself. The message from the White House all day has been a giant, "My Bad!"

Obama appeared on ABC News today saying that the country is reacting with anger and frustration at the economy. Maybe he should have been worrying about that while trying to force healthcare on a population which was double digits, according to RCP's aggregate of all major polls, against the current legislation. Brown's inclusion assures that legislation will be more focused on jobs. The left will not be able to push any legislation that is not focused on reducing unemployment. Scott Brown will use this to run for President in either six or ten years.

This could wind up good for the President though. If unemployment goes down, no one will remember the healthcare failure. See Clinton, President Bill 1994-1996. Honestly, it will be good for a few moderate Dems. With party lines not so clearly defined, moderate Democrats can vote pro-business to appeal across party lines and to independents, which could wind up saving seats in the midterms in nine and a half months.

The White House spokeman, Robert Gibb today passed blame throughout the entire Democratic machine, including the white house, admitting they dropped the ball. They ran a smart-mouthed prosecutor who got elected Attorney General against a polished statesman. It is hard to lose Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, but this was the formula. The only way to lose that seat was to betray New England values, and insulting a World Series hero, in a city where that particular struggle is the muse for several movies (even if one of them does star Jimmy Fallon).

Furthermore, when one of The President's major successes is agreeing to send troops somewhere where they are obviously needed, you cannot run someone who is contrary to the President in a state where he won by 20%. That is just bad politics. The party could have picked someone better, the White House could have paid more attention, the candidate could have not self-destructed.

The pressure over healthcare is getting to the party. This was their number one on the agenda, and it has started a political revolution akin to the one that Obamamania started two years ago. This country is truly bi-polar politically. If this bill fails, Republicans start asking why they didn't spend more time finding jobs for the unemployed. As I said earlier, it might help some moderates appeal to independents, but senior leadership like Harry Reid is danger. His state is already on the verge of ousting him, and this possible failure would be the final nail. What started as a legislation conveyor belt to The President's desk, has turned into a toll road. Nebraska getting 300,000,000,000 with a B, the new Lousianna Purchase, and the possibility of raising the debt to 14.3 trillion dollars.

In all honesty, we should send a half a million troops to Afghanistan, rathole that place in six months and come home. We need to find a way to end quickly our foreign conflicts, we need to find American's jobs, and we need to make business profitable enough to insure everyone. We can use the public money to fund social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Scott Brown's win promises a refocusing on congress, which can only be good for all of America. Whether or not I want the country to move further right, or others want it to move further left, we can all agree, that pushing it all the way, either way, is out of line with the principles this country functioned on during it's golden years as the example to all other countries in the world. I am not saying the Scott Brown is the key for a return to international glory, but he might shift power just enough to get people back to work, and that's a start.

 

[lghikas]

I agree for the most part, I believe from the Brown camp in polls they said they found out that one of the big reason he won was his strong stance on terrorism as opposed to Obama trying to get rid of Gitmo and giving them the same kind of trial American gets. Also there was a relative high turnout, something thought to favor Coakley, not to mention he ran as the 41st vote against Health Care. Not to mention I have barely begun to mention the kind of government Obama is running. They are making so many personal attacks on people who disagree with them. Not to mention they tried to start a verbal war with the highest rated cable news channel by far.

Anyway hopefully this win will wake everyone up and they started being more centrist or alot of officers are going to be unseated and like Brown said last night "If it can happen in Massachusetts it can happen all over America"

As for Brown having any Presidential aspirations I need to see more and how he governs from "The People's Seat" could be big for him, because he just gained a lot of momentum and popularity during this race.

 

[BladeRunner]

The people don't like the idea of government and corporations being one and the same thing.

The people don't like their tax dollars going to private corporations whose screwups are costing everyone their jobs.

The people are afraid of what government can do to healthcare, whether that's warranted or not.

What we have here is just a bit of the old overreach. The democrats tried to push too many things through in a bad time.

The people don't trust big government, but also, they don't trust big business either.

And when the two combine, well, anybody with a mind for these things knows that the shit's about to hit the fan.

Employment should be the number one priority of this administration in my opinion. Bringing down the national debt, taking care of those that are truly in need, these things are something the people can have a broad general consensus on.

The government's job is to do the will of the people. Not the will of the corporation, or the will of petty aristocrats, or even the will of angry factions, the will of ALL the people. And if Obama would do just that his numbers would go back up.

 

[ZeroVX]

The people don't like the idea of government and corporations being one and the same thing.

The people don't like their tax dollars going to private corporations whose screwups are costing everyone their jobs.

The people are afraid of what government can do to healthcare, whether that's warranted or not.

What we have here is just a bit of the old overreach. The democrats tried to push too many things through in a bad time.

The people don't trust big government, but also, they don't trust big business either.

And when the two combine, well, anybody with a mind for these things knows that the shit's about to hit the fan.

Employment should be the number one priority of this administration in my opinion. Bringing down the national debt, taking care of those that are truly in need, these things are something the people can have a broad general consensus on.

The government's job is to do the will of the people. Not the will of the corporation, or the will of petty aristocrats, or even the will of angry factions, the will of ALL the people. And if Obama would do just that his numbers would go back up.

But suppose there are those who want national healthcare?

It truly baffles me that there are those who don't want national healthcare in America. Regardless of your reasons as to why, the end result would be better for everyone. Anyone would be able to get help with whatever illness or disease you have. And any money you're using on health insurance would be free, which could help stimulate the economy.

I live in Canada, where we already have national healthcare, and if that was ever taken away from us, people would be PISSED. Jim Cornette actually said it best, as in one of his commentaries on his site, he mentioned that one of his Canadian friends said that if healthcare was taken away from us, there would be riots in the streets.

That's something else I don't understand about this whole debate. Why no one has thought to ask Canada about it. We already have national healthcare, and it works just fine for us. We're perfectly happy with it. Why fight about it?

 

[lghikas]

But suppose there are those who want national healthcare?

It truly baffles me that there are those who don't want national healthcare in America. Regardless of your reasons as to why, the end result would be better for everyone. Anyone would be able to get help with whatever illness or disease you have. And any money you're using on health insurance would be free, which could help stimulate the economy.

I live in Canada, where we already have national healthcare, and if that was ever taken away from us, people would be PISSED. Jim Cornette actually said it best, as in one of his commentaries on his site, he mentioned that one of his Canadian friends said that if healthcare was taken away from us, there would be riots in the streets.

That's something else I don't understand about this whole debate. Why no one has thought to ask Canada about it. We already have national healthcare, and it works just fine for us. We're perfectly happy with it. Why fight about it?

Well thats the thing, the US is much different than Canada, we already spend to much money as a country anyway and here with a Nation Health Care taxes will only go up more than they have, and right now in a poor economy people don't want to pay alot of taxes. Also being a democratic country if the people don't want it, which just about every poll I seen points that way, it shouldn't be passed.

Now I'm not saying Health Care is fine the way it is, GOD no, so it needs reform and in the US, the answer is NOT National Health Care.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But suppose there are those who want national healthcare?

There are. The same ones who don't want to work, don't want to try to achieve, etc. Granted, there are people who legitimately need help, lots of them, but not enough to justify the proposed expense. Please tell me why we have to pay $300,000,000,000 in extra taxes for an earmark for Nebraska to get national healthcare. That billions with a B, and that's fucking stupid.

It truly baffles me that there are those who don't want national healthcare in America.

It truly baffles me that people want to argue the false moralistic view of the situation and never acknowledge that while it's a good idea, we can't fucking afford it. I think we should feed and house every homeless person, but we can't fucking afford it. Grow up and think like a tax payer and it won't baffle you anymore.

Regardless of your reasons as to why, the end result would be better for everyone.

How? I pay less than a grand a year for my health insurance. Under the government plan, I would have two options. The first would be to pay $3,000 a year for health insurance, or stay with my plan, which will have a rising rate because the government thinks it's OK to fucking steal from the insurance companies, who will be forced to pass the cost along to the consumer.

Please, tell me how any of that makes my life better?

Here's your argument....."Well, if you lose your job...."

Fuck that. If I lose my job, I can get another one and use COBRA to bridge between policies. I don't need this incompetent administration to try and run my healthcare when they have failed at everything else they have done. Thank God Scott Brown won, so that I will never have to deal with the government taking over another private industry and running it with all the competence they run Amtrak and the mortgage industry.

Anyone would be able to get help with whatever illness or disease you have. And any money you're using on health insurance would be free, which could help stimulate the economy.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You see, some of us go to college so we can get good jobs and not have to take handouts from the government. In the end, those of us who aren't like you pay for those handouts that people like you are asking for.

You're over here talking about unrealistic solutions that involve free money. Please stop.

I live in Canada, where we already have national healthcare, and if that was ever taken away from us, people would be PISSED.

Which is why you people rush across the border to get treatment in America and why private health clinics are the fastest growing sector of your economy? Give me a break. The Canadian plan is shit.

Jim Cornette actually said it best, as in one of his commentaries on his site, he mentioned that one of his Canadian friends said that if healthcare was taken away from us, there would be riots in the streets.

There should be riots over your tax rate like there are here. Pacifist population is too scared to demand what is due them.

That's something else I don't understand about this whole debate. Why no one has thought to ask Canada about it. We already have national healthcare, and it works just fine for us. We're perfectly happy with it. Why fight about it?

1. Socialized medicine limits access to special procedures.

2. Doctors would much rather get paid for their work and are starting to refuse patients who cannot pay in some other way.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/candentist2.html

3. Wait list times for the procedures mentioned in the graph are at an all time high.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cansurgery4.html

4. The Canadian government limits access for terminal patients, creating death boards of bureaucrats who decide who gets to live and to die.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cancancer.html

5. A healthcare revolution in Canada is moving toward private medical care.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/caninching.html


Yeah, sure looks fine to me. Everyone seems to be more than happy with the substandard care and disregard for human rights that you call the "perfect solution."

 

[Razor]

And so does The President himself. The message from the White House all day has been a giant, "My Bad!"

Isn't that what Presidents do? Unless it's Bush. Then it's "Uhhh...Terrorists?" (The shrug is a part of the quote, by the way.)

Obama appeared on ABC News today saying that the country is reacting with anger and frustration at the economy.

Is he going to outright admit that the Republicans won with their bullshit propaganda? Fuck no.

Maybe he should have been worrying about that while trying to force healthcare on a population which was double digits, according to RCP's aggregate of all major polls, against the current legislation.

You just can't fight bullshit statements like "Death Panels!! Killing old people!?!?!?!" Just ask Obama. People still think he's a evil Al Qaeda Muslim from Kenya bent on bring about Armageddon. Only, I figured the Antichrist would be more friendly to Israel. He does need that Temple of Solomon rebuilt in order to proclaim his godliness from atop it.

Brown's inclusion assures that legislation will be more focused on jobs. The left will not be able to push any legislation that is not focused on reducing unemployment. Scott Brown will use this to run for President in either six or ten years.

..And he'll lose. Because he's too busy trying to pass ammendments to bills that allow doctors to refuse valid medical treatment if they're morally against it. Yeah, because I want my doctor saying "Sorry, but I'm morally against giving blood to you. I'm a Jehovah's Witness."

This could wind up good for the President though. If unemployment goes down, no one will remember the healthcare failure. See Clinton, President Bill 1994-1996.

At least Bill Clinton learned to not let Hillary touch shit.

Honestly, it will be good for a few moderate Dems. With party lines not so clearly defined, moderate Democrats can vote pro-business to appeal across party lines and to independents, which could wind up saving seats in the midterms in nine and a half months.

Pro-business? But won't that work against the Democrats and their obvious hatred of the Capitalist ideal?!

The White House spokeman, Robert Gibb today passed blame throughout the entire Democratic machine, including the white house, admitting they dropped the ball.

I still hold that Pelosi and Reid fucked this shit up. She's been on record with the AP stating that she's getting what she wants passed, not what the President wants. Too bad she's backed up by about 1% of the country, 50% want her gone from politics, and 49% wonder how in the hell she's a Democrat and not a Communist. She's crazy.

They ran a smart-mouthed prosecutor who got elected Attorney General against a polished statesman. It is hard to lose Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, but this was the formula. The only way to lose that seat was to betray New England values, and insulting a World Series hero, in a city where that particular struggle is the muse for several movies (even if one of them does star Jimmy Fallon).

Coakley is an idiot. There, I'll admit.

Furthermore, when one of The President's major successes is agreeing to send troops somewhere where they are obviously needed, you cannot run someone who is contrary to the President in a state where he won by 20%. That is just bad politics. The party could have picked someone better, the White House could have paid more attention, the candidate could have not self-destructed.

1) Yeah, because he's pulling out of Iraq via Bush's exit strategy + 6 months. While I despise the shit Bush pulled in office, I'll give him credit. He did have a exit strategy in place before Obama took office.

2) Coakley is a stupid bitch. Are you happy yet?

The pressure over healthcare is getting to the party. This was their number one on the agenda, and it has started a political revolution akin to the one that Obamamania started two years ago.

Because people wanted healthcare reform?

This country is truly bi-polar politically.

Naw. It's just that the crazies get heard and polled while the sane people sit around asking why they don't live in Germany with that MILF as a Chancellor.

If this bill fails, Republicans start asking why they didn't spend more time finding jobs for the unemployed. As I said earlier, it might help some moderates appeal to independents, but senior leadership like Harry Reid is danger.

That's when you say "We didn't spend more time on jobs because you spent 9 months lowballing us on Healthcare Reform." You know, it's called logic and sharing blame with the people who should share it.

His state is already on the verge of ousting him, and this possible failure would be the final nail. What started as a legislation conveyor belt to The President's desk, has turned into a toll road. Nebraska getting 300,000,000,000 with a B, the new Lousianna Purchase, and the possibility of raising the debt to 14.3 trillion dollars.

Reid is a bitch. He's almost as crazy and stupid as Pelosi. Almost.

In all honesty, we should send a half a million troops to Afghanistan, rathole that place in six months and come home. We need to find a way to end quickly our foreign conflicts,

If you had elected McCain, we'd still be in Iraq forever. At least with Obama he'll end this shit quick.

we need to find American's jobs, and we need to make business profitable enough to insure everyone. We can use the public money to fund social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Lemme guess. This will include massive deregulation (ala Reagnomics) that will just lead to another massive ethics be damned global economic recession. Hurray!

Scott Brown's win promises a refocusing on congress, which can only be good for all of America.

Bullshit. It's given the Republicans enough ammunition to start pushing their own agenda through, which will most definitely involve legislating morality. It seems as if Republicans switched out "Small Government" for "Big Religion." It's sad, really.

Whether or not I want the country to move further right, or others want it to move further left, we can all agree, that pushing it all the way, either way, is out of line with the principles this country functioned on during it's golden years as the example to all other countries in the world.

Oh, the years after World War II. People loved us back then. Of course, we had the big scary Communist Russians to deal with. You're not suggesting yet another big scary villain for us to hate, are you? We already have the ghost of Terrorism and the spirit of Drugs.

I am not saying the Scott Brown is the key for a return to international glory, but he might shift power just enough to get people back to work, and that's a start.

I'll agree if you aren't meaning that Brown is going to do all of this. McCain maybe. Some other idealist Republicans, sure. Brown? He's not going to do a damn thing.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This is gonna be fun.

Isn't that what Presidents do? Unless it's Bush. Then it's "Uhhh...Terrorists?" (The shrug is a part of the quote, by the way.)

So, instead of addressing the loss of power, you choose to bash Bush. Awesome. You're just like Obama.

Is he going to outright admit that the Republicans won with their bullshit propaganda? Fuck no.

Please, tell me what propaganda that could be. Scott Brown didn't go into that election bashing national healthcare. He voted FOR universal coverage in Massachusettes. He said he was going to vote against this bill because of the massive bribes and earmarks that were used to get it through the Senate. Is there a reason that Lousiana and Nebraska deserve an extra half a trillion dollars in giveaways than everyone else is going to get? Is there a reason that corporations can't run healthcare with some government subsidies? That's the plan being used in Massachusetts and it is a success. He is voting against the bill because it's a bad bill, not because he wants to give us the impression that it's a bad idea. You'd be hard pressed to find any Republican who doesn't want some sort of healthcare, but it needs to start with tort reform, tax credits, and subsidies. Bribes, socialism, and secrecy are not always the answer.

You just can't fight bullshit statements like "Death Panels!! Killing old people!?!?!?!"

Tell me where Scott Brown said this? All the polling indicates he won based on his stances against terrorism. His opponent said that we shouldn't surge the troops and that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan. You don't win by being anti-military and completely incompetent anywhere, much less Massachusetts, a state with a more educated constituency than most other places.

Just ask Obama. People still think he's a evil Al Qaeda Muslim from Kenya bent on bring about Armageddon.

Yawn. Come back around when you have actual arguments, other than red herrings that distract from the issues at hand. America opposes this bill, America opposes government takeover, and the Democratic nominee was in way over her head.

Only, I figured the Antichrist would be more friendly to Israel. He does need that Temple of Solomon rebuilt in order to proclaim his godliness from atop it.

Are you done? Can we talk about issues like adults, or are we going to continue with the Chicken Little bullshit?

..And he'll lose. Because he's too busy trying to pass ammendments to bills that allow doctors to refuse valid medical treatment if they're morally against it. Yeah, because I want my doctor saying "Sorry, but I'm morally against giving blood to you. I'm a Jehovah's Witness."

Wow, this is just stupid. If a Jehova's Witness is against medicine, why is he a doctor? It doesn't reconcile at all. Furthermore, I love how you find one statement and make it like his entire campaign was based on it. Truly, a terrible argument. He ran his entire campaign about fiscal responsibility and fighting terrorism. His opponent, like Obama, ran her entire campaign based on sound bites and idiocy. Massachusetts realized that they fell for it once, and like New Jersey and Virginia, decided not to fall for it again.

At least Bill Clinton learned to not let Hillary touch shit.

I bet Hillary could beat Obama in a primary as of right now.

Pro-business? But won't that work against the Democrats and their obvious hatred of the Capitalist ideal?!

More sarcasm to avoid to issue at hand. The Democratic message is falling by the wayside. Yo be able to lose Ted Kennedy's seat, something has to be very, very wrong. The candidate is an idiot, but all national polling shows that the message is failing too.

I still hold that Pelosi and Reid fucked this shit up. She's been on record with the AP stating that she's getting what she wants passed, not what the President wants. Too bad she's backed up by about 1% of the country, 50% want her gone from politics, and 49% wonder how in the hell she's a Democrat and not a Communist. She's crazy.

MmmmHmmmm.



Coakley is an idiot. There, I'll admit.

1) Yeah, because he's pulling out of Iraq via Bush's exit strategy + 6 months. While I despise the shit Bush pulled in office, I'll give him credit. He did have a exit strategy in place before Obama took office.

Yep. Believe me, if we were tracking his approval rating, it would go up every day for ten years. TARP ran efficiently and under budget. Compare that with Obama's stimulus package, which, has created about 11 jobs for a trillion dollars.

2) Coakley is a stupid bitch. Are you happy yet?

I've been happy since Tuesday.

Because people wanted healthcare reform?

Read a poll. You are so wrong about the people wanting it.

Naw. It's just that the crazies get heard and polled while the sane people sit around asking why they don't live in Germany with that MILF as a Chancellor.

Right. Because RCP aggregate of Gallup, Opinion Dynamics, USA Today, CNN, NY Times that shows national healthcare losing by double digits only accounts for the crazies. These are more baseless arguments that show the ignorance of the leftist media.

That's when you say "We didn't spend more time on jobs because you spent 9 months lowballing us on Healthcare Reform." You know, it's called logic and sharing blame with the people who should share it.

The Democrats can all share it. They left the right completely out of the loop on writing the bill, therefore, the right opposes it. The bill is a big government, deficit raising, entitlement that raises taxes on corporations out of pure spite. This is against the ideals of the Republican party. I know that this is where you say the right is a machine and they're just fighting against Obama. You're wrong. They represent a segment of the American population which accounts for 57-65% of the voting public, depending on which poll you read. The only polls you will find that favor national healthcare in this entitlement, earmarked, pork barrel current form will be taken with the White House or on liberal college campuses full of kids living off of their parents who don't understand how taxes work.

Reid is a bitch. He's almost as crazy and stupid as Pelosi. Almost.

Reid is losing his seat soon, so thank goodness for that.

If you had elected McCain, we'd still be in Iraq forever. At least with Obama he'll end this shit quick.

By following Bush's plan. You already admitted that. McCain is an idiot too, but his plan for healthcare was better. Give people a tax credit for their coverage and let them find their own, managed by business which is always more efficient and better than the government, i.e. The Postal Servie, Amtrak, the mortgage industry.

Lemme guess. This will include massive deregulation (ala Reagnomics) that will just lead to another massive ethics be damned global economic recession. Hurray!

Because of that huge recession under Reagan? Or is it because of the huge recession under Clinton, who was a Friedman guy? All of you lefties love to point to deregulation as being the cause of recessions, but look when they happen. In 1990, Democrats gained a filibuster proof majority in the House, recession. In 2006, Democrats took control of the house and senate, recession. In 2008, Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, economy is worse. Notice a pattern?

Bullshit. It's given the Republicans enough ammunition to start pushing their own agenda through, which will most definitely involve legislating morality.

This is another red herring talking point that only appeals to people who already leftist anyway. It will score big points here, but means absolutely nothing in a pragmatic worldview.

It seems as if Republicans switched out "Small Government" for "Big Religion." It's sad, really.

Yawn. Tell me when you're going to stop with this fire and brimstone, completely empty rhetoric and show me some sources or some proof of any of this. How is the left's hatred of religion any better? See, I can do it too.

Oh, the years after World War II. People loved us back then. Of course, we had the big scary Communist Russians to deal with. You're not suggesting yet another big scary villain for us to hate, are you? We already have the ghost of Terrorism and the spirit of Drugs.

If you think terrorism is a ghost and not an entirely legitimate enemy than it explains your entire post up until now. These are the same arguments that lost the Democrats a seat, in Massachusetts, that belonged to a Kennedy. Face it, your message, and the message you cite does not resonate with real Americans. It's nice that people want change when it's necessary that time. In 2008, I told you all that hope and change meant that you hoped you would have some change left after taxes, and it looks like I would have been right had the American people not stood up and told Obama that enough is enough. If he was any kind of Patriot, he would resign his office.

I'll agree if you aren't meaning that Brown is going to do all of this. McCain maybe. Some other idealist Republicans, sure. Brown? He's not going to do a damn thing.

He's already saved us, and he hasn't even cast a vote.

 

[ZeroVX]

There are. The same ones who don't want to work, don't want to try to achieve, etc. Granted, there are people who legitimately need help, lots of them, but not enough to justify the proposed expense. Please tell me why we have to pay $300,000,000,000 in extra taxes for an earmark for Nebraska to get national healthcare. That billions with a B, and that's fucking stupid.

Not enough? How do you know? There are probably a ton of genuine, hard-working people who still can't afford proper health insurance. Just because they're not living in the streets doesn't mean they're rolling in money.

It truly baffles me that people want to argue the false moralistic view of the situation and never acknowledge that while it's a good idea, we can't fucking afford it. I think we should feed and house every homeless person, but we can't fucking afford it. Grow up and think like a tax payer and it won't baffle you anymore.

And people can't afford it because you're pumping money into insurance. Insurance that probably screws you in the long run anyway. That seems completely fair.

How? I pay less than a grand a year for my health insurance. Under the government plan, I would have two options. The first would be to pay $3,000 a year for health insurance, or stay with my plan, which will have a rising rate because the government thinks it's OK to fucking steal from the insurance companies, who will be forced to pass the cost along to the consumer.

Please, tell me how any of that makes my life better?

Here's your argument....."Well, if you lose your job...."

Fuck that. If I lose my job, I can get another one and use COBRA to bridge between policies. I don't need this incompetent administration to try and run my healthcare when they have failed at everything else they have done. Thank God Scott Brown won, so that I will never have to deal with the government taking over another private industry and running it with all the competence they run Amtrak and the mortgage industry.

You pay less than a grand. Goody for you. I'm sure that's prime-quality insurance. Other people probably have to pay more for slightly better quality.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You see, some of us go to college so we can get good jobs and not have to take handouts from the government. In the end, those of us who aren't like you pay for those handouts that people like you are asking for.

You're over here talking about unrealistic solutions that involve free money. Please stop.

I love how you're assuming so much about me. It's funny, it really is.

Which is why you people rush across the border to get treatment in America and why private health clinics are the fastest growing sector of your economy? Give me a break. The Canadian plan is shit.

I'm sorry, that sounds like a generalization.

There should be riots over your tax rate like there are here. Pacifist population is too scared to demand what is due them.

Wow, another one. You're good at this.

1. Socialized medicine limits access to special procedures.

2. Doctors would much rather get paid for their work and are starting to refuse patients who cannot pay in some other way.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/candentist2.html

3. Wait list times for the procedures mentioned in the graph are at an all time high.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cansurgery4.html

4. The Canadian government limits access for terminal patients, creating death boards of bureaucrats who decide who gets to live and to die.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cancancer.html

5. A healthcare revolution in Canada is moving toward private medical care.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/caninching.html


Yeah, sure looks fine to me. Everyone seems to be more than happy with the substandard care and disregard for human rights that you call the "perfect solution."

And your solution is perfect for human rights as well. Just leave those who don't have enough money out hanging to dry.

Here's the problem: You're thinking about right now. You're thinking about how things are going to affect you in the immediate future. It may mean more money right now, but in the long run, it will benefit everyone.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Not enough? How do you know? There are probably a ton of genuine, hard-working people who still can't afford proper health insurance. Just because they're not living in the streets doesn't mean they're rolling in money.

You forgot to say, "What about the children." The agreed upon statistics are that 40 million Americans are uninsured, and 25 million are healthy people who choose to not have insurance. Why does it cost trillions to insure 15 million people?

And, I'm not against national healthcare. I'm against a bill that makes national healthcare recipients so reliant on the government when the government has shown itself time and again incapable of managing anything efficiently. I want the bill to focus on subsidies and tort reform, things that make treatment more affordable, not legislation that raises taxes and puts such a greater burden on the middle class. This particular bill is shit because it's partisan backfighting by a bunch of incompetent jackasses who are still trying to get back at Bush.

And people can't afford it because you're pumping money into insurance. Insurance that probably screws you in the long run anyway. That seems completely fair.

Your argument is completely baseless. You made an unsubstantiated attack on the insurance industry in order to garner favor with mindless people who follow any argument which seems like it's moral, when, in fact, it is nothing more than an attempt to demonize profits.

You pay less than a grand. Goody for you. I'm sure that's prime-quality insurance. Other people probably have to pay more for slightly better quality.

$15 co pay, $500 deductible, no cap....Yeah, it's actually great insurance. But, way to be a smart ass. So far, you have done nothing but be falsely moralistic, full of shit, and used no facts to substantiate your wild ass claims. You could work for Obama.

I love how you're assuming so much about me. It's funny, it really is.

Like you did about me and my insurance in the previous paragraphy you hypocritical cunt? Seriously, pot, meet kettle.

I'm sorry, that sounds like a generalization.

That's all you have made. Generalizations and reaches. No facts, no data, just bullshit backed up by shoddy analysis.

But, it's not a generalization. It's actually a fact.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...idering-healthcare-overhaul-private-insurance

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/nation/na-healthcare-canada27

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529561,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.html

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/07/private-healthcare-booming-in.html

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/in-canada-a-move-toward-a-private-healthcare-option/

Do you need more proof?

Wow, another one. You're good at this.

And, you're terrible at this.

Look, if you can't form a decent argument, then you should definitely fail at being a decent smartass too. It makes you look really good.

Are you going to answer the points or continue to reject the premise like your lefty friends that are running this country and their party into the ground?

And your solution is perfect for human rights as well. Just leave those who don't have enough money out hanging to dry.

Another red herring that doesn't address the point. And, once again, I don't remember ever saying that there should be no national healthcare. What I do remember is your inability to answer the points I have made about subsidies and letting private industry use government money.

What I have seen you do is dance around points that you aren't smart enough to answer and give me BS "you big meanie" arguments without actually addressing any legitimate conversation. You fail, your posts fail, and, thankfully, this bill fails.

Here's the problem: You're thinking about right now. You're thinking about how things are going to affect you in the immediate future.

That's because the government doesn't seem to care.

It may mean more money right now, but in the long run, it will benefit everyone.

No, it won't. You don't say how it will, for one, so that is more shitty debating from you. Secondly, the current plan works well for 90% of America. When something works by that overwhelming of a majority, you tweak it, you don't overhaul it, you don't give the poor access by restricting access to the middle class, and you don't fucking take over an entire industry because it makes money and you find that reprehensible.

 

[ZeroVX]

You forgot to say, "What about the children." The agreed upon statistics are that 40 million Americans are uninsured, and 25 million are healthy people who choose to not have insurance. Why does it cost trillions to insure 15 million people?

And, again, that's most likely because they can't afford it in the first place. They still need to use what money they've earned to feed their families and pay mortgages. Health insurance probably isn't very high on the list of needed things for them.

And, I'm not against national healthcare. I'm against a bill that makes national healthcare recipients so reliant on the government when the government has shown itself time and again incapable of managing anything efficiently. I want the bill to focus on subsidies and tort reform, things that make treatment more affordable, not legislation that raises taxes and puts such a greater burden on the middle class. This particular bill is shit because it's partisan backfighting by a bunch of incompetent jackasses who are still trying to get back at Bush.

OK, first off, they have good reason for trying to get back at Bush, because he caused the mess we're in in the first place. Second, the tax raise is necessary. They need to use the money currently being pumped into health insurance to go towards nationalized healthcare. The money has to come from somewhere.

Your argument is completely baseless. You made an unsubstantiated attack on the insurance industry in order to garner favor with mindless people who follow any argument which seems like it's moral, when, in fact, it is nothing more than an attempt to demonize profits.

I'm sorry, how do you know what I intended to do? Can you read minds through your computer? If you must know, I did INTEND to make a moral argument, because this is a moral issue. Insurance companies charge bucketloads of money, then screw the customers over ridiculous things. Example, say you found out you had a tumor. You go to your insurance company to see if you'll be insured for surgery. They say no, because it's a "pre-existing condition". Even though it's a goddamn tumor, and if you don't get the money for surgery, you're going to die.

$15 co pay, $500 deductible, no cap....Yeah, it's actually great insurance. But, way to be a smart ass. So far, you have done nothing but be falsely moralistic, full of shit, and used no facts to substantiate your wild ass claims. You could work for Obama.

Again, how do you know I'm being "falsely moralistic"? You're basically treating me like I'm some sort of evil Communist, out to corrupt minds and destroy your way of life. You're the one making wild accusations here.

Like you did about me and my insurance in the previous paragraph you hypocritical cunt? Seriously, pot, meet kettle.

Oh, yes, because making generalizations about insurance companies and making ones about a nation of people is the exact same thing. Oh Lordy, please forgive me, for I have been a moron!

That's all you have made. Generalizations and reaches. No facts, no data, just bullshit backed up by shoddy analysis.

But, it's not a generalization. It's actually a fact.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...idering-healthcare-overhaul-private-insurance

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/nation/na-healthcare-canada27

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529561,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.html

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/07/private-healthcare-booming-in.html

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/in-canada-a-move-toward-a-private-healthcare-option/

Do you need more proof?

Yeah, how about some that isn't from people who are clearly biased towards Republicans?

And, you're terrible at this.

Look, if you can't form a decent argument, then you should definitely fail at being a decent smartass too. It makes you look really good.

Are you going to answer the points or continue to reject the premise like your lefty friends that are running this country and their party into the ground?

As soon as you start making some, I'll address them.

Another red herring that doesn't address the point. And, once again, I don't remember ever saying that there should be no national healthcare. What I do remember is your inability to answer the points I have made about subsidies and letting private industry use government money.

What I have seen you do is dance around points that you aren't smart enough to answer and give me BS "you big meanie" arguments without actually addressing any legitimate conversation. You fail, your posts fail, and, thankfully, this bill fails.

Well, first off, you haven't actually said that you are completely for healthcare up until now. Secondly, just because you yourself haven't had any issues with your insurance yet doesn't mean you never will. I know people who have had issues with their insurance, or can't afford it, and I can tell you, they need it. Third, I think me calling you a "big meanie" after you basically saying that all Canadians are *****es is the least of things I could call you.

That's because the government doesn't seem to care.

Like they ever have before now.

No, it won't. You don't say how it will, for one, so that is more shitty debating from you. Secondly, the current plan works well for 90% of America. When something works by that overwhelming of a majority, you tweak it, you don't overhaul it, you don't give the poor access by restricting access to the middle class, and you don't fucking take over an entire industry because it makes money and you find that reprehensible.

Well, by that logic, you don't see how it won't. It's equally likely to succeed as it is to fail. Also, a plan that works for 90% isn't good enough when you have one that could work for more. As for taking over "because it makes money", like I said, there have been many cases where they make money by screwing people over. Again, you're the one making wild accusations by assuming the people in charge are evil and are out to destroy your way of life. Way to follow Fox News there.

 

[Razor]

This is gonna be fun.

Oh but of course. It's what we do.

So, instead of addressing the loss of power, you choose to bash Bush. Awesome. You're just like Obama.

What loss of power? Every president except for Roosevelt or Washington suffered a setback. Instead of whining and sulking, they say "Shit, my bad. But look at how I'm going to fix it."

Is that better? I felt a Bush joke would still get my point across, but I guess it flew right over your head. Too busy giving head to McCain and Romney, I'm sure.

Please, tell me what propaganda that could be. Scott Brown didn't go into that election bashing national healthcare. He voted FOR universal coverage in Massachusettes. He said he was going to vote against this bill because of the massive bribes and earmarks that were used to get it through the Senate. Is there a reason that Lousiana and Nebraska deserve an extra half a trillion dollars in giveaways than everyone else is going to get? Is there a reason that corporations can't run healthcare with some government subsidies? That's the plan being used in Massachusetts and it is a success. He is voting against the bill because it's a bad bill, not because he wants to give us the impression that it's a bad idea. You'd be hard pressed to find any Republican who doesn't want some sort of healthcare, but it needs to start with tort reform, tax credits, and subsidies. Bribes, socialism, and secrecy are not always the answer.

I was arguing the Healthcare propaganda. Like "Obamacare means death panels! Obamacare means we legislate which old people live and who dies! You'll die if you cost us too much! Obamacare means tax payer money for a legal medical operation, aka Abortion! Ahhh! Ahhh! Don't let teh communists get you with their single payer system that you can opt out of ! Ahhh!"

Also, isn't a large part of the Healthcare bill tort reform and insurance company reform?

Tell me where Scott Brown said this? All the polling indicates he won based on his stances against terrorism. His opponent said that we shouldn't surge the troops and that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan. You don't win by being anti-military and completely incompetent anywhere, much less Massachusetts, a state with a more educated constituency than most other places.

Not wanting a surge in troops is now anti-military? My god. Then when Beck was criticizing Obama for not being forward enough in Afghanistan or Yemen, he was being anti-military as well for criticizing the actions of our military.

..That's what you're saying, right?

Yawn. Come back around when you have actual arguments, other than red herrings that distract from the issues at hand. America opposes this bill, America opposes government takeover, and the Democratic nominee was in way over her head.

You know, that sentence was to put forward my earlier point of people still believing bullshit propaganda that takes maybe 5 seconds on Google to counteract. Everyone is against healthcare reform because the Republicans spent a year saying "Everyone is going to die! Death Panels! Run away deficit that we totally didn't run up in teh first place! ABORTION!" If you would look in the bill, and see that there are no death panels, that the government will not be legislating who lives or dies, and that the government wanted to help subsidize a perfectly legal medical act you wouldn't give into the hype. But no. People hear Abortion and think God is going to strike down the Democrats.

Are you done? Can we talk about issues like adults, or are we going to continue with the Chicken Little bullshit?

You split an entire, self-supporting paragraph into sentences. Shame on you. And besides, I thought I was being funny.

Wow, this is just stupid. If a Jehova's Witness is against medicine, why is he a doctor? It doesn't reconcile at all. Furthermore, I love how you find one statement and make it like his entire campaign was based on it. Truly, a terrible argument. He ran his entire campaign about fiscal responsibility and fighting terrorism. His opponent, like Obama, ran her entire campaign based on sound bites and idiocy. Massachusetts realized that they fell for it once, and like New Jersey and Virginia, decided not to fall for it again.

Lulz. No, his first major amendment to a bill was an attempt to get Doctors to be able to refuse legal medical procedures if they were ethically against them, to which many Republicans gawked.

I was researching to find the AP article, but I have lost it. However, I found a new article you may like:

In addition to his sponsorship of the Women’s Right to Know bill, Brown sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception....

Yeah, Okay. Source

What the fuck? Seriously. I hold that as a major point of his campaign like you did Obama with Healthcare. You're totally against Obama on Healthcare, I'm totally against Brown and trying to allow doctors to turn away contraception for RAPE VICTIMS.

I would also like to see how he plans on fighting runaway spending when he is joining the same Republicans that ran the deficit up rather high destroying our freedoms. They gave Bush a blank check, but when the Democrats do the same it's suddenly horrible and wrong? Talk about hypocrisy.

I bet Hillary could beat Obama in a primary as of right now.

I call bullshit.

More sarcasm to avoid to issue at hand. The Democratic message is falling by the wayside. Yo be able to lose Ted Kennedy's seat, something has to be very, very wrong. The candidate is an idiot, but all national polling shows that the message is failing too.

1) At least you caught the sarcasm this time.

2) You know why the message is failing, don't you? When you hear nothing but Death Panels! Abortion! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! ROTTING LEGS!!!! People aren't going to support it. Instead of attacking the bill on a fundamental, "I don't like telling insurance companies to be ethical" level, they attacked it with bullshit propaganda the likes of which I haven't seen since we invaded Iraq for the second time.

MmmmHmmmm.

I will forever blame Pelosi. Forever.

Yep. Believe me, if we were tracking his approval rating, it would go up every day for ten years. TARP ran efficiently and under budget. Compare that with Obama's stimulus package, which, has created about 11 jobs for a trillion dollars.

It's teh same thing for Carter. He spent months getting the Iranian hostages freed, but Reagan took the credit for it because they were released on his Inauguration Day. At least Obama could have said "Hey guys, I'm going with what Bush had in place."

However, did you sit here shitting on TARP when it was first implemented? Those fucking bailouts, right?

I've been happy since Tuesday.

MWAH, SARCASM.

Read a poll. You are so wrong about the people wanting it.

Not at all. People want a reform of the insurance industry. It's just that the Republicans got to them with bullshit Death Panels. Fucking propaganda, it'll work every time.

Right. Because RCP aggregate of Gallup, Opinion Dynamics, USA Today, CNN, NY Times that shows national healthcare losing by double digits only accounts for the crazies. These are more baseless arguments that show the ignorance of the leftist media.

Not at all. All you hear from the Christians are the insane, Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian Right, correct? It's the same principle. Not everyone is as far right wingnut as those people. Just like that, not everyone is against Healthcare reform. Just the people who still think there will be Death Booths set up on street corners.

The Democrats can all share it.

With the Republicans, right?

They left the right completely out of the loop on writing the bill, therefore, the right opposes it. The bill is a big government, deficit raising, entitlement that raises taxes on corporations out of pure spite.

And tell me, why do the Republicans oppose it? Despite the "raises taxes" thing.

This is against the ideals of the Republican party.

That they've fought to uphold since.....when? Don't' you fucking dare to say the Bush Administration.

I know that this is where you say the right is a machine and they're just fighting against Obama. You're wrong. They represent a segment of the American population which accounts for 57-65% of the voting public, depending on which poll you read.

Lulz. And that's totally why Obama won the election, or why Democrats had supermajority in Congress. Because 65% of the United States is Republican.

The only polls you will find that favor national healthcare in this entitlement, earmarked, pork barrel current form will be taken with the White House or on liberal college campuses full of kids living off of their parents who don't understand how taxes work.

I understand how taxes work. I also understand that insurance companies should be taught a few ways to act ethically, because they obviously can't do it on their own. However, the Republicans seem to think that anyone regulating a business that isn't themselves is bad, so it won't happen.

Reid is losing his seat soon, so thank goodness for that.

Woo-hoo.

By following Bush's plan. You already admitted that.

No, you know McCain would have stayed their must past Bush's accepted withdrawal plan. His entire presidential campaign was based on it.

McCain is an idiot too, but his plan for healthcare was better. Give people a tax credit for their coverage and let them find their own, managed by business which is always more efficient and better than the government, i.e. The Postal Servie, Amtrak, the mortgage industry.

How does that keep the insurance companies from kicking people who are sick from their coverage? Refusing coverage based off of bullshit "Pre-existing conditions?" Forming a monopoly over the insurance industry in specific sectors of the United States? In Arkansas we have two insurance companies for the entire state. They work together to raise rates, and thereby have formed a trust. How in the fuck can we not bust them?

Oh, yeah. Pro-business legislation means they are exempt from being charged with holding a monopoly or Trust over the insurance industry. Good job, Republicans.

Because of that huge recession under Reagan? Or is it because of the huge recession under Clinton, who was a Friedman guy? All of you lefties love to point to deregulation as being the cause of recessions, but look when they happen. In 1990, Democrats gained a filibuster proof majority in the House, recession. In 2006, Democrats took control of the house and senate, recession. In 2008, Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, economy is worse. Notice a pattern?

In 1990, we had had 8 years of Reaganomics.

In 2006, we had had 6 years of Bush rescinding what Clinton tried to repair.

In 2008, we had the mortage bubble burst, which had gotten that way because of Reaganomics and their deregulation.

So yeah, I see a pattern. A pattern of you pointing to Democrats taking control just as shit regulation finally hits the fan, and pointing at them instead of the Republicans who wrote it.

This is another red herring talking point that only appeals to people who already leftist anyway. It will score big points here, but means absolutely nothing in a pragmatic worldview.

How is is a redherring? You argue that the Republicans will legislate against big government, finally. I argue they will not, but instead legislate morality into their nice new big government helping big business bills.

Yawn. Tell me when you're going to stop with this fire and brimstone, completely empty rhetoric and show me some sources or some proof of any of this. How is the left's hatred of religion any better? See, I can do it too.

I showed how Brown tried to do it.

How about a man in almost getting to argue Manslaughter for killing an abortion doctor, who was performing completely LEGAL acts?

How about the Republicans getting in a hissy fit over subsidizing Abortions, a legal healthcare procedure? Would you have gotten pissy if they subsidized pacemakers?

Or, I don't know, the numerous attempts to AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Not to do something legally worthwhile, mind you. To motherfucking legislate morality.

Also, I don't hate religion. I hate having it legislated on me. As Reverend Al Sharpton said: "I'm a Christian, and I wish you to Heaven. I want you to go to Heaven. I will try my very best to talk to you and get you to realize the glory of God's word. However, it is not my place to force you to act morally and within God's law. It is not my or anyone else's place to legislate morality."

Maybe someone in Congress who hates the Gays should read that.

If you think terrorism is a ghost and not an entirely legitimate enemy than it explains your entire post up until now. These are the same arguments that lost the Democrats a seat, in Massachusetts, that belonged to a Kennedy. Face it, your message, and the message you cite does not resonate with real Americans. It's nice that people want change when it's necessary that time. In 2008, I told you all that hope and change meant that you hoped you would have some change left after taxes, and it looks like I would have been right had the American people not stood up and told Obama that enough is enough. If he was any kind of Patriot, he would resign his office.

I don't think Terrorism is a ghost as much as the magical Al Qaeda, people who apparently want to nuke us for 7 years but just haven't found a way out of their caves yet. The bombings are horrible, and the shootings are terrible. I feel for those who died. But when I hear a report every 3 months about how Al Qaeda wants a dirty bomb to detonate in New York, it gets old. It gets to feel like the great Communist Monster must have felt after 20 years of "He's going to nuke us!"

Our message resounds with the American people. It's just that it can't get through the Republican bullshit that repeatedly claims "Terrorist attack?!?! Obama's fault!" or "Abortions?!?! Baby killing Obama!!!"!"!"!!"!>AADSFJASKDFJAKSDFJASKDFJAKSDFJAKLSDJFASJDF

If I have to get hysterical and make wild claims to get people to listen, I can. McCain is a baby murderer from Rwanda who is going to go murder the Pope after chanting a variety of Satanic chants. Only thing is, he has to get pork-barrel spending outlawed before he can do so. So vote Yes to Pork-Barrel spending!

See? I can sound like someone who has no clue what the fuck I'm talking about as well. Substitute "Satanic Chants" for "We don't like Big Government now, despite the fact that we instituted a whole new Government Agency 5 years ago and cut away a large swath of your rights in the name of letting the President hear about your late night rendezvous." and you'll have your typical Republican talking head.

He's already saved us, and he hasn't even cast a vote.

I'm sorry, did you not catch the AP article where he said he'd vote with the Democrats some times? That the Republican Minority Leader should "not count on my vote?" He's going to be there to serve his own interests, not serve a Republican ideal that has been lost to the sands of time and Reagan's failed deregulation.

 

[FromTheSouth]

And, again, that's most likely because they can't afford it in the first place. They still need to use what money they've earned to feed their families and pay mortgages. Health insurance probably isn't very high on the list of needed things for them.

We do not use trillions to benefit 5% of the population. This current bill is a pile of earmarks that have nothing to do with healthcare. Obama promised to eliminate earmarks, and then his party used a trillion dollars worth of them to pass legislation that the nation is against. He is incompetent, his point people in congress are worse, and the current bill is horseshit.

OK, first off, they have good reason for trying to get back at Bush, because he caused the mess we're in in the first place.

October 2006, Dow hits an all time high. November 2006, Democrats win control of congress and the recession starts soon after. Learn how to use facts instead of BS talking points that MSNBC uses to feel better about themselves.

Second, the tax raise is necessary. They need to use the money currently being pumped into health insurance to go towards nationalized healthcare. The money has to come from somewhere.

Why do they need to use that money for national healthcare? You fail at telling me why it's so necessary. You also fail at telling my why this particular bill is necessary. You also fail to tell me why we have to pay for everyone's healthcare when we can use far less money to cover that 15% UNDER PRIVATE CARE THROUGH SUBSIDIES, which is what I have been saying since the beginning. As a matter of fact, you just fail.

All you do is give falsely moralistic arguments that sound good to dreamers but make no fiscal or pragmatic sense to doers. Keep the philosophy in the classroom. I live in the real world. No meal plans here.

I'm sorry, how do you know what I intended to do? Can you read minds through your computer?

This is what people do when they can't make good arguments.

If you must know, I did INTEND to make a moral argument, because this is a moral issue.

No it's not. It a control issue. It's a financial issue. It's a political issue. It is not a moral issue. Doctors can't refuse treatment to people. That would be a moral issue.

Insurance companies charge bucketloads of money, then screw the customers over ridiculous things.

This is another lie perpetuated by the left to scare people into voting for them. The people were fooled in 2006 and 2008, and have come out of that funk to take power away since them.

Example, say you found out you had a tumor. You go to your insurance company to see if you'll be insured for surgery. They say no, because it's a "pre-existing condition".

This makes me know that you do not pay for your own insurance. A pre-existing condition is a condition for which you have already had diagnosed and treated. If you did not have insurance, you should not be able to buy some now. You can't get car insurance after you wreck a car. That would be idiocy. Insurance is coverage in case something happens, not a way to get someone else to pay for what already has happened.

Now, if you change jobs, you get a form called HIPPA, which allows you to transfer pre existing conditions from one plan to another. If you lose your job, you get a form called COBRA, which allows you to continue your insurance for up to 18 months between plans.

You have no idea how insurance works, yet you think you are qualified to tell people how to overhaul the plan? Shit, you could President. It's not like you could do worse of a job.

Even though it's a goddamn tumor, and if you don't get the money for surgery, you're going to die.

That sucks. Hospitals have to treat emergencies, regardless of ability to pay.

Again, how do you know I'm being "falsely moralistic"? You're basically treating me like I'm some sort of evil Communist, out to corrupt minds and destroy your way of life. You're the one making wild accusations here.

That's the President. You just seem to subscribe to his lunacy.

Oh, yes, because making generalizations about insurance companies and making ones about a nation of people is the exact same thing. Oh Lordy, please forgive me, for I have been a moron!

You have. Glad we agree.

Yeah, how about some that isn't from people who are clearly biased towards Republicans?

You are clearly biased the other way. And, you don't know what you're talking about. I am the first one to praise Clinton, for not changing anything Reagan did economically.

And besides, did you even look at the links.

New York Times and LA Times are biased towards Republicans? Are you fucking kidding me? Man, you have no idea what's going on here, do you? That's fucking terrible. You are so overmatched, it's starting to get funny.

As soon as you start making some, I'll address them.

God, you are so bad at this. I have asked time and again why we need to overhaul the system when we could raise enough money by spending efficiently to subsidize the small number of people who need help get coverage from an efficiently run private system instead of from a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy. You fail to answer this because you are not smart enough to do so.

Well, first off, you haven't actually said that you are completely for healthcare up until now.

I've said it several times, in a series of other posts on this same topic. This thread isn't about national healthcare. It's about how shitty of a job your boy Nobama is doing.

Secondly, just because you yourself haven't had any issues with your insurance yet doesn't mean you never will. I know people who have had issues with their insurance, or can't afford it, and I can tell you, they need it.

Tell them to cancel the cable then. I don't know what to tell you. The people who can't afford insurance should cancel the cable, stop buying expensive cars, live in cheaper homes, etc. $80 a month is what I spend, and I am going to spend more than that on lap dances tonight.

Third, I think me calling you a "big meanie" after you basically saying that all Canadians are *****es is the least of things I could call you.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but I was probably mocking you.

Like they ever have before now.

Not my problem. I got my education and got a job. For some reason, you and your lefty friends think I should be punished for that.

Well, by that logic, you don't see how it won't. It's equally likely to succeed as it is to fail.

Then why should we spend trillions of dollars on a coin flip? With those odds, we should take tax money to Vegas and hope to double it.

Also, a plan that works for 90% isn't good enough when you have one that could work for more.

Well, as soon as one of your socialist friends on the left gives us one, we'll reexamine it. This bill is horseshit. You probably haven't read it though, because all you have done is talk out of your ass.

As for taking over "because it makes money", like I said, there have been many cases where they make money by screwing people over. Again, you're the one making wild accusations by assuming the people in charge are evil and are out to destroy your way of life.

Please tell me one thing they have done that has not been anti-corporate or has not been some kind of ploy to put as many people on the public dole as possible? Besides buy a dog and take three vacations, there are none.

Way to follow Fox News there.

You're so smart with that. And, I'm not the only one that does. Fox is now the number one network on all of cable. Fox tells the truth. Obama is a liar, and Fox exposes him for it. Time and again, he promised transparency, then passed a flawed bill behind closed doors. Have I told a lie? Fuck no! That's what this idiotic worthless fucking President is for. Thank God there's only three years left of that bozo.



I'll get to Razor later.

 

[ZeroVX]

We do not use trillions to benefit 5% of the population. This current bill is a pile of earmarks that have nothing to do with healthcare. Obama promised to eliminate earmarks, and then his party used a trillion dollars worth of them to pass legislation that the nation is against. He is incompetent, his point people in congress are worse, and the current bill is horseshit.

Holy fuck, you love making things complicated, don't you? OK, let me explain how this will work, again. That money you're spending on health insurance, right now? That's apparently not that much? Take it, and put it into your taxes. Was that so hard?

October 2006, Dow hits an all time high. November 2006, Democrats win control of congress and the recession starts soon after. Learn how to use facts instead of BS talking points that MSNBC uses to feel better about themselves.

Yes, after spending billions on a war that wasn't needed and lying to the public as to why he started it. Gee, you don't think we were already heading towards recession because of that? Oh wait, you're Republican, so every Bush touched turned to gold. How silly of me.

Why do they need to use that money for national healthcare? You fail at telling me why it's so necessary. You also fail at telling my why this particular bill is necessary. You also fail to tell me why we have to pay for everyone's healthcare when we can use far less money to cover that 15% UNDER PRIVATE CARE THROUGH SUBSIDIES, which is what I have been saying since the beginning. As a matter of fact, you just fail.

All you do is give falsely moralistic arguments that sound good to dreamers but make no fiscal or pragmatic sense to doers. Keep the philosophy in the classroom. I live in the real world. No meal plans here.

Because we don't live in a world where the good things are free. If the government is sponsoring something, taxes need to include it. It's that simple. And again, HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M BEING FALSELY MORALISTIC? You are not a mind reader, so you don't know if I'm being falsely moralistic or not. You're just assuming I am because I'm disagreeing with you.

No it's not. It a control issue. It's a financial issue. It's a political issue. It is not a moral issue. Doctors can't refuse treatment to people. That would be a moral issue.

Insurance companies refusing to pay for surgery that could save someone's life isn't a moral issue? What planet do you live on?

This is another lie perpetuated by the left to scare people into voting for them. The people were fooled in 2006 and 2008, and have come out of that funk to take power away since them.

The irony in that statement is just mind-boggling.

This makes me know that you do not pay for your own insurance. A pre-existing condition is a condition for which you have already had diagnosed and treated. If you did not have insurance, you should not be able to buy some now. You can't get car insurance after you wreck a car. That would be idiocy. Insurance is coverage in case something happens, not a way to get someone else to pay for what already has happened.

Now, if you change jobs, you get a form called HIPPA, which allows you to transfer pre existing conditions from one plan to another. If you lose your job, you get a form called COBRA, which allows you to continue your insurance for up to 18 months between plans.

You have no idea how insurance works, yet you think you are qualified to tell people how to overhaul the plan? Shit, you could President. It's not like you could do worse of a job.

Oh, yeah, because tumours are something you just catch. You just magically wake up one day with a giant growth on your forehead. It's because tumours develop over time that insurance companies view them as pre-existing conditions, since, before they were malignant, or visible, they were there.

And yes, Obama has done such a worse job in the one year he's been in office than the 8 years the last guy has. Yeah, you're not even slightly biased, are you?

That sucks. Hospitals have to treat emergencies, regardless of ability to pay.

Love how you just write it off like that. "Oh, you're gonna die? That sucks. Glad it isn't me."

That's the President. You just seem to subscribe to his lunacy.

OK, you're trolling me, aren't you? You can't actually believe that bullshit, can you?

You are clearly biased the other way. And, you don't know what you're talking about. I am the first one to praise Clinton, for not changing anything Reagan did economically.

And besides, did you even look at the links.

New York Times and LA Times are biased towards Republicans? Are you fucking kidding me? Man, you have no idea what's going on here, do you? That's fucking terrible. You are so overmatched, it's starting to get funny.

Hm, New York Times, run by a bunch of rich, white, upper-class assholes, biased towards Republicans, who are trying to prevent a bill that would cause them to lose money they've invested in insurance companies? You're right, clearly I'm overmatched here.

God, you are so bad at this. I have asked time and again why we need to overhaul the system when we could raise enough money by spending efficiently to subsidize the small number of people who need help get coverage from an efficiently run private system instead of from a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy. You fail to answer this because you are not smart enough to do so.

Because "spending efficiently" isn't something the general public is good at. And these people would probably still bitch and moan over helping people who need it, regardless of how the government wants them to do it. Hell, some people don't even want to donate money to help Haiti. And they are victims of an actual tragedy. What does that tell you?

I've said it several times, in a series of other posts on this same topic. This thread isn't about national healthcare. It's about how shitty of a job your boy Nobama is doing.

Odd, I thought healthcare was what we were talking about a minute ago. Feel free to change your mind just because you don't like the fact that I'm arguing with you.

Tell them to cancel the cable then. I don't know what to tell you. The people who can't afford insurance should cancel the cable, stop buying expensive cars, live in cheaper homes, etc. $80 a month is what I spend, and I am going to spend more than that on lap dances tonight.

Yes, they can definitely afford an expensive car to stop paying for, considering three of them have jobs and one of them is going to college. Nice how you, again, make an assumption and then accuse me of the same.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but I was probably mocking you.

Hold on.

Pacifist population is too scared to demand what is due them.

That, fucktard.

Not my problem. I got my education and got a job. For some reason, you and your lefty friends think I should be punished for that.

Oh, you gots an edumacation? You gots a jawb? Well aren't you special! It's not like countless other people have jobs, sometimes more than one, and still can't afford insurance! You're totally right!

Then why should we spend trillions of dollars on a coin flip? With those odds, we should take tax money to Vegas and hope to double it.

Oh for God's sake....

Your health insurance money -> your taxes. How the fuck is that trillions?!

Well, as soon as one of your socialist friends on the left gives us one, we'll reexamine it. This bill is horseshit. You probably haven't read it though, because all you have done is talk out of your ass.

Have YOU read the bill? Considering some of the shit you've said, I doubt it.

Please tell me one thing they have done that has not been anti-corporate or has not been some kind of ploy to put as many people on the public dole as possible? Besides buy a dog and take three vacations, there are none.

I'd much rather let you tell me what they supposedly did wrong. I'm sure it'll be funny.

You're so smart with that. And, I'm not the only one that does. Fox is now the number one network on all of cable. Fox tells the truth. Obama is a liar, and Fox exposes him for it. Time and again, he promised transparency, then passed a flawed bill behind closed doors. Have I told a lie? Fuck no! That's what this idiotic worthless fucking President is for. Thank God there's only three years left of that bozo.

.....OK, I am now convinced you are either an elaborate troll or a fucking moron. Fox News does not tell the truth. It takes something and twists it into a program designed to scare the shit out of you and make you listen to them, because if you don't, THE TERRORISTS WIN! Fox News is the most conservative, right-winged, biased network in existence today. Bar none. The fact that you believe them to be telling the truth only proves to me that you're caught in the bullshit, probably because you're worried that Osama Bin Laden is going to bomb your house if you don't.

I'll get to Razor later.

Good for you. Should be pathetic.

 

[X]

Jesus Christ FTS, are you kidding me here? You'd believe it was a referendum on Obama if a little girl pissed herself on the playground. I've seen grasping for straws before, but this is beyond that, this is like wildly clutching at confetti while freefalling out of an airplane, there isn't a fucking lick of sense in your connecting the dots here.

Scott Brown's win had NOTHING to do with Barack Obama. Abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING. It had to do with his only opponent being a fucking moron who insulted the people of Boston while making a god damn fool out of herself and INSULTING THE BOSTON RED SOX. You might as well take a shit in the Pope's mouth at that point because once you start taking jabs at the Red Sox in Massachussetts, I don't give a fuck what your politics are, you are NOT getting elected. And what a shocker, she didn't.

This is sad FTS. Take it from someone who's actually spent half of their life in Massachussetts, this has fucking nothing to do with a "referendum on Obama" and frankly I find it absurd that you think it is.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Holy fuck, you love making things complicated, don't you? OK, let me explain how this will work, again. That money you're spending on health insurance, right now? That's apparently not that much? Take it, and put it into your taxes. Was that so hard?

Your ignorance amuses me. The way the plan is set up, my tax bracket would have to pay $3,000 yearly for this plan. Why should I have to pay three times what I am paying now? Before you try to condescend to me, you should, you know, not be a fucking idiot.

Yes, after spending billions on a war that wasn't needed and lying to the public as to why he started it.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the current argument. That money is spent. We can't unspend it to pay for healthcare. Furthermore, spending trillions as revenge for spending on a war, a war that the Senate approved 99-1 including Democrats, doesn't make it right. This is a weak argument and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying suck a juvenile and pedantic ploy.

Gee, you don't think we were already heading towards recession because of that? Oh wait, you're Republican, so every Bush touched turned to gold. How silly of me.

And you're a democrat, so you want to take that gold and give it to a drug addict.





I have to go. I'll finish making you famous later.

 

[ZeroVX]

Your ignorance amuses me. The way the plan is set up, my tax bracket would have to pay $3,000 yearly for this plan. Why should I have to pay three times what I am paying now? Before you try to condescend to me, you should, you know, not be a fucking idiot.

Care to prove this?

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the current argument. That money is spent. We can't unspend it to pay for healthcare. Furthermore, spending trillions as revenge for spending on a war, a war that the Senate approved 99-1 including Democrats, doesn't make it right. This is a weak argument and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying suck a juvenile and pedantic ploy.

Actually, it has plenty to do with this argument. Bush spent billions and billions of taxpayer money, then turned to Obama when he was elected and basically said "Here, it's your problem now". And the Senate approved the war BECAUSE THEY WERE SCARED. 9/11 was scary shit, and when the president lies to you about who did it while you're scared, you don't think about it, you just do it.

And you're a democrat, so you want to take that gold and give it to a drug addict.

Actually, no. First of all, you're making assumptions about me, again. Second, I'm neither Republican or Democrat because both parties annoy me. I hate Republicans because they're a bunch of greedy assholes, and I hate the Democrats for being a bunch of spineless *****es and letting the Republicans have their way, even when they're in power. I like Obama because he's the first president I've seen who seems to actually give a shit about the country he's running and not just himself. He also seems to actually have a brain in his head. If you listened to his speeches and not just the Fox News versions, then you might be able to see that.

I have to go. I'll finish making you famous later.

Please stop telling me what you're doing, as though you expect me to give a shit. Because I really don't.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Jesus Christ FTS, are you kidding me here? You'd believe it was a referendum on Obama if a little girl pissed herself on the playground. I've seen grasping for straws before, but this is beyond that, this is like wildly clutching at confetti while freefalling out of an airplane, there isn't a fucking lick of sense in your connecting the dots here.

Scott Brown's win had NOTHING to do with Barack Obama. Abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING. It had to do with his only opponent being a fucking moron who insulted the people of Boston while making a god damn fool out of herself and INSULTING THE BOSTON RED SOX. You might as well take a shit in the Pope's mouth at that point because once you start taking jabs at the Red Sox in Massachussetts, I don't give a fuck what your politics are, you are NOT getting elected. And what a shocker, she didn't.

This is sad FTS. Take it from someone who's actually spent half of their life in Massachussetts, this has fucking nothing to do with a "referendum on Obama" and frankly I find it absurd that you think it is.

You are so wrong it's funny here. New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts have all lost seats of power held by Democrats since Obama started pushing healthcare against the people's will.

He is a failure as a President, and the people of America are voicing their opinion. The candidate trying to succeed a Kennedy should be able to take a shit on the Constitution and win. However, this candidate never had a chance. The further Obama and healthcare slipped in the polls, the further she slipped. She had a double digit lead, and the harder healthcare was pushed, the closer it got.

I know you like to defend him, but face it, he makes Bush look like Thomas Jerfferson. He would be a great Secretary of State, but as President he is overmatched.

His biggest initiatives are failing. Healthcare, if it even gets passed, is going to be a watered down joke of a bill. He had to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan when he promised to end it. Cap and tax is falling apart. The only American car company doing any business is Ford, which refused his handout plan. His stimulus plan has created roughly 30,000 jobs. He borrowed a trillion dollars to supply jobs, and unemployment has gone up.

And, I guess this means it's coincidence that the Kennedy seat is being kept warm by a Republican.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Care to prove this?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html

The Wall Street Journal shows how Premiums for singles would be in excess of $5,000 a year. So, I guess you were right. I was wrong. It is in fact, over five fucking times what I pay now.

I bet you're going to attack the source now, because that's the only argument you have, and that's a shitty fucking argument. You want more proof?

Actually, it has plenty to do with this argument. Bush spent billions and billions of taxpayer money, then turned to Obama when he was elected and basically said "Here, it's your problem now". And the Senate approved the war BECAUSE THEY WERE SCARED. 9/11 was scary shit, and when the president lies to you about who did it while you're scared, you don't think about it, you just do it.

Prove he lied. These are just scare tactics from the left, and it's the same fucking unfounded bullshit you hippie fucks have been spouting for a while. No evidence, but since the left does nothing but deceive and lie, I don't really expect much better from you. And, because you're unable to make any kind of decent argument, I knew nothing better was coming. Keep trying to appeal to the unwashed masses, but you fail, miserably.

Actually, no. First of all, you're making assumptions about me, again. Second, I'm neither Republican or Democrat because both parties annoy me. I hate Republicans because they're a bunch of greedy assholes, and I hate the Democrats for being a bunch of spineless *****es and letting the Republicans have their way, even when they're in power. I like Obama because he's the first president I've seen who seems to actually give a shit about the country he's running and not just himself. He also seems to actually have a brain in his head. If you listened to his speeches and not just the Fox News versions, then you might be able to see that.

Obama doesn't care about the country. All he cares about is getting back at the evil corporations that kept him poor as a child. Please, show me one thing he has done to show he cares about the country. All he's done is find ways to take money from his corporate and private enemies and give it to poor people in order to bribe them to keep him and his party of "spineless *****es" in power. The people of America are mad at being fooled, and are revolting against him.

And, since you're not smart enough to figure it out, it is off topic. Look at the original post. It is about Scott Brown's win being a reaction to the left's inability to do anything right.

Please stop telling me what you're doing, as though you expect me to give a shit. Because I really don't.

You obviously don't give a shit, because you keep coming back here to get embarrassed.

And, the New York Times is the most liberally biased newspaper in the country.

Here is an article from that publication's editor who says it is a liberally biased paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/o...k-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?pagewanted=1

So yes, you are overmatched. I give your sources, you give me incorrect information, lies, and bullshit. Please, just stop, this is bad.

 

[ZeroVX]

The Wall Street Journal shows how Premiums for singles would be in excess of $5,000 a year. So, I guess you were right. I was wrong. It is in fact, over five fucking times what I pay now.

I bet you're going to attack the source now, because that's the only argument you have, and that's a shitty fucking argument. You want more proof?

Am I going to attack the source? Of course. It's the fucking Wall Street Journal. It's practically a how-to book on being a rich, white asshole. You honestly expect me to believe that it's not going to be biased when Obama wants them to actually pay money?

Prove he lied. These are just scare tactics from the left, and it's the same fucking unfounded bullshit you hippie fucks have been spouting for a while. No evidence, but since the left does nothing but deceive and lie, I don't really expect much better from you. And, because you're unable to make any kind of decent argument, I knew nothing better was coming. Keep trying to appeal to the unwashed masses, but you fail, miserably.

Prove he lied? PROVE HE LIED? It was in the news all over the goddamn country! Even those who were trying to defend him! He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No one could find them. It was then revealed that he went there to get oil. And the left deceives and lies? What, the right doesn't?

Obama doesn't care about the country. All he cares about is getting back at the evil corporations that kept him poor as a child. Please, show me one thing he has done to show he cares about the country. All he's done is find ways to take money from his corporate and private enemies and give it to poor people in order to bribe them to keep him and his party of "spineless *****es" in power. The people of America are mad at being fooled, and are revolting against him.

And, since you're not smart enough to figure it out, it is off topic. Look at the original post. It is about Scott Brown's win being a reaction to the left's inability to do anything right.

Again, this just proves to me that you don't listen to his speeches, just the Fox News versions that purposely make him look evil. If you actually watched any conferences he's been in, unedited, you would tell that he honestly does care about the country. He's giving money to the poor because, um, they're poor? I know it's a novel concept and it's a bit much to wrap your head around, but a president who actually wants to help people with little to no money? Go figure, huh? The people "revolting" as you put it are no where near as much as you think there are, because, again, Fox News is making it seem as such. As for Scott Brown, he won because the other candidate was an asswipe. There is no arguing that. It has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with Democrats choosing the wrong person.

You obviously don't give a shit, because you keep coming back here to get embarrassed.

And, the New York Times is the most liberally biased newspaper in the country.

Here is an article from that publication's editor who says it is a liberally biased paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/o...k-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?pagewanted=1

So yes, you are overmatched. I give your sources, you give me incorrect information, lies, and bullshit. Please, just stop, this is bad.

And you keep showing how much of a gullible moron you are by basically repeating what Fox News is shitting out every day. You keep going on about how Obama is an evil person and doesn't give a shit about this country, when the last president apparently wasn't as bad as people say, and is being treated like a monster because of the leftist media. I really can't believe you don't see the irony in your statements. I really can't.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Am I going to attack the source? Of course. It's the fucking Wall Street Journal. It's practically a how-to book on being a rich, white asshole. You honestly expect me to believe that it's not going to be biased when Obama wants them to actually pay money?

This is stupid. It is one of the most reputable newspapers in the country. You know, you could try using sources. But, anyway, you lose.

Prove he lied? PROVE HE LIED? It was in the news all over the goddamn country! Even those who were trying to defend him! He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No one could find them. It was then revealed that he went there to get oil. And the left deceives and lies? What, the right doesn't?

So, you proved that he was wrong, not that he lied. Also, you can't prove that he "went there to get oil" especially since we've been there for seven years and not taken one single drop of oil from that country. My lord, you are fucking stupid.

Again, this just proves to me that you don't listen to his speeches, just the Fox News versions that purposely make him look evil.

FOX News has been proven through studies in Harvard University and George Washington University to be the most balanced channel. All you are doing is spouting pure bullshit that people on the left use to try and appeal to kids. None of it is actually true. You do understand that right? You are using assumptions and lies, and nothing else. You have given zero facts this entire debate. You just keep yelling the same lies. I am going to delete any further posts you make in this thread until you give facts.

If you actually watched any conferences he's been in, unedited, you would tell that he honestly does care about the country.

Seen them all. He seems aloof and disinterested. The State of the Union was by far one of the worst speeches I have seen in my entire life.

He's giving money to the poor because, um, they're poor?

And, um, that's my fault, why?

I know it's a novel concept and it's a bit much to wrap your head around, but a president who actually wants to help people with little to no money?

So they come out and vote for instead of staying at home like they usually do.

Go figure, huh? The people "revolting" as you put it are no where near as much as you think there are, because, again, Fox News is making it seem as such.

God, you're an idiot. You are, legitimately, the stupidest person I have ever encountered. You're like Chris Matthews. You think the more you say the same thing, the righter it gets.

OK, FOX is making it seem as such, but so are NBC, CNN, NPR, Rasmussen, and USA Today.

As for Scott Brown, he won because the other candidate was an asswipe. There is no arguing that. It has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with Democrats choosing the wrong person.

This is smart. Instead of using your own arguments, use someone else's. Good thinking. Too bad that was a Kennedy seat and the people elected him after he killed someone, so I think it takes more than an idiot candidate to lose that seat.

And you keep showing how much of a gullible moron you are by basically repeating what Fox News is shitting out every day.

You continue to attack Fox, even though it has been proven time and again to be the least biased network on television. But, even if, as you claim, with no education or ability to determine otherwise, it isn't, it is no more biased right than CNN or MSNBC are boased left, and all you are doing is spouting their nonsense, so WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?

You keep going on about how Obama is an evil person and doesn't give a shit about this country, when the last president apparently wasn't as bad as people say, and is being treated like a monster because of the leftist media. I really can't believe you don't see the irony in your statements. I really can't.

I really can't believe they let you feed yourself.

 

[ZeroVX]

This is stupid. It is one of the most reputable newspapers in the country. You know, you could try using sources. But, anyway, you lose.

Reputable means nothing. You can still be a liar and be reputable if enough people believe your bullshit.

So, you proved that he was wrong, not that he lied. Also, you can't prove that he "went there to get oil" especially since we've been there for seven years and not taken one single drop of oil from that country. My lord, you are fucking stupid.

He said there were weapons of mass destruction, even when it was proven there wasn't. He was blatantly lying. The CIA, the Pentagon, and the United Nations all had proof that there were no weapons in Iraq, and he kept saying there were. If you have another reason as to why he sent troops there, please, inform me.

FOX News has been proven through studies in Harvard University and George Washington University to be the most balanced channel. All you are doing is spouting pure bullshit that people on the left use to try and appeal to kids. None of it is actually true. You do understand that right? You are using assumptions and lies, and nothing else. You have given zero facts this entire debate. You just keep yelling the same lies. I am going to delete any further posts you make in this thread until you give facts.

Studies can be doctored, or imbalanced, or quite often inaccurate. It all depends on who was questioned and who wasn't. It you questioned mostly Republicans, obviously they'd say it was balanced.

And what exactly are you doing? "Spouting bullshit the left use to try and appeal to kids"? The fuck do you think the right is doing? Oh yeah, they're spouting more bullshit to try and scare the adults into believing what they say. Obviously if you toss around words like "Communist" and "Nazi", people get nervous. Just to clarify, Socialist =/= Communist =/= Nazi. In fact, I could be wrong on this, but I'm willing to bet Communists and Nazis hated each other.

And that's a great way to prove you're right. Delete any arguments against you until you're the only one left. Clearly you're a conservative.

Seen them all. He seems aloof and disinterested. The State of the Union was by far one of the worst speeches I have seen in my entire life.

What speech did you watch and what drugs were you on when you watched it?

So they come out and vote for instead of staying at home like they usually do.

Yes, because no one would vote for him otherwise. Are you mentally challenged? EVERY president in the history of the United States of America has done SOMETHING to get people to vote for him. I fail to see how helping people is a bad thing.

God, you're an idiot. You are, legitimately, the stupidest person I have ever encountered. You're like Chris Matthews. You think the more you say the same thing, the righter it gets.

OK, FOX is making it seem as such, but so are NBC, CNN, NPR, Rasmussen, and USA Today.

I'm the stupidest person you've ever encountered? You don't have any mirrors in your house or something?

And none of those news stations you mentioned are biased in any way. Clearly.

This is smart. Instead of using your own arguments, use someone else's. Good thinking. Too bad that was a Kennedy seat and the people elected him after he killed someone, so I think it takes more than an idiot candidate to lose that seat.

Using someone else's arguments? Isn't that what you're doing?

Kennedy actually tried to get people to vote for him. This new candidate basically acted like she didn't give a fuck. Scott Brown actually tried. An unbiased voter, which I know you don't believe exists, would probably pick someone who actually tried over someone who didn't.

You continue to attack Fox, even though it has been proven time and again to be the least biased network on television. But, even if, as you claim, with no education or ability to determine otherwise, it isn't, it is no more biased right than CNN or MSNBC are boased left, and all you are doing is spouting their nonsense, so WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?

Did I say CNN and MSNBC weren't biased? No, I didn't. FOX is biased towards the right, MSNBC is biased towards the left, and CNN just doesn't know what the fuck they're doing anymore. The only unbiased news show left in America is The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. And that's just fucking sad, that a comedy show is less biased than the actual news networks. THAT'S my fucking point.

I really can't believe they let you feed yourself.

I can't believe that you want to keep this going. Oh, wait, I can, because someone is arguing with you and you have to be right at all costs, including deleting posts that disagree with you. Well, since this is going to get deleted anyway, let me make the generalizations about you I should've made back when you did the same about me and fellow Canadians. You are a Bible-thumping, ******-killing, sheep-humping, cow-tipping, sister-fucking, gun-loving, freedom-hating, overly paranoid, resource-wasting, homophobic, racist, redneck douchebag. If you'd like me to explain where I got these assumptions, feel free to PM me asking me.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Reputable means nothing. You can still be a liar and be reputable if enough people believe your bullshit.

No, you can't. They are direct opposites of each other. For instance, I am reputable, and you are a liar. Actually, you're just shit.

He said there were weapons of mass destruction, even when it was proven there wasn't. He was blatantly lying. The CIA, the Pentagon, and the United Nations all had proof that there were no weapons in Iraq, and he kept saying there were. If you have another reason as to why he sent troops there, please, inform me.

The UN had no proof that there weren't weapons because Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. Those were the UN sanctions he violated as justification for the war. The CIA, nor the Pentagon had proof there was nothing. In fact, he used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people, so there were WMD's in Iraq, becuase Hussein used them twice, that we know of.

And, as far as your oil argument goes, tell me when the first tanker gets here.

Studies can be doctored, or imbalanced, or quite often inaccurate. It all depends on who was questioned and who wasn't. It you questioned mostly Republicans, obviously they'd say it was balanced.

Here you go again. If you can't make an argument, which you are unable to do, attack the source. You sound like Obama and his rejection of the premise when an attack hits a little too close to home.

And what exactly are you doing? "Spouting bullshit the left use to try and appeal to kids"? The fuck do you think the right is doing? Oh yeah, they're spouting more bullshit to try and scare the adults into believing what they say.

What bullshit? Telling seniors that Medicare will get cut? It will, by half a trillion dollars a year. By telling seniors that bureaucrats will be in charge of their healthcare instead of doctors? Well, that's true too. By telling people that countries with NHC have long waits for treatment and longer waits for diagnosis? Well, that's true too. Please tell me when you find a lie. Just because you call someone a liar, doesn't mean they are, especially when you are as stupid as you.

Obviously if you toss around words like "Communist" and "Nazi", people get nervous. Just to clarify, Socialist =/= Communist =/= Nazi. In fact, I could be wrong on this, but I'm willing to bet Communists and Nazis hated each other.

Well, I never called you a Nazi, so that's just fucking dumb. And, I only called you a socialist because you are in favor of socialized medicine, so yeah.

And that's a great way to prove you're right. Delete any arguments against you until you're the only one left. Clearly you're a conservative.

I'm not deleting your argument, because you haven't made any. You've said the same thing a lot, and addressed exactly zero of the studies and polling data I have presented. You are embarrassing yourself.

What speech did you watch and what drugs were you on when you watched it?

All of them, pot, and he just seems tired and defeated.

Yes, because no one would vote for him otherwise. Are you mentally challenged? EVERY president in the history of the United States of America has done SOMETHING to get people to vote for him. I fail to see how helping people is a bad thing.

Because he's not helping them, he's making them more dependent. Why give them money when you could give them job training? Why help people that refuse to help themselves?

I'm the stupidest person you've ever encountered? You don't have any mirrors in your house or something?

Plenty, you still win.

And none of those news stations you mentioned are biased in any way. Clearly.

To the left, and they show the plan failing.

Using someone else's arguments? Isn't that what you're doing?

No I cite sources, then give my own analysis.

Kennedy actually tried to get people to vote for him. This new candidate basically acted like she didn't give a fuck. Scott Brown actually tried. An unbiased voter, which I know you don't believe exists, would probably pick someone who actually tried over someone who didn't.

Well, then your idea of an unbiased voter is almost as fucking stupid as you. He tried harder, so I'm going to vote for him!

Did I say CNN and MSNBC weren't biased? No, I didn't. FOX is biased towards the right,

What you meant to say is Fox is the fairest network and countless media studies prove this. Not polls mind you, but people who watch all day and keep track of guests, commentary, and opportunity for viewpoints to speak.

MSNBC is biased towards the left, and CNN just doesn't know what the fuck they're doing anymore.

What you meant to say is that MSNBC works for the Obama press office and CNN only covers the courts these days.

The only unbiased news show left in America is The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. And that's just fucking sad, that a comedy show is less biased than the actual news networks. THAT'S my fucking point.

That's stupid. Stewart attacks the right and runs and hides behind being a comedian, then, in the next segment will try to present himself as a legit newsman. Honestly, it's smart, but it only fools people with your IQ and lower, so, the tards.

I can't believe that you want to keep this going. Oh, wait, I can, because someone is arguing with you and you have to be right at all costs, including deleting posts that disagree with you. Well, since this is going to get deleted anyway, let me make the generalizations about you I should've made back when you did the same about me and fellow Canadians.

The only generalization I made was that your healthcare system isn't that good, and then I provided like ten sources that said I was right. Your response was, "I don't like the sources, so you're wrong."

You are a Bible-thumping,

I'm Jewish.

******-killing,

only one I've killed is you in this thread.

sheep-humping,

Not my fault your girlfriend like Plushie play.

cow-tipping,

That's a fun little game.

sister-fucking,

In fairness, I didn't know she was your's until after I pulled that watermelon out of her ass.

gun-loving,

And this is bad, why? I love my guns. I wish you'd come by so I could show you one of mine up close.

freedom-hating,

The guy who wants to take away my freedom to choose healthcare and force me onto the government dole is calling me freedom hating? Funny.

overly paranoid,

about what? My country turning into a socialist, leftist nation? Yeah, I don't want that. I have this feeling that the more Canada hates us, the better we are doing.

resource-wasting,

At least we have resources and use them. What is the purpose of Canada again? Beyond syrup, what has any Canadian contributed to the world?

homophobic,

Prove this.

racist,

Quite a claim.

redneck

I have a $120,000 education. You have a pinecone in your ass. Be careful here.

douchebag.

Probably. But I am a douchebag that's right and that has destroyed you for days now.

If you'd like me to explain where I got these assumptions, feel free to PM me asking me.

Make em public, I can't wait.

 

[ZeroVX]

No, you can't. They are direct opposites of each other. For instance, I am reputable, and you are a liar. Actually, you're just shit.

Like I said, if enough people believe the lies, then they become reputable, because they don't know they're lies. How hard is this for you to grasp?

The UN had no proof that there weren't weapons because Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. Those were the UN sanctions he violated as justification for the war. The CIA, nor the Pentagon had proof there was nothing. In fact, he used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people, so there were WMD's in Iraq, becuase Hussein used them twice, that we know of.

Then why didn't he use any of these weapons when his own country was attacked by yours?

Here you go again. If you can't make an argument, which you are unable to do, attack the source. You sound like Obama and his rejection of the premise when an attack hits a little too close to home.

My attacking of the source is the argument. Do you know who was questioned for these studies? If not, then how do you know they aren't doctored, or unbalanced? Oh, that would be because they agree with your mindset, so they must be right!

What bullshit? Telling seniors that Medicare will get cut? It will, by half a trillion dollars a year. By telling seniors that bureaucrats will be in charge of their healthcare instead of doctors? Well, that's true too. By telling people that countries with NHC have long waits for treatment and longer waits for diagnosis? Well, that's true too. Please tell me when you find a lie. Just because you call someone a liar, doesn't mean they are, especially when you are as stupid as you.

"Death panels". 'Nuff said.

Well, I never called you a Nazi, so that's just fucking dumb. And, I only called you a socialist because you are in favor of socialized medicine, so yeah.

The people you support have tossed around Nazi so many times it's lost all of its impact. It's pretty much become a joke now. Same with Communist. And the reason I said Socialist =/= Communist is because Socialist =/= Evil either.

I'm not deleting your argument, because you haven't made any. You've said the same thing a lot, and addressed exactly zero of the studies and polling data I have presented. You are embarrassing yourself.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

All of them, pot, and he just seems tired and defeated.

Try watching one when you aren't preoccupied with ten bags of Doritos. Might seem different.

Because he's not helping them, he's making them more dependent. Why give them money when you could give them job training? Why help people that refuse to help themselves?

Because every person who's poor doesn't have a job or a home. Suppose they have jobs and still have trouble keeping up with rent or resources? Particularly if they have families to feed? You're generalizing again.

Plenty, you still win.

I find that highly doubtful.

To the left, and they show the plan failing.

Because they're spineless idiots and are worried the right will say bad things about them if they don't agree with them.

No I cite sources, then give my own analysis.

Which is heavily biased, so really, it's the same thing.

Well, then your idea of an unbiased voter is almost as fucking stupid as you. He tried harder, so I'm going to vote for him!

Someone who tried over someone who didn't? You're right, I should vote for the one who's part of the party I support, even though they're a fucking idiot and would actually make things worse. No wonder Bush got two terms.

What you meant to say is Fox is the fairest network and countless media studies prove this. Not polls mind you, but people who watch all day and keep track of guests, commentary, and opportunity for viewpoints to speak.

And, AGAIN, studies can be unbalanced if the people questioned lean to one side. The fact that this thought has yet to process in your mind just tells me that you refuse to believe anything your side says is wrong. They could tell you the sky was actually green and you'd believe them.

What you meant to say is that MSNBC works for the Obama press office and CNN only covers the courts these days.

Yes, saying that "I didn't know he was black" is really helping Obama's press. You don't even watch other news stations, do you?

That's stupid. Stewart attacks the right and runs and hides behind being a comedian, then, in the next segment will try to present himself as a legit newsman. Honestly, it's smart, but it only fools people with your IQ and lower, so, the tards.

He attacks the left too. Before Scott Brown was elected, he went after the Democrats for the candidate they chose, because, again, she didn't seem to give a shit. She basically refused to go out and campaign with the people, which severely hurt her standing. Stewart called the Democrats out on how fucked up they were, especially since they were the ones in charge. So, yes, it actually is the most unbiased news show today, which is, again, really fucking sad. Maybe if you tried opening your mind a little bit and watching something besides right-wing nutjobs, you'd understand that too.

The only generalization I made was that your healthcare system isn't that good, and then I provided like ten sources that said I was right. Your response was, "I don't like the sources, so you're wrong."

Go back to that post you made about us being a "pacifistic community" because I'm not about to look it up again.

Make em public, I can't wait.

Simple. You're from Texas. See? I can use stereotypes too! Easy, isn't it?

(P.S. I meant your sister, dumbass)