Ridiculous freakout over healthcare

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

We'd just rather have the largest defense budget on Planet Earth than provide for the everyday well being of our citizens.

####### is well being good for if were all dead? Healthy and dead thats good.

Do you go through each day living in fear that someone is out to kill you?

Of course not, but by the looks of the frenzied left youd think if HC doesnt pass it will be the end. It is a crisis you know.

[Otto 83]

Of course not, but by the looks of the frenzied left youd think if HC doesnt pass it will be the end. It is a crisis you know.

So there is no problem - nothing to be concerned about right?

[Ban Hammer 12,857]

He didnt go in there for oil, thats ridiculous and even most people on the left will agree with me. I think the best argument is that he lied because even though "he knew" there wasnt WMDs because we had our own intellgence that proved so but he seen this war necessary for the sake of the war on terrorism That seems more believable than this oil conspiracy you tried to lay out here. That said, like I said before I believe he believed there was WMDs.

and of course, bush had the french intel service in his back pocket too, as they said there was wmd's also.

[mawilson 2,133]

Healthcare should be about taking care of the fukin people not profits!

In this country, people don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to become doctors so that they can take care of you for free.

[alienlovechild 75]

I can’t add the nazi label to the democrats they’d need to be extremist right wing lunatics for that, am sure the label might fit you alrite you seem to be in that camp. Can call them communists if you like? Obama did win the election unlike bush he didn’t steal it then plunder the wealth of this nation on what? What do we have to show for 8 years of bush because Iraq is burning, Afghanistan is like a repeat of what the Russians tried to do, he managed to undo everything done to fix the korea issue and the middle east issue.. the list goes on am sure!

You're hooked on political extremism by blindly throwing around "Nazi", "extremist right wing", "communist" so you're used to seeing things as an extremist. Bush didn't steal any election and the several recounts by independent sources proved that long ago. The wealth of the nation is projected to be blown by Obama far beyond what Bush spent. Exactly what was solved in Korea and the Middle East prior to Bush?

Same is the same for cable tv, cell phones, internet access.. not many choices to be had in the land of the “free” as there isn’t much in the way of regulations to ensure competition leaving the big fish to eat up all the smaller ones and deny the people options.

You can always pass on cable TV, go for pay as you go cell phones and there's several ISPs. Have you tried comparison shopping and research because it doesn't sound like it? There's far more competition for phones now than when we only had Ma Bell.

God I’m surrounded by idiot right wingers all day that watch fox news like it’s the bible (the bible isn’t even the bible lol) and now here I am here listening to more of these halfwits go on about how good war is and how fukin bad health care is.

You need to get a another job because you're about to blow a blood vessel. If you've got a job where people sit around all day watching TV, you've got an easy job. Probably plenty of halfwits there if you managed to get a job with a lousy health insurance but can't get another job elsewhere. You must be a joy to work with when you're not screaming at your co-workers.

The best thing for government is to make the top bigger take away the powers from the bottom feeders in fact just do away with the stupid wasteful city governments and county governments.. leave one or the other to run things at that level not both. Then run health, education, police, defense..etc all from the top don’t let the local idiots piss it away on us because they will they will sit around talking about things they don’t even understand making decisions about things they can’t comprehend just because they are “elected”.

Even if you were somehow correct, you don't know anything about federalism so you're taking about more changes anyone is proposing- there's your extremism writ large.

Helping the people is a evil communist thing isn't it?

You must believe that because no one is saying that.

[mawilson 2,133]

You're hooked on political extremism by blindly throwing around "Nazi", "extremist right wing", "communist" so you're used to seeing things as an extremist. Bush didn't steal any election and the several recounts by independent sources proved that long ago. The wealth of the nation is projected to be blown by Obama far beyond what Bush spent.

Indeed, Obama openly admits to being unable to balance the budget over the next 10 years!

10 freaking years and he's still talking about a (cumulative) 9 trillion dollar deficit. I suppose a deficit in 2019 is Bush's fault too.

How about not spending more than you take in? What a concept!

Edited August 23, 2009 by mawilson

[sly_wolf 199]

He didnt go in there for oil, thats ridiculous and even most people on the left will agree with me. I think the best argument is that he lied because even though "he knew" there wasnt WMDs because we had our own intellgence that proved so but he seen this war necessary for the sake of the war on terrorism That seems more believable than this oil conspiracy you tried to lay out here. That said, like I said before I believe he believed there was WMDs.

and of course, bush had the french intel service in his back pocket too, as they said there was wmd's also.

Since when did we start listening to them?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

Its not Bush's war its Americas war. A majority of Americans supported going to war. It was thought at that time that Saddam was a big threat and possibly had WMD.

It is Bush's war for two main reasons:

1) Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq

2) A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion - much less so if that public opinion has been geared towards support with incomplete, misleading and flat-out false information. Remember that a majority of Americans also thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks (flat out false) and that he posed an imminent threat to the US (flat out false). Now you go and do your research as to why Americans would have believed these two falsehoods. Start on whitehouse.gov and go back to late 2002 / early 2003 and read the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's speeches during this time period where all the lies and mis-information is spread all across America.

Simply wrong in many ways.

1.) Bush couldnt of gone to war with out the approval of congress and congress would never of accepted it had they not had the people support. They had our support, the majority wanted it and to say this was Bush's war is silly. This was America's war.

2.)

A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion

Huh what of course they do if the people dont want it most likely the president will not send our military into war.

3.) I believe Bush really thought that there was WMDs in Irag and the whole oil conspiracy is just ridiculous. I think Bush was serious and passionate about the war on terrorism. So if you think he was purposely lying, let me ask you what you think his reasons were for going to war?

Sorry, but Congress did not declare any war on Iraq. They merely authorized the President to use military force as a last resort - the decision to go in w/o due cause was Bush's. Let's not re-write history.

As to your last point, Bush may have really believed that there were WMD's in Iraq but if he really thought that Iraq actually posed an imminent threat to the US or that Saddam had co-operated with AlQaeda or was somehow involved in 9/11, then that just goes to show what a moron he is. An excuse to send our military into harms way against international law it surely isn't.

[alienlovechild 75]

Sorry, but Congress did not declare any war on Iraq. They merely authorized the President to use military force as a last resort - the decision to go in w/o due cause was Bush's. Let's not re-write history.

Nice way to avoid the eight years of Clinton backing sanctions and calling for the overthrow of Saddam, no-fly zones periodic bombings and nearly going to war in 1998. There must have been some reason beyond "Bush made him do it".

An excuse to send our military into harms way against international law it surely isn't.

How is it against international law to go war with a nation we were at a state of war for 11 years prior? When and where was the peace treaty signed after the Gulf War?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry, but Congress did not declare any war on Iraq. They merely authorized the President to use military force as a last resort - the decision to go in w/o due cause was Bush's. Let's not re-write history.

Nice way to avoid the eight years of Clinton backing sanctions and calling for the overthrow of Saddam, no-fly zones periodic bombings and nearly going to war in 1998. There must have been some reason beyond "Bush made him do it".

The Clinton administration did not go to war against Iraq but did take actions as sanctioned by the Security Council.

An excuse to send our military into harms way against international law it surely isn't.

How is it against international law to go war with a nation we were at a state of war for 11 years prior? When and where was the peace treaty signed after the Gulf War?

Oh please, I have heard many excuses as to why the US and te UK were justified to attack Iraq. The lack of a signed peace treaty from the earlier Gulf war isn't one of them. It's a rather shady attempt to legitimize an attack that simply lacked legitimacy.

[alienlovechild 75]

The Clinton administration did not go to war against Iraq but did take actions as sanctioned by the Security Council.

The same folks who brought us the highly corrupt oil for food program? The UNSC did not approve of the attacks.

"In reaction to the attack, three of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and the People's Republic of China) called for lifting of the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing its chairman, Australian diplomat Richard Butler."

Clinton lied about WMDs, too.

"Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on"

And last but not least, Clinton bombed Iraq to save his political hide.

"The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign. A few months earlier, similar criticism was levelled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, on August 20. The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship.

The Operation Infinite Reach attacks became known as "Monica's War" among TV news people, due to the timing. ABC-TV announced to all stations that there would be a special report following Lewinsky's testimony before Congress, then the special report was pre-empted by the report of the missile attacks. The combination of the timing of that attack and Operation Desert Fox led to accusations of a Wag the Dog situation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Ir...8)#cite_note-17

Oh please, I have heard many excuses as to why the US and te UK were justified to attack Iraq. The lack of a signed peace treaty from the earlier Gulf war isn't one of them. It's a rather shady attempt to legitimize an attack that simply lacked legitimacy.

There's more to it than a signed peace treaty. There was ALWAYS a state of war which you didn't deny. The internationsl law angle holds no weight as it's unenforceable for one thing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Clinton administration did not go to war against Iraq but did take actions as sanctioned by the Security Council.

The same folks who brought us the highly corrupt oil for food program? The UNSC did not approve of the attacks.

"In reaction to the attack, three of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and the People's Republic of China) called for lifting of the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing its chairman, Australian diplomat Richard Butler."

Clinton lied about WMDs, too.

"Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on"

And last but not least, Clinton bombed Iraq to save his political hide.

"The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign. A few months earlier, similar criticism was levelled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, on August 20. The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship.

The Operation Infinite Reach attacks became known as "Monica's War" among TV news people, due to the timing. ABC-TV announced to all stations that there would be a special report following Lewinsky's testimony before Congress, then the special report was pre-empted by the report of the missile attacks. The combination of the timing of that attack and Operation Desert Fox led to accusations of a Wag the Dog situation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Ir...8)#cite_note-17

And this proves what, exactly?

Oh please, I have heard many excuses as to why the US and te UK were justified to attack Iraq. The lack of a signed peace treaty from the earlier Gulf war isn't one of them. It's a rather shady attempt to legitimize an attack that simply lacked legitimacy.

There's more to it than a signed peace treaty. There was ALWAYS a state of war which you didn't deny. The internationsl law angle holds no weight as it's unenforceable for one thing.

The international law angle holds water as long as the US is a signatory to the UN Charter. Besides, if it doesn't hold water, then there wasn't a state of war with Iraq - it was the UN's defense of it's member Kuwait - the UN Security Council's decision - that brought us operation Desert Storm not some act of Congress. But keep re-writing history for yourself if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect anyone to buy into this nonsense.

[Fandango 1,439]

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

Its not Bush's war its Americas war. A majority of Americans supported going to war. It was thought at that time that Saddam was a big threat and possibly had WMD.

It is Bush's war for two main reasons:

1) Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq

2) A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion - much less so if that public opinion has been geared towards support with incomplete, misleading and flat-out false information. Remember that a majority of Americans also thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks (flat out false) and that he posed an imminent threat to the US (flat out false). Now you go and do your research as to why Americans would have believed these two falsehoods. Start on whitehouse.gov and go back to late 2002 / early 2003 and read the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's speeches during this time period where all the lies and mis-information is spread all across America.

Bush had Congressional approval to go to war. Now now, don't go with the 'Bush convinced the world of a lie' #######, because he doesn't and didn't control the flow of the WORLD's information. Plus, he's not capable of time travel.

I love how peeps are all 'Bush is a gormless idiot' yet at the same time credit him alone with being able to 'fool' the world.

FWIW, I think the Iraq-9/11 connection was a bit of a stretch, but we had every right to go into Iraq on separate merits anyways.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Happy Bunny

[Fandango 1,439]

Yeah, it's just Bush's fault

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

Its not Bush's war its Americas war. A majority of Americans supported going to war. It was thought at that time that Saddam was a big threat and possibly had WMD.

It is Bush's war for two main reasons:

1) Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq

2) A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion - much less so if that public opinion has been geared towards support with incomplete, misleading and flat-out false information. Remember that a majority of Americans also thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks (flat out false) and that he posed an imminent threat to the US (flat out false). Now you go and do your research as to why Americans would have believed these two falsehoods. Start on whitehouse.gov and go back to late 2002 / early 2003 and read the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's speeches during this time period where all the lies and mis-information is spread all across America.

Bush had Congressional approval to go to war. Now now, don't go with the 'Bush convinced the world of a lie' #######, because he doesn't and didn't control the flow of the WORLD's information. Plus, he's not capable of time travel.

I love how peeps are all 'Bush is a gormless idiot' yet at the same time credit him alone with being able to 'fool' the world.

FWIW, I think the Iraq-9/11 connection was a bit of a stretch, but we had every right to go into Iraq on separate merits anyways.

Bush didn't control the flow of the world information and he didn't fool the world - he controled the flow of information in the US and fooled much of America. Remember that the war on Iraq was not a world action nor anything the world cared to support but a dangerous, useless and illegitimate act of aggression by the US and the UK for which there is no justification within the international framework that both the US and UK are subject to. Of course, neither can be effectively sanctioned for this action as both are in a position to block any action by the international community.

Yeah, it's just Bush's fault

Sorry, I forgot that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2009, the buck somehow didn't stop in the Oval Office.