Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 30, 2009, 08:13:50 PM
-
Serious question.
If the Government can't screen for terrorists that are right under its nose and delivered on a platter, how will it be able to screen for cancer or some other disease when it takes over health care?
Anyone care to explain that to me?
-
There is NOT a single country where the Government runs healthcare. Physicians in Private Practices do the screening, the government just picks up the bill. At least this is true single payer or for example, the NHS or Canadian system.
What the United States currently has is no different than what it will be getting with the current healthcare bill. There is no Government run anything.
-
Serious question.
If the Government can't screen for terrorists that are right under its nose and delivered on a platter, how will it be able to screen for cancer or some other disease when it takes over health care?
Anyone care to explain that to me?
Are you aware that the Patriot Act is still in place?
-
There is NOT a single country where the Government runs healthcare. Physicians in Private Practices do the screening, the government just picks up the bill. At least this is true single payer or for example, the NHS or Canadian system.
What the United States currently has is no different than what it will be getting with the current healthcare bill. There is no Government run anything.
Thats pure nonsense. The govt is making health care worse and far more expensive than it needs to be with all its schemes, agenices, incompetence, neglicence, and fraud.
The current bill greatly expands fedzillas intervention into health care and is a disaster.
-
Are you aware that the Patriot Act is still in place?
Yeah, Obama said he was reauthorizing most of it.
-
Thats pure nonsense. The govt is making health care worse and far more expensive than it needs to be with all its schemes, agenices, incompetence, neglicence, and fraud.
The current bill greatly expands fedzillas intervention into health care and is a disaster.
No it doesn`t.
The current bill is homerun for Private Insurance and the "Free Market". Sorry, you have it all wrong. You should love this bill as it keeps the machinery intact that is currently in place with little changes.
-
Yeah, Obama said he was reauthorizing most of it.
So you should welcome that. If he repealed the Patriot Act, I bet you would shit your pants in fear. Would you not?
-
No it doesn`t.
The current bill is homerun for Private Insurance and the "Free Market". Sorry, you have it all wrong. You should love this bill as it keeps the machinery intact that is currently in place with little changes.
Do me a favor and look at my posts on health care before making such idiotic posts. No one on this board has been more against this bill than myself.
-
Are you aware that the Patriot Act is still in place?
actually obama is furthering the patriot act, and I was against it when bush and congress put it in place and im against it now.
question for you adonis, are you in favor of the terrorist from gitmo being tried in civilian court?
-
Do me a favor and look at my posts on health care before making such idiotic posts. No one on this board has been more against this bill than myself.
You may be against it, but you are so for entirely the wrong reasons. This is the furthest thing from what you THINK is going to happen.
-
You may be against it, but you are so for entirely the wrong reasons. This is the furthest thing from what you THINK is going to happen.
No, I am 100000% against a personal mandate to purchase a private product from a private company via enfocement by the govt.
That is evil and disgusting to the Nth degree on so many levels.
-
actually obama is furthering the patriot act, and I was against it when bush and congress put it in place and im against it now.
question for you adonis, are you in favor of the terrorist from gitmo being tried in civilian court?
Yes. The Bush administration did a decent job helping the Justice Department convict Richard Reid and Moussaui in civilian court. The Bush Administration did a colossal screw up however, by not trying several Gitmo detainees in civilian court instead sending them to Saudi Arabia where they were set free. They have since taken leadership positions in Al-Quaeda. Trying them in court and locking them in a Super-Max would have stopped that totally.
-
Yes. The Bush administration did a decent job helping the Justice Department convict Richard Reid and Moussaui in civilian court. The Bush Administration did a colossal screw up however, by not trying several Gitmo detainees in civilian court instead sending them to Saudi Arabia where they were set free. They have since taken leadership positions in Al-Quaeda. Trying them in court and locking them in a Super-Max would have stopped that totally.
LOL Nice try there i dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts...both of these ppl were arrested or taken into custody in a way that they were given their civilian rights granted by the constitution to ppl arrested by US authorities and by doing this followed due process.
Enemy combatants are not provided these rights or they were not at the time of their detainment. This fact opens the doors to appeals on the violation of due process as they were not read their miranda rights before interrogation, the interrogation techniques are outlawed by civilian rights etc....
Let me ask you this since again I dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts. Do you think it is ok for obama to violate the civil rights of its citizens?
-
No, I am 100000% against a personal mandate to purchase a private product from a private company via enfocement by the govt.
That is evil and disgusting to the Nth degree on so many levels.
I am too, which is why I don`t buy auto insurance ever.
You don`t seem to have a problem with auto insurance being mandated by your state do you? I do and therefore I will NEVER buy it.
-
I am too, which is why I don`t buy auto insurance ever.
You don`t seem to have a problem with auto insurance being mandated by your state do you? I do and therefore I will NEVER buy it.
The two are not remotely the same.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. You have a choice to drive or not and the govt does not require you to show evidence of auto insurance on your tax return.
-
LOL Nice try there i dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts...both of these ppl were arrested or taken into custody in a way that they were given their civilian rights granted by the constitution to ppl arrested by US authorities and by doing this followed due process.
Enemy combatants are not provided these rights or they were not at the time of their detainment. This fact opens the doors to appeals on the violation of due process as they were not read their miranda rights before interrogation, the interrogation techniques are outlawed by civilian rights etc....
Let me ask you this since again I dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts. Do you think it is ok for obama to violate the civil rights of its citizens?
You are not making any sense my friend. Suspending Habeas Corpus is historically Constitutional. See Adams and Abraham Lincoln`s usage as well as Woodrow Wilson.
I do not support the Patriot Act, but I do realize that with technology as advanced as it is, the United States does need some form of countermeasure and some lee way to gain intelligence.
It is a hard question to which none of us have a "correct" answer other than we can`t do too much and we can`t do nothing.
-
The two are not remotely the same.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. You have a choice to drive or not and the govt does not require you to show evidence of auto insurance on your tax return.
Please show me the wonderful "Private Highway" system that exists. As far as I am concerned, having the ability to travel from point A to point B IS a right and not a privilege. There is no reason to require Auto Insurance whatsoever. I have the ability to ride a horse along the road or a bike, but not a motor vehicle....Simply because it has a motor in it? Does not make sense and I am aghast that you bend over so easily for this one.
By the way,
Healthcare in the United States is not a right, it is a privilege,therefore your argument makes zero sense. It SHOULD be a right, but that would require Single Payer with Private Insurance being purely optional.
-
You are not making any sense my friend. Suspending Habeas Corpus is historically Constitutional. See Adams and Abraham Lincoln`s usage as well as Woodrow Wilson.
I do not support the Patriot Act, but I do realize that with technology as advanced as it is, the United States does need some form of countermeasure and some lee way to gain intelligence.
It is a hard question to which none of us have a "correct" answer other than we can`t do too much and we can`t do nothing.
Im not arguing the detention and jurisdiction of them which is only one part of the legal problems this 3 ring circus will open the doors to.
Again no miranda rights, illegal interrogation techniques...
-
Please show me the wonderful "Private Highway" system that exists. As far as I am concerned, having the ability to travel from point A to point B IS a right and not a privilege. There is no reason to require Auto Insurance whatsoever. I have the ability to ride a horse along the road or a bike, but not a motor vehicle....Simply because it has a motor in it? Does not make sense and I am aghast that you bend over so easily for this one.
By the way,
Healthcare in the United States is not a right, it is a privilege,therefore your argument makes zero sense. It SHOULD be a right, but that would require Single Payer with Private Insurance being purely optional.
Wrong. You have the choice to drive a car or not. You dont have the choice to live or not unless yhou commit suicide.
The auto insurance argument is completely bogus and advanced by POFS-in-Chief to try to sell this crap sandwich.
-
I do not support the Patriot Act, but I do realize that with technology as advanced as it is, the United States does need some form of countermeasure and some lee way to gain intelligence.
It is a hard question to which none of us have a "correct" answer other than we can`t do too much and we can`t do nothing.
as for this part I agree, I dont support it but I certainly understand the need for it
-
Im not arguing the detention and jurisdiction of them which is only one part of the legal problems this 3 ring circus will open the doors to.
Again no miranda rights, illegal interrogation techniques...
What on earth are you talking about? The little Nigerian kid is going to be tried in civil court.
-
What on earth are you talking about? The little Nigerian kid is going to be tried in civil court.
Im talking about all the gitmo detainees, sorry for the miscommunication...
-
Wrong. You have the choice to drive a car or not. You dont have the choice to live or not unless yhou commit suicide.
The auto insurance argument is completely bogus and advanced by POFS-in-Chief to try to sell this crap sandwich.
I am against Auto Insurance as I am against any mandate of Health Insurance.
You claimed "I am 100000% against a personal mandate to purchase a private product from a private company via enfocement by the govt".
Yet, you have no problem whatsoever with the Government FORCING you to buy a private product, in this case, Auto Insurance.
I have a HUGE problem with it which is why I will NEVER buy Auto Insurance. How do I do it? I drive with a perpetual 30 day tag. I am not going to be forced to buy a Private Product and especially if I don`t agree with its premise. Auto Insurance should be optional and solely for your car, nothing else.
Its a shame you are a hypocrite and have no problem being FORCED to buy private products. You can`t wiggle out of this one.
-
I am against Auto Insurance as I am against any mandate of Health Insurance.
You claimed "I am 100000% against a personal mandate to purchase a private product from a private company via enfocement by the govt".
Yet, you have no problem whatsoever with the Government FORCING you to buy a private product, in this case, Auto Insurance.
I have a HUGE problem with it which is why I will NEVER buy Auto Insurance. How do I do it? I drive with a perpetual 30 day tag. I am not going to be forced to buy a Private Product and especially if I don`t agree with its premise. Auto Insurance should be optional and solely for your car, nothing else.
Its a shame you are a hypocrite and have no problem being FORCED to buy private products. You can`t wiggle out of this one.
I have the choice to drive a car or not. I can take the bus, bike, scooter, skatweboard, etc.
By driving a car, which is a porivelege and for which you have to get a license (which is not a right) I knowingly accept the legal obligations set forth
Health insurance is completely different.
-
Keep in mind also that we have 2 states that don`t require you to buy Auto Insurance at all and they get along just grand.
The rest of the 48.....Well you can potentially go to jail if you don`t buy a Private Product, mandated by the government.
I find that abhorrent. Too bad you support this nonsense 333336666.
-
I have the choice to drive a car or not. I can take the bus, bike, scooter, skatweboard, etc.
By driving a car, which is a porivelege and for which you have to get a license (which is not a right) I knowingly accept the legal obligations set forth
Health insurance is completely different.
So you admit that you don`t mind being FORCED to buy a Private Product that is mandated by your government. Correct? That is how I am reading your above statement.
Health Insurance is a privilege in the United States not a right like it SHOULD BE and like it is in the rest of the civil and Industrialized world.
Your argument makes zero sense.
-
Keep in mind also that we have 2 states that don`t require you to buy Auto Insurance at all and they get along just grand.
The rest of the 48.....Well you can potentially go to jail if you don`t buy a Private Product, mandated by the government.
I find that abhorrent. Too bad you support this nonsense 333336666.
correct me if im wrong but auto insurance is state mandated correct?
-
correct me if im wrong but auto insurance is state mandated correct?
Yep. And with 3333666 blind compliance, he would not mind it a Federal Law I bet.
-
So you admit that you don`t mind being FORCED to buy a Private Product that is mandated by your government. Correct? That is how I am reading your above statement.
Health Insurance is a privilege in the United States not a right like it SHOULD BE and like it is in the rest of the civil and Industrialized world.
Your argument makes zero sense.
Only to a person like you who thinks that just because you feel something should be the case that it is so.
There is no right to health care in this country the same way there is no right to drive. However, you have the choice to drive or not, you dont have the same choice to live or not.
BTW - are you against having to register your vehicle?
-
Only to a person like you who thinks that just because you feel something should be the case that it is so.
There is no right to health care in this country the same way there is no right to drive. However, you have the choice to drive or not, you dont have the same choice to live or not.
BTW - are you against having to register your vehicle?
I am against registering my vehicle and I do not do that either.
-
Only to a person like you who thinks that just because you feel something should be the case that it is so.
There is no right to health care in this country the same way there is no right to drive. However, you have the choice to drive or not, you dont have the same choice to live or not.
BTW - are you against having to register your vehicle?
Just admit that you don`t mind the Government mandating that you buy a Private Product from a Private Company, which invalidates and contradicts your earlier statement.
You don`t mind it at all.
-
actually obama is furthering the patriot act, and I was against it when bush and congress put it in place and im against it now.
Actually what Obama is doing is tweaking the Patriot Act. He made so secret of his intent to do so throughout his campaign. He is removing stupid useless provisions that serve no purpose, and strengthening other areas that will be useful in detering and preventing acts of terrorism against the US and her citizens.
-
LOL Nice try there i dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts...both of these ppl were arrested or taken into custody in a way that they were given their civilian rights granted by the constitution to ppl arrested by US authorities and by doing this followed due process.
Enemy combatants are not provided these rights or they were not at the time of their detainment. This fact opens the doors to appeals on the violation of due process as they were not read their miranda rights before interrogation, the interrogation techniques are outlawed by civilian rights etc....
Let me ask you this since again I dont know if youre uninformed or willingly overlooking the facts. Do you think it is ok for obama to violate the civil rights of its citizens?
Obama was NOT the one in charge when they were arrested, not mirandized, or interrogated in a manner ruled illegal. He was not the one who violated the rights you and the Supreme court claim they have. So now that this is fait accomplis, ...what do you propose? That they simply be released? Are you advocating their release, so that the guilty can go back to committing acts of terror? Are you advocating their release so that those who were nothing more than farmers caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, who as a result of both their treatment, and their confinement among terrorists have become radicalized? If they are convicted and file appeals as a result, ...so be it. Let them file their appeals. In the meantime, ...they will be on ice, unable to plan and execute further terror attacks. They might find themselves quite occupied with simply staying alive within the prison system, ...and if they don't survive prison life, ...it stops their appeals dead in their tracks doesn't it?
-
Only to a person like you who thinks that just because you feel something should be the case that it is so.
There is no right to health care in this country the same way there is no right to drive. However, you have the choice to drive or not, you dont have the same choice to live or not.
BTW - are you against having to register your vehicle?
All the more reason why healthcare should be a right!
As it stands presently, ...insurance bureaucrats make the choice of whether you live or die,
...based on nothing more than a stroke of the pen and a desire for corporate profits and bigger bonuses.
States mandate auto-insurance to fiscally protect themselves and others in the event that you have an accident.
Likewise, the mandate of maintaining health insurance is for the same reason; to protect the state and others from the associated costs of your healthcare which is an inevitability. Healthcare is something we ALL require at some point or other. Sorry 333386, you appear to simply be arguing in order to be argumentative, because as usual, you are not making any sense whatsoever. I understand you have issues with the way healthcare is being reformed, and many of those issues are legitimate, however, universal healthcare is a necessity for the long term well being of the USA, and imo, a single payer system should be the way to go. as it stands, this healthcare bill is less than ideal, ...but it is a darn sight better than the status quo. In years to come, we will hopefully see improvements as the tweaks & bugs are worked out.
-
All the more reason why healthcare should be a right!
As it stands presently, ...insurance bureaucrats make the choice of whether you live or die,
...based on nothing more than a stroke of the pen and a desire for corporate profits and bigger bonuses.
States mandate auto-insurance to fiscally protect themselves and others in the event that you have an accident.
Likewise, the mandate of maintaining health insurance is for the same reason; to protect the state and others from the associated costs of your healthcare which is an inevitability. Healthcare is something we ALL require at some point or other. Sorry 333386, you appear to simply be arguing in order to be argumentative, because as usual, you are not making any sense whatsoever. I understand you have issues with the way healthcare is being reformed, and many of those issues are legitimate, however, universal healthcare is a necessity for the long term well being of the USA, and imo, a single payer system should be the way to go. as it stands, this healthcare bill is less than ideal, ...but it is a darn sight better than the status quo. In years to come, we will hopefully see improvements as the tweaks & bugs are worked out.
You are an idiot.The reason that auto insurance is mandated IS NOT to protect you from an accident.Its to protect the person you hit in an accident.Mandating health care is completely different and ,it will be backed up by the courts,unconstitutional.If I don't want to have health insurance,you should have to sign a waiver that you have to pay.Other then that the government has no right to mandate anything of the kind.
-
Requiring Health Insurance Is Not Like Auto | Print | E-mail
Written by Steven J. DuBord
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 16:25
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
As President Obama and Democrats in Congress try to build a case for requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance, they have compared it to mandatory auto insurance laws — but the analogy quickly breaks down.
“Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved,” Obama told Congress in his recent address. “That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”
The comparison sounds reasonable at first. Most states do require drivers to have auto insurance, and the President simply wants a federal law to do the same for health insurance.
But the first difference is the difference between states requiring only those who drive automobiles to carry auto insurance and Obama’s proposal that would force every single American to buy health insurance. The auto insurance requirement can be avoided by simply not driving a car. This may be an inconvenience, but not driving allows the freedom to avoid purchasing auto insurance. The President’s plan gives no possibility of exemption.
“You can avoid the auto insurance mandate by divesting yourself of a car. The only way to avoid a health insurance mandate is by divesting yourself of a body,” said Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon. Ironically, the only way to escape the proposed health insurance requirement is to cease to be healthy to the point of death.
The second difference is that auto insurance is required primarily to pay for any damages to other persons or property that might result from the driver’s actions. The insurance is only secondarily meant to repair or replace the driver’s vehicle, something the states have no real interest in requiring. In fact, many drivers get by without collision coverage because they are driving an older vehicle that is no longer worth the expense.
“The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself,” wrote former Department of Health and Human Services officials Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith in a paper for the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
Health insurance, on the other hand, is essentially collision coverage. With cars, it is the old, rusty vehicles that don’t need collision insurance, but with people, it is the young and healthy who don’t necessarily need coverage. Obama would twist things so that those who don’t need the insurance are the ones who pay the burden of insuring everyone else.
The third difference is that auto insurance laws originate at the state level, while Obama is proposing an unprecedented federal law. With state laws, people have the choice of working within their state to change the law, or they may decide to move to another state with less burdensome regulations. Federal laws allow for no escape other than leaving the country.
This brings to mind a 1994 paper prepared by the Congressional Budget Office to address President Bill Clinton’s proposal for a national health insurance mandate. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” the CBO stated.
In fact, the closest comparison the CBO could make was to something that did cause some people to flee the country — the draft: “Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law.”
So the government wants to make people who don’t purchase health insurance guilty of a federal crime equivalent to draft dodging during a time of war. This is absurd. Can anyone imagine throwing people into America’s already-overcrowded prisons for the federal offense of not buying health insurance and then refusing or being unable to pay the fine?
The federal government exceeded its constitutional limitations in the first place and established the managed-care system that rules America’s healthcare today. Now the federal government is once again proposing more federal power as the answer to problems caused by unrestrained federal power. Americans need to get back in the driver seat by telling their elected officials to avoid colliding with any such repressive reform proposals.
________________________ _______-
Sorry Jag & TA - you liberal dupes are dead wrong on this.
-
Actually what Obama is doing is tweaking the Patriot Act. He made so secret of his intent to do so throughout his campaign. He is removing stupid useless provisions that serve no purpose, and strengthening other areas that will be useful in detering and preventing acts of terrorism against the US and her citizens.
I dont understand the point of this post, so he is indeed strengthening the patriot act...Im sure you were just as for it when bush was pushing it through congress ??? ::) silver lining jag, silver lining
-
Obama was NOT the one in charge when they were arrested, not mirandized, or interrogated in a manner ruled illegal. He was not the one who violated the rights you and the Supreme court claim they have. So now that this is fait accomplis, ...what do you propose? That they simply be released? Are you advocating their release, so that the guilty can go back to committing acts of terror? Are you advocating their release so that those who were nothing more than farmers caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, who as a result of both their treatment, and their confinement among terrorists have become radicalized? If they are convicted and file appeals as a result, ...so be it. Let them file their appeals. In the meantime, ...they will be on ice, unable to plan and execute further terror attacks. They might find themselves quite occupied with simply staying alive within the prison system, ...and if they don't survive prison life, ...it stops their appeals dead in their tracks doesn't it?
LOL yet another silver lining, apparently its wrong for them to be detained without trial but if we give them a fake trial with rights that we dont intend to honor, thats ok? ::)
Look Im all in favor of these ppls "boat sinking" on their way over to the main land or their "plane going down". What I am not in favor of is the manipulation of our civilian legal system the very same one that they try US citizen with.
If they are able to ignore the civil rights of these ppl(which we all agree they shouldnt have) whats to keep them from ignoring the civil rights of actual citizens?
Also these ppl will be segregated jag dont be foolish they will not be in the general population if for nothing else than preventing them from recruiting ppl.
Those who arent obsessed with being a martyr will undoubtedly appeal and on very solid ground with the violation of their due process.
You ask what I think should be done jag as if something need be done, again your falling into the trap of acting simply for the sake of acting think about Iraq, Stimulus bill, Health care bill...these things are what we get when we act just to act.
If you absolutely must take them off gitmo, 2 options try them in military court or black ops prison
-
I dont understand the point of this post, so he is indeed strengthening the patriot act...Im sure you were just as for it when bush was pushing it through congress ??? ::) silver lining jag, silver lining
Its more double standards from the left. Typical garbage.
-
Serious question.
If the Government can't screen for terrorists that are right under its nose and delivered on a platter, how will it be able to screen for cancer or some other disease when it takes over health care?
Anyone care to explain that to me?
I'll try to explain it to you son.
First - one has nothing to do with the other
Second - even with a Govt Insurance plan it's still going to be the same private practice doctors doing the work.
Third - we already have some govt run plans that seem to do it just fine.
Fourthe - there's really no reason to read beyond the first point since your entire premise is dumb as dirt (as usual)
-
I'll try to explain it to you son.
First - one has nothing to do with the other
Second - even with a Govt Insurance plan it's still going to be the same private practice doctors doing the work.
Third - we already have some govt run plans that seem to do it just fine.
Fourthe - there's really no reason to read beyond the first point since your entire premise is dumb as dirt (as usual)
Oh yeah, Medicare and Medicaid are just great.
Medicare has 34 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Medicaid has tens of billions in fraud every year.
Sounds like they are doing a great job Straw.
-
You are an idiot.The reason that auto insurance is mandated IS NOT to protect you from an accident.Its to protect the person you hit in an accident.
No Billy, YOU are the idiot. One with a tremendous comprehension problem. Please show me where I stated that auto insurance is to protect the driver causing the accident.
Mandating health care is completely different and ,it will be backed up by the courts,unconstitutional.If I don't want to have health insurance,you should have to sign a waiver that you have to pay.Other then that the government has no right to mandate anything of the kind.
That may very well be the case, ...however with the signing of the 'Military Commissions Act', the Constitution was for all intents and purposes made null and void, ...whether that is readily acknowledged or not.
I don't disagree that mandating it's purchase under penalty of imprisonment is a rather bitter pill to swallow. I for one think a single payer option is the best, ...but I didn't get to propose that, and I don't have a say in how your country reforms it's healthcare. I believe that had there not been such a cacophany of stupid ignorant voices, manipulated by the insurance companies, there could have been some real discussions leading to a much better bill than the compromised one we see. Still, it is better than the status quo, ...and there still is much more work to be done to improve healthcare in America. ;)
-
I'll try to explain it to you son.
First - one has nothing to do with the other
Second - even with a Govt Insurance plan it's still going to be the same private practice doctors doing the work.
Third - we already have some govt run plans that seem to do it just fine.
Fourthe - there's really no reason to read beyond the first point since your entire premise is dumb as dirt (as usual)
and the post office is doing just fine right straw? ;)
-
Serious question.
If the Government can't screen for terrorists that are right under its nose and delivered on a platter, how will it be able to screen for cancer or some other disease when it takes over health care?
Anyone care to explain that to me?
I don't know. I just now that it works here. The total price for health care is less by all estimates. We don't have the ridiculous lawsuits either.
-
No Billy, YOU are the idiot. One with a tremendous comprehension problem. Please show me where I stated that auto insurance is to protect the driver causing the accident.
That may very well be the case, ...however with the signing of the 'Military Commissions Act', the Constitution was for all intents and purposes made null and void, ...whether that is readily acknowledged or not.
I don't disagree that mandating it's purchase under penalty of imprisonment is a rather bitter pill to swallow. I for one think a single payer option is the best, ...but I didn't get to propose that, and I don't have a say in how your country reforms it's healthcare. I believe that hgad their not been such a cacophany of stupid ignorant voices, manipulated by the insurance companies, there could have been some real discussions leading to a much better bill than the compromised one we see. Still, it is better than the status quo, ...and there still is much more work to be done to improve healthcare in America. ;)
Jag do you read Huff Post? They have done great reporting this year on this health care disgrace.
Obama and the Dems are SOLELY responsible for the dirty deals, the mandates, the dirty deal with the drug companies, the lobbying etc.
You cant blame this on fox, rush, the VRWC, Palin, etc.
And no, it is not better than the status quo. It sucks royally on every level for everyone but the drug companies, health care carriers, and no one else.
-
The federal government exceeded its constitutional limitations in the first place and established the managed-care system that rules America’s healthcare today. Now the federal government is once again proposing more federal power as the answer to problems caused by unrestrained federal power. Americans need to get back in the driver seat by telling their elected officials to avoid colliding with any such repressive reform proposals.
Well if you're gonna get back in the driver's seat, ...make sure you're buckled up, and you've got your insurance. :D
-
Oh yeah, Medicare and Medicaid are just great.
Medicare has 34 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Medicaid has tens of billions in fraud every year.
Sounds like they are doing a great job Straw.
I thought you question was about quality of care?
Can't you ever stay focused on your own silly premise?
Go ask your granny if she wants to get rid of her Medicare? She can see whatever doctor she wants, no pre-existing conditions etc...
The funding problem is a completely differnt issue though completely fixable
-
I thought you question was about quality of care?
Can't you ever stay focused on your own silly premise?
Go ask your granny if she wants to get rid of her Medicare? She can see whatever doctor she wants, no pre-existing conditions etc...
The funding problem is a completely differnt issue though completely fixable
My question was for those who support govt run health care. Many on the fring left like yourself, want a govt run system where eseentially doctors work for the govt. I know we dont have that now, but thats where the left wants to go, govt run and controlled health care.
And BTW - ask any medical practioner if they think quality will go up with more govt involvement in the system.
As far as funding goes - what do you suggest? Let me take a wild guess - tax increases.
-
I dont understand the point of this post, so he is indeed strengthening the patriot act...Im sure you were just as for it when bush was pushing it through congress ??? ::) silver lining jag, silver lining
There are areas of the patriot Act that do need strengthening, ...other areas that should be scrapped altogether.
No, I was not all for it when Bush was ramming it through. I don't believe there was the threat they claimed there to be. Subsequent actions by the Bush administration and their policies around the world however have given rise to and created very fertile ground for these threats which have grown significantly. A country does need a way to protect itself from it's enemies, ...however, I don't have the solution. I agree with Ron Paul tho when he says a good place to start is to stop fvcking around in the internal affairs of other countries. That won't dissuade the most ardent from their agenda, ...but it will certainly go a long way towards reducing the growing numbers who become radicalized everyday. There can be a balance between protecting the country without riding roughshod over the people, ..if that is indeed the goal.
After watching the insanity of the last 8 years, I'm of the belief that ANYONE given the right circumstances can become passionately radicalized around a cause, ...and I truly fear for your country as certain agendas start to come into play. I fear for my own as well, because I don't want to see American terrorists flooding across our mutual border looking to use Canada as a base camp from which to plan their operations.
-
No Billy, YOU are the idiot. One with a tremendous comprehension problem. Please show me where I stated that auto insurance is to protect the driver causing the accident.
That may very well be the case, ...however with the signing of the 'Military Commissions Act', the Constitution was for all intents and purposes made null and void, ...whether that is readily acknowledged or not.
I don't disagree that mandating it's purchase under penalty of imprisonment is a rather bitter pill to swallow. I for one think a single payer option is the best, ...but I didn't get to propose that, and I don't have a say in how your country reforms it's healthcare. I believe that hgad their not been such a cacophany of stupid ignorant voices, manipulated by the insurance companies, there could have been some real discussions leading to a much better bill than the compromised one we see. Still, it is better than the status quo, ...and there still is much more work to be done to improve healthcare in America. ;)
You did compare health care to auto insurance.Its an idiotic comparrison.They are not similar in any way.The health care bill has one goal government control over every aspect of out lives,and the ability to tax us to death as the assanine tanning tax has now opened the door to.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with health care,which is why it wont be implemented until 2014 AFTER Obamas second run.
-
My question was for those who support govt run health care. Many on the fring left like yourself, want a govt run system where eseentially doctors work for the govt. I know we dont have that now, but thats where the left wants to go, govt run and controlled health care.
And BTW - ask any medical practioner if they think quality will go up with more govt involvement in the system.
As far as funding goes - what do you suggest? Let me take a wild guess - tax increases.
how about you let me tell you want I want instead of you telling me.
I'd be fine with the following:
1. get rid of the monopolies that health care companies enjoy (still don't understand why either party would have a problem with that)
2. get rid of abusive practices (pre-existing conditions, rescission, etc..)
3. public option for those that can't afford private insurance
as far as I know the current permutation of the two bills don't have any of this stuff (havne't followed all the recent details)
the one thing I think is INSANE is requiring people to purchase private insurance when none of the 3 things above are available.
The only system that would would work with a required participation would be a puclic system and we're not getting that
-
LOL yet another silver lining, apparently its wrong for them to be detained without trial but if we give them a fake trial with rights that we dont intend to honor, thats ok? ::)
Look Im all in favor of these ppls "boat sinking" on their way over to the main land or their "plane going down". What I am not in favor of is the manipulation of our civilian legal system the very same one that they try US citizen with.
You speak of civil rights as sacrosanct, while in the same breath essentially condone mass murder and genocide.
Do you not see the hypocritical, mental, moral, logical, and rational disconnects in your position? ???
If they are able to ignore the civil rights of these ppl(which we all agree they shouldnt have) whats to keep them from ignoring the civil rights of actual citizens?
BINGO!!!
Also these ppl will be segregated jag dont be foolish they will not be in the general population if for nothing else than preventing them from recruiting ppl.
perhaps ...most likely.
Those who arent obsessed with being a martyr will undoubtedly appeal and on very solid ground with the violation of their due process.
Appeals take time, ...during which, they'll be on ice unable to plan and/or execute further acts of terror.
You ask what I think should be done jag as if something need be done, again your falling into the trap of acting simply for the sake of acting think about Iraq, Stimulus bill, Health care bill...these things are what we get when we act just to act.
Action MUST be taken. Gitmo is closing, ...or do you propose closing down Gitmo, ...and leaving them there for Castro to deal with?
If you absolutely must take them off gitmo, 2 options try them in military court or black ops prison
But the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Trying them in a black ops prison does far worse than make a mockery of your civilian justice system, ...it makes a mockery of your entire country and what you claim to stand for, ...if that's even possible considering the damage done by the Bush administration
-
I don't know. I just now that it works here. The total price for health care is less by all estimates. We don't have the ridiculous lawsuits either.
Same thing with Canada as well Hedge.
-
how about you let me tell you want I want instead of you telling me.
I'd be fine with the following:
1. get rid of the monopolies that health care companies enjoy (still don't understand why either party would have a problem with that)
2. get rid of abusive practices (pre-existing conditions, rescission, etc..)
3. public option for those that can't afford private insurance
as far as I know the current permutation of the two bills don't have any of this stuff (havne't followed all the recent details)
the one thing I think is INSANE is requiring people to purchase private insurance when none of the 3 things above are available.
The only system that would would work with a required participation would be a puclic system and we're not getting that
Fair enough.
While I have always been against the public option, and still am, I simply cant see how they can mandate people carry private insurance without at least having an affordable alternative.
To me, this present situation is just awful since now the carriers have carte blanche to raise premiums to whatever level they like with ZERO cost control or competition.
-
Same thing with Canada as well Hedge.
Jag - how about this gem? Good job Obama!
-
My question was for those who support govt run health care. Many on the fring left like yourself, want a govt run system where eseentially doctors work for the govt. I know we dont have that now, but thats where the left wants to go, govt run and controlled health care.
And BTW - ask any medical practioner if they think quality will go up with more govt involvement in the system.
As far as funding goes - what do you suggest? Let me take a wild guess - tax increases.
Up here in Canada, doctors work for their patients, and submit the bills to the government.
As far as funding, ...MY suggestion would be a single payer solution.
-
Up here in Canada, doctors work for their patients, and submit the bills to the government.
As far as funding, ...MY suggestion would be a single payer solution.
We already have that in Medicade and you know what the result is - massive waste fraud and abuse.
-
You did compare health care to auto insurance.Its an idiotic comparrison.They are not similar in any way.The health care bill has one goal government control over every aspect of out lives,and the ability to tax us to death as the assanine tanning tax has now opened the door to.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with health care,which is why it wont be implemented until 2014 AFTER Obamas second run.
I may have made a comparison between health care and auto insurance, but I believe I was clear on the similarities, as well as the intended purpose of auto insurance. you either did NOT read what I wrote, ...or failed to comprehend what I wrote. Which is it?
As for tanning taxes, I personally don't give a poop about a tanning tax. They can raise it 500% for all I care ;D
One can always go lie out in the sun, ...the vitamin D might do you some good. it'll help protect you from prostate cancer, ...and then too, ...there are always self tanners. C'mon Billy, have you never heard of a tanning spray? When they do away with tax on tampons, then I might consider getting all activist about a tax on the use of a sun tanning bed. ::)
-
how about you let me tell you want I want instead of you telling me.
I'd be fine with the following:
1. get rid of the monopolies that health care companies enjoy (still don't understand why either party would have a problem with that)
2. get rid of abusive practices (pre-existing conditions, rescission, etc..)
3. public option for those that can't afford private insurance
as far as I know the current permutation of the two bills don't have any of this stuff (havne't followed all the recent details)
the one thing I think is INSANE is requiring people to purchase private insurance when none of the 3 things above are available.
The only system that would would work with a required participation would be a puclic system and we're not getting that
A public system is basically where you pay for the health care through your taxes.
But you still have the private doctors, hospitals, et al that carries out the services.
It's just getting rid of the insurance companies and their profit margin basically.
But I guess that is a big no-no. ::)
Remember, Goldman Sachs and several other investment banks are involved in the insurance industry as well.
It's pretty much the same thing.
They're using their influence on these fcuking senators to block any type of action that would cut off their livelihood.
Ben Nelson and Lieberman, and anyone who is opposing the public option but supporting the health care "reform", is a whore owned by the insurance company lobby.
http://www.insurancepuppets.com/puppets/joelieberman
-
I may have made a comparison to health care and auto insurance, but I believe I was clear on the similarities, as well as the intended purpose of auto insurance. you either did NOT read what I wrote, ...or failed to comprehend what I wrote. Which is it?
As for tanning taxes, I personally don't give a poop about a tanning tax. They can raise it 500% for all I care ;D
One can always go lie out in the sun, ...the vitamin D might do you some good. it'll help protect you from prostate cancer, ...and then too, ...there are always self tanners. C'mon Billy, have you never heard of a tanning spray? When they do away with tax on tampons, then I might consider getting all activist about a tax on the use of a sun tanning bed. ::)
The point is the govt is picking winners and losers in the private economy based on lobbying by certain groups with more cash than others. Its all well and good so long as the target is one you dont like, but when they target your business because some other lobbying group feels your business is no good, then you will understand why many of us are pissed off about this.
-
I may have made a comparison between health care and auto insurance, but I believe I was clear on the similarities, as well as the intended purpose of auto insurance. you either did NOT read what I wrote, ...or failed to comprehend what I wrote. Which is it?
As for tanning taxes, I personally don't give a poop about a tanning tax. They can raise it 500% for all I care ;D
One can always go lie out in the sun, ...the vitamin D might do you some good. it'll help protect you from prostate cancer, ...and then too, ...there are always self tanners. C'mon Billy, have you never heard of a tanning spray? When they do away with tax on tampons, then I might consider getting all activist about a tax on the use of a sun tanning bed. ::)
The other difference is that the insurance is on the vehicle, not necessailry on the driver. One can have a drivers' license but not have insurance.
-
A public system is basically where you pay for the health care through your taxes.
But you still have the private doctors, hospitals, et al that carries out the services.
It's just getting rid of the insurance companies and their profit margin basically.
But I guess that is a big no-no. ::)
Yep. Private insurance companies will still continue to exist, but their huge profit margins will not.
Up here in Canada, we have all sorts of private health insurance coverage. our single payer system didn't get rid of them. they still exist. They just aren't the money hungry craven vultures like their counterparts south of the 49th. they can't be, ...because our single payer public option keeps them in check.
Remember, Goldman Sachs and several other investment banks are involved in the insurance industry as well.
It's pretty much the same thing.
They're using their influence on these fcuking senators to block any type of action that would cut off their livelihood.
Ben Nelson and Lieberman, and anyone who is opposing the public option but supporting the health care "reform", is a whore owned by the insurance company lobby.
http://www.insurancepuppets.com/puppets/joelieberman
BINGO!!!
-
Yep. Private insurance companies will still continue to exist, but their huge profit margins will not.
Up here in Canada, we have all sorts of private health insurance coverage. our single payer system didn't get rid of them. they still exist. They just aren't the money hungry craven vultures like their counterparts south of the 49th. they can't be, ...because our single payer public option keeps them in check.
BINGO!!!
I'm against a public option because our country is broke, in massive debt, and we dont have any historical success in public programs containing or restraining costs.
does that make me a shill for the private insurace companies?
-
The point is the govt is picking winners and losers in the private economy based on lobbying by certain groups with more cash than others. Its all well and good so long as the target is one you dont like, but when they target your business because some other lobbying group feels your business is no good, then you will understand why many of us are pissed off about this.
I understand this point that you're making and I completely agree with it.
Originally it was a proposed tax on plastic surgery, ...and all of Beverly Hills had an inevitable panic attack.
I don't personally dislike sun tanning beds, ...I simply have no use for them. i do see this particular compromise as one that has a lesser impact on the public than the former proposal tho, since there are other viable and less expensive alternatives available to the general public who do make use of tanning beds. I will admit that as a non user, ...I'm not that familiar with tanning beds, and why they are so indispensible and deserving of tax exempt status. Any pasty people here who might care to enlighten me?
-
I understand this point that you're making and I completely agree with it.
Originally it was a proposed tax on plastic surgery, ...and all of Beverly Hills had an inevitable panic attack.
I don't personally dislike sun tanning beds, ...I simply have no use for them. i do see this particular compromise as one that has a lesser impact on the public than the former proposal tho, since there are other viable and less expensive alternatives available to the general public who do make use of tanning beds. I will admit that as a non user, ...I'm not that familiar with tanning beds, and why they are so indispensible and deserving of tax exempt status. Any pasty people here who might care to enlighten me?
The merits or lack thereof of tanning is not the point. Its that one lobbying group, the plastic surgeons that Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, all appear to go to, were pissed off when they were going to get taxed and got these gangsters in DC to target someone else.
This whole thing is like organized crime.
-
I'm against a public option because our country is broke, in massive debt, and we dont have any historical success in public programs containing or restraining costs.
does that make me a shill for the private insurace companies?
No, ...it makes you FOOL!
Get your country to stop starting wars all over the planet that you cannot afford mentally, emotionally, spiritually or fiscally, ...and you'll find plenty of money to provide top notch quality healthcare for every man, woman & child in your country without having to come up with another red cent in taxes.
-
You speak of civil rights as sacrosanct, while in the same breath essentially condone mass murder and genocide.
Do you not see the hypocritical, mental, moral, logical, and rational disconnects in your position? ???
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET OUT OF THIS WITHOUT BEING HYPOCRITICAL JAG
UNDERSTAND THAT, you are being just as hypocritical as I am, I though am thinking about the CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE US CITIZEN...
Why are they even being tried? b/c liberals feel its not moral to hold someone without trial, so you put on a fake trial and in the process make a mockery of OUR CIVILIAN CIVIL RIGHTS? ::) please if you dont see the hypocrisy there do us a favor and log off...
My point of view is from the US citizens and through this its to protect OUR CIVILIAN RIGHTS...I dont give 2 shits about those fuktards at gitmo put 2 in their heads and be done with it.
First off I didnt say try them in black ops prison I said black ops prison as in just throw them in there and forget about them.
Second all you feel that trying them in military court would make a mockery of what we stand for, but you dont think that violating civil rights makes a mockery of anything? ::)
for fucks sake jag quit silver lining shit
-
No, ...it makes you FOOL!
Get your country to stop starting wars all over the planet that you cannot afford mentally, emotionally, spiritually or fiscally, ...and you'll find plenty of money to provide top notch quality healthcare for every man, woman & child in your country without having to come up with another red cent in taxes.
Whether we never start a war again, we have something called a 12.1 trillion dollar debt to deal with as well as 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities in SS and Medicare to deal with.
To me, the fool is someone who wants to add to that.
-
The merits or lack thereof of tanning is not the point. Its that one lobbying group, the plastic surgeons that Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, all appear to go to, were pissed off when they were going to get taxed and got these gangsters in DC to target someone else.
This whole thing is like organized crime.
Perhaps, ...but the Gambinos have been in charge too long and cost the public too much money and too many lives.
At least with the Bonnanos, they aren't looking to kill the public, ...they just want the money. Soon, we'll have 'The Untouchables' on the job. ;)
-
I'm against a public option because our country is broke, in massive debt, and we dont have any historical success in public programs containing or restraining costs.
does that make me a shill for the private insurace companies?
Of course not.
If the public option just was part of the tax, and meaning something that all Americans would have access to, the total money spent on health care would probably go down.
But at the same time, the tort reform has to be included.
The unwillingness of the elected to get a tort reform through is evidence that they're owned by the legal lobby as well.
BTW, I totally understand your sceptisism about "handing" over the responsibility for something so big to a government that doesn't have a great record exactly.
The way Ben Nelson handled himself and got some kind of deal for Nebraska was another example of disgusting politics.
Ben Nelson is a fcuking disgrace. How the hell would it be if all 50 states would have the same kind of perpetual deals that he brokered?
How about manning up and take responsibility?
A novel idea for that guy I guess.
-
Perhaps, ...but the Gambinos have been in charge too long and cost the public too much money and too many lives.
At least with the Bonnanos, they aren't looking to kill the public, ...they just want the money. Soon, we'll have 'The Untouchables' on the job. ;)
Unreal. Truly unreal.
You are blind as a bat. The organized crime cartel is in the congress and senate. you blame insurance companies when the real fault here is the fedzilla.
-
Of course not.
If the public option just was part of the tax, and meaning something that all Americans would have access to, the total money spent on health care would probably go down.
But at the same time, the tort reform has to be included.
The unwillingness of the elected to get a tort reform through is evidence that they're owned by the legal lobby as well.
BTW, I totally understand your sceptisism about "handing" over the responsibility for something so big to a government that doesn't have a great record exactly.
The way Ben Nelson handled himself and got some kind of deal for Nebraska was another example of disgusting politics.
Ben Nelson is a fcuking disgrace. How the hell would it be if all 50 states would have the same kind of perpetual deals that he brokered?
How about manning up and take responsibility?
A novel idea for that guy I guess.
Dont forget Landrieu's 300 million dollar deal as well.
If this plan was go good, why did they have to spend billions bribing senators like this?
-
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET OUT OF THIS WITHOUT BEING HYPOCRITICAL JAG
Well I'm glad you realize that. Your boy left a real fvckacta mess didn't he?
UNDERSTAND THAT, you are being just as hypocritical as I am, I though am thinking about the CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE US CITIZEN...
You should understand that as long as you can choose to be selective about people, ...it is only a small stone's throw away from being selective about which US citizens are afforded civil rights.
Why are they even being tried? b/c liberals feel its not moral to hold someone without trial, so you put on a fake trial and in the process make a mockery of OUR CIVILIAN CIVIL RIGHTS? ::) please if you dont see the hypocrisy there do us a favor and log off...
Who said anything about a fake trial? As for your civilian rights, ...or your civilian justice system, ...there has been plenty of precedent long before this that has made a mockery of it. Wake up!
My point of view is from the US citizens and through this its to protect OUR CIVILIAN RIGHTS...I dont give 2 shits about those fuktards at gitmo put 2 in their heads and be done with it.
My point of view is from that of a human being.
First off I didnt say try them in black ops prison I said black ops prison as in just throw them in there and forget about them.
:o Why how very Saddam Hussein of you. lol. And that doesn't make a mockery of the USA how?
The days of the Bastille and the Chateau Dieffe's of the world are long gone, ...or at least should be.
And look at the mess the existence of those two institutions led to. OK one is fictional, ...but you get my point.
Second all you feel that trying them in military court would make a mockery of what we stand for, but you dont think that violating civil rights makes a mockery of anything? ::)
for fucks sake jag quit silver lining shit
You say I'm silver lining this I'm not. I'm facing reality. And I realize you have a President in place at the moment who realizes where the buck stops and is at least willing to take the bull by the horns. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. And cutting & running makes an even bigger mockery of you
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If they are not POWs you can't try them in a military court.
It's a fvckacta mess, part of the legacy Bush left for your country. Obama is simply trying to clean it up.
There is no extricating yourself from this easily. And there's no way to come out of this smelling like roses. You can't. Trials in civilian court appear to the Obama administration as the best way to deal with the situation, so that's what they are doing. Or do you advocate the Bush method of doing nothing but release them en masse, empowering the guilty ones to commit further acts of terror?
-
Whether we never start a war again, we have something called a 12.1 trillion dollar debt to deal with as well as 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities in SS and Medicare to deal with.
To me, the fool is someone who wants to add to that.
Oh don't worry about that 12.1 trillion. The way the USD is going to be devalued...
that debt will be worth only about 12 cents in no time at all. :P Hang onto your hat, ...it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
-
Well I'm glad you realize that. Your boy left a real fvckacta mess didn't he?
You should understand that as long as you can choose to be selective about people, ...it is only a small stone's throw away from being selective about which US citizens are afforded civil rights.
Who said anything about a fake trial? As for your civilian rights, ...or your civilian justice system, ...there has been plenty of precedent long before this that has made a mockery of it. Wake up!
My point of view is from that of a human being.
:o Why how very Saddam Hussein of you. lol. And that doesn't make a mockery of the USA how?
The days of the Bastille and the Chateau Dieffe's of the world are long gone, ...or at least should be.
And look at the mess the existence of those two institutions led to. OK one is fictional, ...but you get my point.
You say I'm silver lining this I'm not. I'm facing reality. And I realize you have a President in place at the moment who realizes where the buck stops and is at least willing to take the bull by the horns. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. And cutting & running makes an even bigger mockery of you
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If they are not POWs you can't try them in a military court.
It's a fvckacta mess, part of the legacy Bush left for your country. Obama is simply trying to clean it up.
There is no extricating yourself from this easily. And there's no way to come out of this smelling like roses. You can't.
Trials in civilian court appear to the Obama administration as the best way to deal with the situation, so that's what they are doing. Or do you advocate the Bush method of doing nothing but release them en masse, empowering the guilty ones to commit further acts of terror?
yup bush fucked up and barry is fucking up too, You seem to want to condemn bush yet pardon barry, why is that jag?
"You should understand that as long as you can choose to be selective about people, ...it is only a small stone's throw away from being selective about which US citizens are afforded civil rights."
LOL sorry sweet pea but the US constitution and the Civil rights that it gives are for US citizens I didnt make the distinction the constitution did. I am trying to follow the constitution so that this breach wont be repeated on the ppl it was meant to protect. ;) It was never meant to protect foreign terrorist ;)
"You should understand that as long as you can choose to be selective about people, ...it is only a small stone's throw away from being selective about which US citizens are afforded civil rights."
I guess that makes it ok now? ::) 2 wrongs apparently make a right ::) Ill remember that next time a rep gets in and you bitch about something they are doing... ::)
"You say I'm silver lining this I'm not. I'm facing reality. And I realize you have a President in place at the moment who realizes where the buck stops and is at least willing to take the bull by the horns. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. And cutting & running makes an even bigger mockery of you"
LOL he doesnt realize the buck stops with him if he did he and you wouldnt bring bush up every other speech or post ::)
by obama trying this ppl in civilian court he is creating a bigger mess than he is dealing with jag. Whats the worst that happens if he keeps gitmo open? whats the worst that happens if he transfers them to another black ops prison?
well by doing this he violates civil rights, opens the doors to massive appeals on LEGITIMATE GROUNDS and makes a mockery of the US legal system...
nobody said it was easy obama knew that and should stop blaming bush for his own actions. Bush didnt blame clinton for shit that happened during his presidency did he?
ACTING SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF ACTING IS A DUMB ASS MOVE find one that fits the situation instead of trying to fit the situation to the action...
-
A good alternative to the 'insert quote' function to copy paste, highlight the text, and then click on the quote button that is found right next to the bullet point button (in the row above the smiley's).