Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on September 12, 2011, 05:17:58 PM
-
Ron paul got triple the applause of anyone else in intros.
Romney pwning the shit out of Perry.
Perry getting hammered on social security. And he is doing the smug Bush smirrk/giggle.
-
Ron paul got triple the applause of anyone else in intros.
Romney pwning the shit out of Perry.
Perry getting hammered on social security. And he is doing the smug Bush smirrk/giggle.
I watched it. No need to lie like you do when you're talking about your true God-King, President Downgrade. His level of applause was no different than that of the other front-runners.
-
This debate is already better than that disaster put on by those scumbags at MSNBC. At least they're letting more than two people answer a question.
-
This debate is already better than that disaster put on by those scumbags at MSNBC. At least they're letting more than two people answer a question.
But kinda stupid to have it on opposite monday night football.
-
But kinda stupid to have it on opposite monday night football.
or is it? ;)
-
or is it? ;)
so you think CNN planned it so many would miss it?
-
so you think CNN planned it so many would miss it?
of course not.
i think the repub camps made that one of their limited available dates in order to minimize their exposure. This is an extremist debate, with tea party Qs about auditing fwds, etc. They DO NOT want this on a more national stage. Minimize it by agreeing to debate on one of the biggest football nights of the year.
-
of course not.
i think the repub camps made that one of their limited available dates in order to minimize their exposure. This is an extremist debate, with tea party Qs about auditing fwds, etc. They DO NOT want this on a more national stage. Minimize it by agreeing to debate on one of the biggest football nights of the year.
oh, GOP picked this time slot?
-
oh, GOP picked this time slot?
I dont know who picked this time slot. Anyone have that info?
My belief is that cnn certainly did NOT want to go up against the NFL MNF kickoff double header lol.
THis debate is more like a fri afternoon/holiday weekend news dump. ;)
-
This is pretty sick shit right here:
'Yes!' shouted from audience when Blitzer asks Ron Paul if coma patient without insurance should be allowed to die.
-
This is pretty sick shit right here:
'Yes!' shouted from audience when Blitzer asks Ron Paul if coma patient without insurance should be allowed to die.
What was Paul's answer?
-
What was Paul's answer?
-
-
Oh and Fuck Poop Paul while we are at it. Couldn`t even answer the question properly.
-
why did you post a clip that cuts off the answer to "should we just let him die?"
-
People are disgusting... ::)
Paul did continue, and was dead on as usual.
-
eh, it's not like they dont cheer executions either.
chickenhawks priding themselves on just how heartless they are, while clutching a bible.
-
Oh and Fuck Poop Paul while we are at it. Couldn`t even answer the question properly.
He absolutely answered properly, this is the full video.
-
People are disgusting... ::)
Paul did continue, and was dead on as usual.
Yes, because the churches are the best place to go when you are in a coma. ::)
-
and now for the full video you idiot!
-
He absolutely answered properly, this is the full video.
oops, beat me to it ;D
-
Yes, because the churches are the best place to go when you are in a coma. ::)
are you really that stupid? You think he was suggesting that the patient goes to a church for care ::)
-
oops, beat me to it ;D
haha! You're my brother from another mother.
-
Yes, because going to a Church and letting the Priest pray over your comatose body is an effective solution. What the fuck was he rambling on about alternative medicine for? Who would pay for the 30 year old in a Coma to go see the Alternative Medicine wacko. Furthermore, what kind of Alternative Medicine is there for people in Comas?
Ron Paul sucks.
-
haha! You're my brother from another mother.
get a stall, senators craig
-
are you really that stupid? You think he was suggesting that the patient goes to a church for care ::)
He brought up the Churches taking care of the people several times.
What am I to assume then? Churches involved in Healthcare. This is the dumbest fucking thing Poop Paul has ever advocated.
-
The uninsured don't die now under our current system even before Obamacare, so what's the point you are trying to make?
-
I can see it now, Americans lining up before the Sunday Service begging for Healthcare. Good Plan Poop Paul.
-
of course not.
i think the repub camps made that one of their limited available dates in order to minimize their exposure. This is an extremist debate, with tea party Qs about auditing fwds, etc. They DO NOT want this on a more national stage. Minimize it by agreeing to debate on one of the biggest football nights of the year.
Rob, what was your take on Rick Perry and the HPV issue and how is that going to affect him going forward? He looked really tense and almost angry at time...exaggerated facial expressions and things of that nature.
A few of the other candidates were really going after him on the HPV and illegal immigration issue though...He must of felt like Sonny Corleone at the toll booth!!
-
eh, it's not like they dont cheer executions either.
chickenhawks priding themselves on just how heartless they are, while clutching a bible.
Repubs are usually christians
It's one thing to be in favor of capital punishment but something quite different to cheer about executions
shit, if it wasn't for capital punishment we wouldn't have Easter
maybe that's the connection
-
He brought up the Churches taking care of the people several times.
What am I to assume then? Churches involved in Healthcare. This is the dumbest fucking thing Poop Paul has ever advocated.
Except that's not what he was advocating. In your zealous attempt to twist this into something it was not you fail to admit the very premise of his statement: take personal responsibility for yourself and stop expecting government to nut cup you your entire life.
Same liberal socialist bullshit that has been driving our country into the shitter for the past 50 years. Your ideals aren't working, get over it.
-
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts
By David Cecere
Cambridge Health Alliance
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are
associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published
online today by the American Journal
of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an
estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance,
found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of
death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess
death rate found in 1993.
“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately
insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and
baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches
at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new
ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but
only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking
into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking,
drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789
excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The
methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in
2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance
and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many
common killers such as kidney disease. An increase in the number of uninsured
and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the
substantial increase in the number of deaths, as the uninsured are more likely
to go without needed care. Another factor contributing to the widening gap in
the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the
improved quality of care for those who can get it.
The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the
annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986
and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their
socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC
tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.
The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As
expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current
or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that
their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining
physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).
Steffie Woolhandler, study
co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care
physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other
developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of
nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all
Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”
“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American
dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David
Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard
Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance.
“Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”
Other authors include Karen E.
Lasser, Danny McCormick, David H. Bor, and David U. Himmelstein. The study was
supported by a National Service Research Award.
-
wow, you are that stupid. Points made that medicare and the like raises the cost of healthcare, during Paul's time, before this, the community and church or whatever could raise the funds to pay for care if it was needed in unfortunate cases. Now it's so high at best a community can only usually raise a portion of extensive healthcare needs for case like that. He wasn't suggesting the church provide the actual care dummy. He was advocating responibility and pointing out that the system as is now unjustly raises the costs.
Why does he keep mentioning Churches in Healthcare related Questions. Obviously he wants them to play some sort of role. What role is it?
-
He brought up the Churches taking care of the people several times.
What am I to assume then? Churches involved in Healthcare. This is the dumbest fucking thing Poop Paul has ever advocated.
wow, you are that stupid. Points made that medicare and the like raises the cost of healthcare, during Paul's time, before this, the community and church or whatever could raise the funds to pay for care if it was needed in unfortunate cases. Now it's so high at best a community can only usually raise a portion of extensive healthcare needs for case like that. He wasn't suggesting the church provide the actual care dummy. He was advocating responibility and pointing out that the system as is now unjustly raises the costs.
-
Ron Poop is going nowhere anyways.
-
Why does he keep mentioning Churches in Healthcare related Questions. Obviously he wants them to play some sort of role. What role is it?
I just told you why... If you actually think Paul wants people to go to churches for actual healthcare, you're the dumbest person alive.
-
Ron Poop is going nowhere anyways.
no wonder with all the people like you misrepresenting his stances.
-
Rob, what was your take on Rick Perry and the HPV issue and how is that going to affect him going forward? He looked really tense and almost angry at time...exaggerated facial expressions and things of that nature.
A few thoughts-
It triggers his anger. He's been visually pissed off at both debates - Would the leader prefer cool & collected, or angry?
2) His current money man/PAC leader made a shitload of money as the merek rep (he set up the deal for the only company that could do the vaccinations in TX) after serving as Perry's chief of staff as Gov. - So he absolutely made $ on this required vaccinations thing.
3) For a guy who wants the govt to stay the hell out of their lives - forcing them to take untested shots at $350 a pop doesn't make much sense. And to FOCE IT on people with an executive order?
Sorry, it's an instant pay-for-play move for a bill that violates rights, and he rammed it down throats. Eleven-year old texas girls had to get this dangerous shot - and the legislature in tx of BOTH parties OVERTURNED IT. YES YES YES, that's right, repubs AND DEMS rejected this shitty move by Perry.
THey SHOULD hammer him on it. If Obama was shoving vaccinations down our threat, repubs would be a LOT louder about it ;)
-
I just told you why... If you actually think Paul wants people to go to churches for actual healthcare, you're the dumbest person alive.
You didn`t explain anything.
-
-
"Romney & Perry shot each other in the foot tonight" - CNN
Huntsman called them on it too. Bachmann getting credit for the win tonight. Romney and Perry are BOTH fucking lib shady crooks.
-
You didn`t explain anything.
to hell I didn't, learn to read jackass.
-
A few thoughts-
It triggers his anger. He's been visually pissed off at both debates - Would the leader prefer cool & collected, or angry?
2) His current money man/PAC leader made a shitload of money as the merek rep (he set up the deal for the only company that could do the vaccinations in TX) after serving as Perry's chief of staff as Gov. - So he absolutely made $ on this required vaccinations thing.
3) For a guy who wants the govt to stay the hell out of their lives - forcing them to take untested shots at $350 a pop doesn't make much sense. And to FOCE IT on people with an executive order?
Sorry, it's an instant pay-for-play move for a bill that violates rights, and he rammed it down throats. Eleven-year old texas girls had to get this dangerous shot - and the legislature in tx of BOTH parties OVERTURNED IT. YES YES YES, that's right, repubs AND DEMS rejected this shitty move by Perry.
THey SHOULD hammer him on it. If Obama was shoving vaccinations down our threat, repubs would be a LOT louder about it ;)
HPV shot is NOT dangerous.
-
Perry is like a really good Dubya impersonator.
He stops mid-sentence to smirk. He's like a male Palin. Really.
He made shit up a lot tonight, Politifact and CBO has already verified. "The stim bill created zero jobs" followed by how many jobs he created in his own state with - wait for it - stimulus money ;)
Perry loves tax cuts - but 40% of the stim bill WAS TAX CUTS, YOU DUMB CNUTS.
-
HPV shot is NOT dangerous.
then Perry and his merek employee/chief of staff (and current PAC money manager) should have went to the state legislature.
Instead, Perry issued an EXEC ORDER for it.
We can all agree that it's a very invasive and liberal move to require people to get shots for the greater good. These are NOT tea party tenets - that's something we'd expect to hear from obama, ya know? Clearly an anti-tea party move on Perry's part.
-
to hell I didn't, learn to read jackass.
He said that "The Churches took care of them. Our Neighbors, Our Friends would do it".
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
-
the stim bill killed jobs 240. Again - yet another issue you and Ron Paul differ on.
-
the stim bill killed jobs 240. Again - yet another issue you and Ron Paul differ on.
pretty took 14.4 million of it in 2009 and created a shitload of jobs with it.
Do you deny this, hombre?
-
He said that "The Churches took care of them. Our Neighbors, Our Friends would do it".
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
you're such a fucking troll...
READ ASSHOLE
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=394744.msg5573148#msg5573148
-
Bachman seems to forget about States FORCING people to buy a private product, Auto Insurance.
At about 7:35
-
READ ASSHOLE
Lots of anger there, Hugo Grant.
You start punching 70 year olds ....
and maybe you can run for president!
-
you're such a fucking troll...
READ ASSHOLE
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=394744.msg5573148#msg5573148
Your little sanctification makes ZERO sense. Poop Paul said that the Churches and Neighbors used to provide the means for Healthcare BEFORE our current system, in the 60s as he stated. Is this what he wants to go back to? You better go join a church and hope that the person across the street is wealthy.
Seriously, he is a moron when it comes to this issue.
-
Your little sanctification makes ZERO sense. Poop Paul said that the Churches and Neighbors used to provide the means for Healthcare BEFORE our current system, in the 60s as he stated. Is this what he wants to go back to? You better go join a church and hope that the person across the street is wealthy.
Seriously, he is a moron when it comes to this issue.
can't help it if it goes over your head, just don't go crying that it wasn't explained or making up shit that Paul wants people to get medical help at church ::)
-
"Romney & Perry shot each other in the foot tonight" - CNN
Huntsman called them on it too. Bachmann getting credit for the win tonight. Romney and Perry are BOTH fucking lib shady crooks.
Bachman was solid for the most part. Probably one of the top 3 for sure.
Ron Paul was asked a really tough question from a political standpoint about the whole "30 year old in a coma scenario" and, agree with him or not, stood by his principles and answered the question directly while I felt that Bachman really danced around it but we've come to expect that from Ron Paul, he is obviously the most "anti-political" candidate out there.
I don't think Romney or Perry did themselves any HUGE favors tonight but from a pure mainstream American electibility standpoint I think Perry might have done a little more harm than good while Romney was sort of a wash because he just is what he is, basically a finished product who might not blow away the other candidates but surely will be a front runner til the very end, while with Perry you JUST don't know. He could shoot himself in the foot next debate and lose significant ground.
From a standpoint of "brass tacks" solutions I believe Herman Cain, Ron Paul and to a lesser degree Newt fared the best while the others have a tendency to be a little more vague in their solutions to the questions asked.
-
Who won tonight? I lost interest after about 40 mins and put MNF on.
Bachman was solid for the most part. Probably one of the top 3 for sure.
Ron Paul was asked a really tough question from a political standpoint about the whole 30 year old in a coma scenario and, agree with him or not, stood by his principles and answered the question directly while I felt that Bachman really danced around it but we've come to expect that from Ron Paul, he is obviously the most "anti-political" candidate out there.
I don't think Romney or Perry did themselves any HUGE favors tonight but from a pure mainstream American electibility standpoint I think Perry might have done a little more harm than good while Romney was sort of a wash because he just is what he is, basically a finished product who might not blow away the other candidates but surely will be a front runner til the very end, while with Perry you JUST don't know. He could shoot himself in the foot next debate and lose significant ground.
From a standpoint of "brass tacks" solutions I believe Herman Cain, Ron Paul and to a lesser degree Newt fared the best while the others have a tendency to be a little more vague in their solutions to the questions asked.
Cain deserves a lot more love than he gets. The guy gives a straight-forward answer to every question he's asked.
-
1) He wouldn't do it the same, if he had another chance - BUT - He would STILL support mandatory vaccinations - he would just ask the state legislature furst. That's it! He is cool with requiring americans to get shots - he just admits flaws on how he did it it.
Then - MBachmann came at Perry about how he got paid form it!!!
damn... bachmann 'was it about life, or about potentiall billions of dollars for a drug company?'
Perry ADMITTED accepting money from merek. Then - WTF - said "it was ONLY $5 grand... and I'm offended IF YOU THINK I CAN BE BOUGHT FOR ONLY $5 GRAND...." OMG, that shit is something you'd see on SNL. "I'm for sale, but 5 grand is a little low, champ..."
bachmann: I'm offended for all the parents and little girls that didn't have a choice..."
Shit, that's rough!!!!! Go bachmann!
-
can't help it if it goes over your head, just don't go crying that it wasn't explained or making up shit that Paul wants people to get medical help at church ::)
Again, THAT IS EXACTLY what Ron Paul said: Churches and Neighbors were the ones that were providing the means for Healthcare in the 60s before our current system. I have heard say this many times when it comes to the Healthcare Issue. Why would he continually brag about the way "it used to be done" via Churches and Neighbors if he didn`t want them to play a large role now?
It doesn`t make any sense.
-
Bachman was solid for the most part. Probably one of the top 3 for sure.
Ron Paul was asked a really tough question from a political standpoint about the whole "30 year old in a coma scenario" and, agree with him or not, stood by his principles and answered the question directly while I felt that Bachman really danced around it but we've come to expect that from Ron Paul, he is obviously the most "anti-political" candidate out there.
I don't think Romney or Perry did themselves any HUGE favors tonight but from a pure mainstream American electibility standpoint I think Perry might have done a little more harm than good while Romney was sort of a wash because he just is what he is, basically a finished product who might not blow away the other candidates but surely will be a front runner til the very end, while with Perry you JUST don't know. He could shoot himself in the foot next debate and lose significant ground.
From a standpoint of "brass tacks" solutions I believe Herman Cain, Ron Paul and to a lesser degree Newt fared the best while the others have a tendency to be a little more vague in their solutions to the questions asked.
Better start looking for a church in a good neighborhood.
-
HOLY FVCK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PERRY SUPPORTS THE DREAM TUITION ACT FOR ILLEGALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CNN 10:52 PM, clip from debate. Audience BOOED.
I guess Perry and Obama have another thing in common..................
-
33, ABO.. Anybody But Obama...
Sounds like Perry is closer to Obama than we thought. Are any of the other GOPers in support of the DREAM act? Dayum.
Immigration tuition breaks, sitll supports vaccinations required (just wants to ask legislature first), etc.
Perry is a lib, guys. LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB
-
Again, THAT IS EXACTLY what Ron Paul said: Churches and Neighbors were the ones that were providing the means for Healthcare in the 60s before our current system. I have heard say this many times when it comes to the Healthcare Issue. Why would he continually brag about the way "it used to be done" via Churches and Neighbors if he didn`t want them to play a large role now?
It doesn`t make any sense.
Fucking listen to it... I know you will not and will just claim what you want.
-
Bodies were piled up in the streets before the 60s. Ron Paul's a fool, etc, etc, etc, etc. ::)
-
Fucking listen to it... I know you will not and will just claim what you want.
I just did. He has absolutely no plan whatsoever.
-
LOL, looks like they gave up on posting polls after debates. Paul wins so often they are just going to not post polls. The only poll I could find said, "this time lets see who finishes 2nd to Paul" Of course Paul won in that poll lol...
-
I just did. He has absolutely no plan whatsoever.
sure, because removing the problems that have led to massive increases in healthcare costs isn't much of a plan at all ::) Your plan to keep the people dependent on government at high cost is so much better.
-
sure, because removing the problems that have led to massive increases in healthcare costs isn't much of a plan at all ::) Your plan to keep the people dependent on government at high cost is so much better.
Sorry,
The Single Payer model outperforms every other model, especially when it comes to savings, 400 Billion annually. And if you want to buy Private Insurance, (not that you would need it) nobody is stopping you.
-
sure, because removing the problems that have led to massive increases in healthcare costs isn't much of a plan at all ::) Your plan to keep the people dependent on government at high cost is so much better.
BINGO. And even worse than that is the fact that health care inflation is killing people who are unemployed, self employed , and marginally employed, which is more and more people.
-
This is how you discuss Healtcare. Ron Poop is clueless.
-
yeah, the great stain maker who repealed glass steagal, signed NAFTA, let OBL go, et al.
-
yeah, the great stain maker who repealed glass steagal, signed NAFTA, let OBL go, et al.
You do realize that the most Fiscally Conservative healthcare plan is Single Payer and nothing else.
-
You do realize that the most Fiscally Conservative healthcare plan is Single Payer and nothing else.
well then why didn't Obama pursue that?
-
;)
-
;)
Insane graph. Completely unsustainable. We need mandatory pt for the slackers.
-
;)
I know the cost of skyrocketing Insurance (I used to work for United HealthCare). It will only continue as long as the Insurance companies are front and center.
Furthermore, Ron Poop does not want to remove the Insurance companies so there is no point in relaying the skyrocketing cost when it comes to Insurance companies.
Also, you are not factoring in technology and technological expenses and specialized care that we have now. Do you know how much a Cancer Treatment would cost in 1960? Oh yeah, zero dollars, because there wasn`t any treatment.
Hugo, try again.
-
;)
When lines on a graph go up thats a clear sign that things are good. I take vaccines everyday and as far as I can tell, it hasnt caused me any brain damage. Did I mention, gorilla genes in fish is perfectly natural? Lets here it for frankenscience, yay!
-
You are aware that the genes in your body right now are the same that are in any living organism. You do know this right. For instance, Men and Mice both have about 30,000 genes and only about 300 or so are unique to either organism.
-
You are aware that the genes in your body right now are the same that are in any living organism. You do know this right. For instance, Men and Mice both have about 30,000 genes and only about 300 or so are unique to either organism.
I do know that the genes that make up your face and a baboons ass are 100% identical.
-
I know the cost of skyrocketing Insurance (I used to work for United HealthCare). It will only continue as long as the Insurance companies are front and center.
Furthermore, Ron Poop does not want to remove the Insurance companies so there is no point in relaying the skyrocketing cost when it comes to Insurance companies.
Also, you are not factoring in technology and technological expenses and specialized care that we have now. Do you know how much a Cancer Treatment would cost in 1960? Oh yeah, zero dollars, because there wasn`t any treatment.
Hugo, try again.
source for the chart is the US Department of Health and Human Services. I guess you asked and then deleted it... Why do I have to try again? You're the one failing all over the place.
-
Gold is easy to make too
:D
-
source for the chart is the US Department of Health and Human Services. I guess you asked and then deleted it... Why do I have to try again? You're the one failing all over the place.
??? The chart is correct and its directly as a result from the Health Insurance companies, including the giant one that I used to work for.
How much did a Gamma Knife cost a Cancer patient in 1960? ???
-
??? The chart is correct and its directly as a result from the Health Insurance companies, including the giant one that I used to work for.
How much did a Gamma Knife cost a Cancer patient in 1960? ???
So how does obamacare deal w this again?
-
So how does obamacare deal w this again?
Obamacare is horrible. Its a Republican Plan and should be a Republican`s Wet Dream as it is a handout to Insurance Companies. I have been saying this for years and tried to explain it to you back in 2009.
Its nothing new whatsoever. The Insurance Companies have got us all by the balls and this is just a continuation.
-
:D
lol
-
Obamacare is horrible. Its a Republican Plan and should be a Republican`s Wet Dream as it is a handout to Insurance Companies. I have been saying this for years and tried to explain it to you back in 2009.
Its nothing new whatsoever. The Insurance Companies have got us all by the balls and this is just a continuation.
y wet dream is christy canyon in her prime and Raquel welsh, but heck we all have different tastes.
-
y wet dream is christy canyon in her prime and Raquel welsh, but heck we all have different tastes.
Yup on both.
-
-
Are you fucking serious TA? You're going with Santorum's, "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit.... This booing only goes to show the portion of neocons that are alive and well in the GOP along with the segment of the tea party that were taken over by neocons.
READ IT...
By Pat Buchanan
"We are at war. We are at war against al-Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people and that is plotting to strike us again."
Thus did Barack Obama clear the air as to whether we are at war, and with whom and why.
After his remarks, Helen Thomas during a White House briefing asked a follow-up question to which we almost never hear an answer:
Why is al-Qaida at war with us? What is its motivation?
It was Osama bin Laden himself, in his declaration of war in 1998, published in London, who gave al-Qaida's reasons for war:
First, the U.S. military presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. Second, U.S. sanctions causing terrible suffering among the Iraqi people. Third, U.S. support for Israel's dispossession of the Palestinians.
To Osama, we started the war. Muslims, the ulema, must fight because America, with her "brutal crusade occupation of the (Arabian) Peninsula" and support for "the Jews' petty state" and "occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there," was waging war upon the Islamic world.
Terrorism is al-Qaida's unconventional tactic, but its war aims are quite conventional.
Al-Qaida is fighting a religious war against apostates and pagans in their midst. On Sept. 11, they were over here -- because we are over there.
Nothing justifies the massacre of Sept. 11. But these are the political goals behind the 9/11 attack, and this is why Islamists fare well in elections in the Middle East. Tens of millions of Muslims, who may despise terrorism, identify with the causes for which Osama declared war.
Consider. America lost 4,000 soldiers in six years in Iraq, with 30,000 wounded. Yet not one American of the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq was killed in December. Why not? Because we no longer conduct raids, patrol streets, kick down doors and pat down suspects. We have ended our combat operations, withdrawn to desert bases and seem anxious to go home. When we stopped fighting and killing them, they stopped fighting and killing us.
According to Gen. Barry McCaffrey, we must now prepare for 300 to 500 dead and wounded every month in Afghanistan by summer.
Why are the Taliban killing our soldiers? Because we threw them out of power, took over their country and imposed the Hamid Karzai regime. And our troops, some 100,000 by fall, are the force preventing them from recapturing their country. We will bleed in Afghanistan as long as we are in Afghanistan.
But if, as Obama said, "we are at war with al-Qaida," why are we fighting the Taliban when al-Qaida is in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and North Africa?
Hezbollah has used terrorism but not against us since the bombing of a Marine barracks a quarter-century ago. And our Marines were attacked in Lebanon because we were in Lebanon, intervening in their civil-sectarian war. Had the Marines not been sent into the midst of that war, they would not have been targeted.
When Ronald Reagan withdrew them, the attacks stopped.
As long as we take sides in Muslim wars, those we fight and kill over there will come to kill us over here. This is payback for our intervention. This is the price of empire. This is the cost of the long war.
Pat Buchanan is the author of "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.'"
Read more: Why they are at war with us - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_661831.html#ixzz1XoKi4Dvt
-
Are you fucking serious TA? You're going with Santorum's, "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit.... This booing only goes to show the portion of neocons that are alive and well in the GOP along with the segment of the tea party that were taken over by neocons.
READ IT...
By Pat Buchanan
"We are at war. We are at war against al-Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people and that is plotting to strike us again."
Thus did Barack Obama clear the air as to whether we are at war, and with whom and why.
After his remarks, Helen Thomas during a White House briefing asked a follow-up question to which we almost never hear an answer:
Why is al-Qaida at war with us? What is its motivation?
It was Osama bin Laden himself, in his declaration of war in 1998, published in London, who gave al-Qaida's reasons for war:
First, the U.S. military presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. Second, U.S. sanctions causing terrible suffering among the Iraqi people. Third, U.S. support for Israel's dispossession of the Palestinians.
To Osama, we started the war. Muslims, the ulema, must fight because America, with her "brutal crusade occupation of the (Arabian) Peninsula" and support for "the Jews' petty state" and "occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there," was waging war upon the Islamic world.
Terrorism is al-Qaida's unconventional tactic, but its war aims are quite conventional.
Al-Qaida is fighting a religious war against apostates and pagans in their midst. On Sept. 11, they were over here -- because we are over there.
Nothing justifies the massacre of Sept. 11. But these are the political goals behind the 9/11 attack, and this is why Islamists fare well in elections in the Middle East. Tens of millions of Muslims, who may despise terrorism, identify with the causes for which Osama declared war.
Consider. America lost 4,000 soldiers in six years in Iraq, with 30,000 wounded. Yet not one American of the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq was killed in December. Why not? Because we no longer conduct raids, patrol streets, kick down doors and pat down suspects. We have ended our combat operations, withdrawn to desert bases and seem anxious to go home. When we stopped fighting and killing them, they stopped fighting and killing us.
According to Gen. Barry McCaffrey, we must now prepare for 300 to 500 dead and wounded every month in Afghanistan by summer.
Why are the Taliban killing our soldiers? Because we threw them out of power, took over their country and imposed the Hamid Karzai regime. And our troops, some 100,000 by fall, are the force preventing them from recapturing their country. We will bleed in Afghanistan as long as we are in Afghanistan.
But if, as Obama said, "we are at war with al-Qaida," why are we fighting the Taliban when al-Qaida is in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and North Africa?
Hezbollah has used terrorism but not against us since the bombing of a Marine barracks a quarter-century ago. And our Marines were attacked in Lebanon because we were in Lebanon, intervening in their civil-sectarian war. Had the Marines not been sent into the midst of that war, they would not have been targeted.
When Ronald Reagan withdrew them, the attacks stopped.
As long as we take sides in Muslim wars, those we fight and kill over there will come to kill us over here. This is payback for our intervention. This is the price of empire. This is the cost of the long war.
Pat Buchanan is the author of "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.'"
Read more: Why they are at war with us - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_661831.html#ixzz1XoKi4Dvt
You wasted your time posting all of that. I have been on that page for years.
I`m not going with Santorum at all. Poop is right, but as long as the Tea Party keeps hating him, he has zero chance. We have a few Tea Partiers around this site so I wonder if they feel the same as the audience did when it came to this issue.
Furthermore, I knew it would melt you down without even me adding any commentary. :D
-
I also find it humorous that it was the Paultards who originally started this Tea Party nonsense and look what its become. Paultards are so fucking weak, they handed the whole thing over to complete morons and never said a word about it. The Tea Party hates Ron Poop, the very person who was responsible for its founding. Oh the irony.
-
You wasted your time posting all of that. I have been on that page for years.
I`m not going with Santorum at all. Poop is right, but as long as the Tea Party keeps hating him, he has zero chance. We have a few Tea Partiers around this site so I wonder if they feel the same as the audience did when it came to this issue.
Furthermore, I knew it would melt you down without even me adding any commentary. :D
I didn't meltdown on that, I thought you were being an idiot, happy that he was being booed for that. LOL at the fact you were probably bummed out they booed him on a point you agree with him. You were probably like, oh fuck, eh, I'll post it anyway lol...
-
I didn't meltdown on that, I thought you were being an idiot, happy that he was being booed for that. LOL at the fact you were probably bummed out they booed him on a point you agree with him. You were probably like, oh fuck, eh, I'll post it anyway lol...
Thats partly correct. :)
-
get a stall, senators craig
I was tapping my foot in that stall to the music on my IPOD. ::)
Nothing more
-
I was tapping my foot in that stall to the music on my IPOD. ::)
Nothing more
keep yer diaper on, vitter.
-
I just told you why... If you actually think Paul wants people to go to churches for actual healthcare, you're the dumbest person alive.
He did think that and he is the dumbest person alive.
-
I also find it humorous that it was the Paultards who originally started this Tea Party nonsense and look what its become. Paultards are so fucking weak, they handed the whole thing over to complete morons and never said a word about it. The Tea Party hates Ron Poop, the very person who was responsible for its founding. Oh the irony.
Please shine some of your wisdom on us and explain how they were supposed to stop that from happening? Should they have waited outside the front doors with batons and asked people what they think of blowback, cause and effect, the military industrial complex? Should they have beaten the idiots in the crowd that booed? What should they have done TA? What would have stopped others from speaking their mind? What should the liberty movement have done to stifle other peoples opinions?
-
The idiots that booed Ron PAul on his comment need to read this report thats also states very clearly everything RP has been saying for years.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf Page 40.
-
Better start looking for a church in a good neighborhood.
I realize you're just doubling down on this to get HUGO riled up, but you really are pretty stupid if you thought Paul was suggesting people receive "treatment" at church. Before the disaster that is the current health care/health insurance scenario, people without health care would look for financial help from charitable organizations, e.g., donations from the church & its members, fundraising by local businesses, donations from family and friends, etc.
If someone chooses not to buy health insurance, then they should have to deal with the consequences if a time comes when they don't have enough money to pay for their health care.
I don't know when total lack of individual responsibility took hold, but the prevailing view of "Poor me! I didn't buy health insurance because I wanted to use the money for video games and a car payment I couldn't otherwise afford....but now I'm sick! It's not fair!! The people who aren't irresponsible fucking morons need to pay for my stupidity!! It's the only fair thing to do..." that people have is really tiresome.
If you don't buy health insurance AND don't start your own personal insurance savings...AND end up getting sick later on without the money to pay for treatment...you have no one to blame but yourself. Why the fuck to people look at that scenario in any way other than "you made your bed, now lay in it?"
And the idea of people dying on the street is ridiculous too. Walk any ER around the country without any health insurance at all and see if you don't receive care.... because it won't happen. If you end up in the emergency room, you WILL get taken care of, no matter what your health coverage may or may not be.
So the "woe is me" scenario isn't just a case of being unlucky.
To end up "dying" without treatment means you have to make a multitude of conscious decisions where you PURPOSELY don't pay for health insurance, don't start a "savings" fund in place of the missing health insurance, aren't responsible enough with your earnings to have any kind of general "savings" or investments for your retirement/rainy day, AND allow a disease to develop without any kind of early detection that would allow you to opt in to that health insurance you refused...or buy some kind of high-risk insurance...despite the fact that you could walk into any ER across the country and receive care whether or not you have insurance.
Are people really so pathetic that they need the collective assistance of the American taxpayer to keep them from dying? I have a yard full of squirrels and various animals that can keep themselves alive....but I'm supposed to believe it is MY responsibility to keep someone else from dying AFTER they have made multiple decisions AGAINST being prepared to be kept alive?
Look, I'm sorry you repeatedly chose "bling" over any form of preparing for the future whatsoever and don't think the "give care for everyone" policy of Emergency rooms around the country is enough free treatment....but I wasn't a moron and don't feel like making myself one by feeling sorry for the grave you dug yourself.
-
I realize you're just doubling down on this to get HUGO riled up, but you really are pretty stupid if you thought Paul was suggesting people receive "treatment" at church. Before the disaster that is the current health care/health insurance scenario, people without health care would look for financial help from charitable organizations, e.g., donations from the church & its members, fundraising by local businesses, donations from family and friends, etc.
If someone chooses not to buy health insurance, then they should have to deal with the consequences if a time comes when they don't have enough money to pay for their health care.
I don't know when total lack of individual responsibility took hold, but the prevailing view of "Poor me! I didn't buy health insurance because I wanted to use the money for video games and a car payment I couldn't otherwise afford....but now I'm sick! It's not fair!! The people who aren't irresponsible fucking morons need to pay for my stupidity!! It's the only fair thing to do..." that people have is really tiresome.
If you don't buy health insurance AND don't start your own personal insurance savings...AND end up getting sick later on without the money to pay for treatment...you have no one to blame but yourself. Why the fuck to people look at that scenario in any way other than "you made your bed, now lay in it?"
And the idea of people dying on the street is ridiculous too. Walk any ER around the country without any health insurance at all and see if you don't receive care.... because it won't happen. If you end up in the emergency room, you WILL get taken care of, no matter what your health coverage may or may not be.
So the "woe is me" scenario isn't just a case of being unlucky.
To end up "dying" without treatment means you have to make a multitude of conscious decisions where you PURPOSELY don't pay for health insurance, don't start a "savings" fund in place of the missing health insurance, aren't responsible enough with your earnings to have any kind of general "savings" or investments for your retirement/rainy day, AND allow a disease to develop without any kind of early detection that would allow you to opt in to that health insurance you refused...or buy some kind of high-risk insurance...despite the fact that you could walk into any ER across the country and receive care whether or not you have insurance.
Are people really so pathetic that they need the collective assistance of the American taxpayer to keep them from dying? I have a yard full of squirrels and various animals that can keep themselves alive....but I'm supposed to believe it is MY responsibility to keep someone else from dying AFTER they have made multiple decisions AGAINST being prepared to be kept alive?
Look, I'm sorry you repeatedly chose "bling" over any form of preparing for the future whatsoever and don't think the "give care for everyone" policy of Emergency rooms around the country is enough free treatment....but I wasn't a moron and don't feel like making myself one by feeling sorry for the grave you dug yourself.
Good post!
-
Bachman seems to forget about States FORCING people to buy a private product, Auto Insurance.
At about 7:35
States have those rights, the federal government does not.
-
Romney was elected the next President of the United States last night. I will be supporting him for the nomination. Perry floundered.
-
States have those rights, the federal government does not.
x100
That is why there is a 10th amendment to the Constitution. So many Americans have no idea what that means.
-
States have those rights, the federal government does not.
She says "THE STATE" "No single state" has the right to force anyone to buy a private product. Scroll to 7:35 and listen.