These Repub candidates all seem pretty shit

[Nick Young]

All of these Repub presidential candidates seem like shit. Marco Rubio seems ok, but I have no idea what his politics are, he just seems the least retarded out of all of them. Carly Fiorina did a horrible shit job at HP and got fired, if she can't even do well there's no chance she can become a good president. I hope Trump layeth the smack down upon her candy ass.

[Patrick Chewing]

I agree. Hillary and Bernie look like the smartest politicians since Bill Clinton and JFK. Republicans are just so dumb. Racist pigs too.

[DonDadda59]

Rubio and Bush are the only ones who are even halfway electable. The crazy season of the GOP has just lasted longer than usual. Herman Cain and his smoking ads, Sims economic plan, and Pokemon campaign speeches>>>>Donald Trump's WWF heel schtick.

[TheSilentKiller]

Rubio >>>>

[Nick Young]

Carly Fiorina seems like more of a cyborg than Hilary is holy shit:eek:

[DonDadda59]

These moderators are going IN. They dug up all the candidates' dirt, pulling out all the skeletons in their closets.

It's propaganda doe. :roll:

[KevinNYC]

Rubio and Bush are the only ones who are even halfway electable. The crazy season of the GOP has just lasted longer than usual. Herman Cain and his smoking ads, Sims economic plan, and Pokemon campaign speeches>>>>Donald Trump's WWF heel schtick.


clicked on this thread and was scrolling the page quickly.......For a second I thought this post was Chewing's :roll:

[dkmwise]

These moderators are a joke

[bladefd]

Pretty bad debate.. Wasted my time watching it tbh. Didn't learn anything beyond the first 2 republican debates :wtf: :wtf:

I guess I will watch the 2nd democratic debate, and I'm done with all debates until the Dem & Rep candidates go head-to-head

[Patrick Chewing]

Cruz won the debate in my opinion. I'd like a Cruz/Rubio ticket. Cubanos hasta la muerte!


Anybody that doesn't vote for an all Cuban ticket is offending and oppressing me personally.

[DonDadda59]

Cruz won the debate in my opinion. I'd like a Cruz/Rubio ticket. Cubanos hasta la muerte!


Anybody that doesn't vote for an all Cuban ticket is offending and oppressing me personally.

Ain't nobody voting for those chivatos. :whatever:

[Mike Armstrong]

Who was the last great repub candidate?

[KevinNYC]

Who was the last great repub candidate?
http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/13856ike.jpg

[BasedTom]

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1446088762719.jpg
rand 2016

[Nick Young]

These moderators are a joke
Moderators are biased and trying to sabotage everyone:facepalm

[Naero]

Sadly, the presidential election is the Republican nominee's to lose this year. The entire democratic party has been stigmatized under Barack Obama insofar that it's crippled their chances of maintaining the White House.

We're once again back to picking our poisons, which has been the narrative in this modern, media-scrutinized era, and I can only hope that Donald Trump

[DonDadda59]

Sadly, the presidential election is the Republican nominee's to lose this year. The entire democratic party has been stigmatized under Barack Obama insofar that it's crippled their chances of maintaining the White House.

We're once again back to picking our poisons, which has been the narrative in this modern, media-scrutinized era, and I can only hope that Donald Trump—fits the same archetype as Mitt Romney; he has a paucity of/no governmental experience but is trying to be self-touted on his business experience—isn't the one to step up to the plate for the party-lopsided election.

Nice Dresta impersonation but you must be high off bath salts if you think the Democrats are the party with issues. Do you not find it weird that Boehner abruptly stepped down and no one wanted the job of being speaker of the House, AKA 3rd in line to the Presidency, until Paul Ryan very reluctantly (and under specific demands) accepted the nomination?

The GOP is in complete disarray and instead of moving to the center after the shellacking Romney took in 2012, they instead chose to double down on the crazy and moved even farther right.

No Republican will win the Presidency for another generation unless something drastically changes. More Sarah Palins, Ted Cruzes, Donald Trumps, etc will not get it done. It'll be entertaining as shit and great fodder for SNL... but it will lead only to lopsided victories for the Dems.

[fiddy]

Rubio and Bush are the only ones who are even halfway electable. The crazy season of the GOP has just lasted longer than usual. Herman Cain and his smoking ads, Sims economic plan, and Pokemon campaign speeches>>>>Donald Trump's WWF heel schtick. electable=look appealing to dumb consumers of america? democracy at work :applause: Rand Paul ftw

[BoutPractice]

Paul has the most reasonable views on foreign policy and civil liberties, but it's becoming increasingly apparent he's not very good at selling them in a presidential campaign setting. His father was much better at generating excitement... despite getting much less media coverage. He'll drop out eventually.

Among candidates who actually have a shot, Rubio is an intelligent man and an incredibly skilled politician who has fully mastered the art of looking good saying presidential-sounding things, but he's surrounded by the same old group of crazy neocons who are desperate to get another opportunity to start a war or two.

He's basically W 2.0, with improved packaging - a Disney hero selling you bombs, drones, and the many benefits of shadow government. I hope you like wars, because you're almost certain to get involved in more of them if he wins... only this time the guy supposedly in charge can put together a complete sentence, so Democratic voters who like that sort of thing are more likely to fall for it.

Unfortunately, his most serious competitors are an unpredictable mafia don who might blow up the world for petty revenge (not Christie, the other one), a human sleeping pill, and a very entertaining sociopath whose career has been built on threatening to shut down the government every other week. I'd pay to watch any of those three become president, but then I wouldn't have enough money left for my one-way trip to Mars.

[NumberSix]

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1446088762719.jpg
rand 2016
My views are more in line with Rand than any of the other candidates, but he just doesn't have the support.

[dude77]

what's the deal with trump .. is he flipping on his immigration stance ?.. he sounds like he's getting softer on it .. haven't heard him mention deporting illegals much anymore .. last night instead of slamming rubio for his pro amnesty/hb1 bullshit, he deflected and straight up lied about that zuckerberg rubio thing .. in essence siding with rubio .. someone tell him about the disney workers and ask him what he thinks about that .. clarify this donny .. you're going down if you flip on this

[KevinNYC]

How do you even get farther center than Romney? He was just about the most centrist candidate I can think of.

There's a lot of room towards the center. 538 created this last year. In this case zero is the center. It includes some historical figures, but even within that, there are current candidates more to the center. It also shows how much the Congressional GOP has moved to the right over time.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/538-2016-gop-field1.jpg

Paul Ryan is to the right of the average Congressional Republicans here and Romney picked him as VP and agreed to his budget which is far from centrist.


Also check out the spread between what Rand Paul says and how he votes.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Why must everyone hate the mods? They're trying, trying really hard! Stop criticizing moderators!:cry:

[Derka]

Rand Paul and John Kasich are the only two really interest me and neither has a shot. I might be able to stomach Rubio but eh.

Still can't stomach any of the Democratic nominees.

Pretty sure I'm writing in Larry Bird.

[KevinNYC]

Why must everyone hate the mods? They're trying, trying really hard! Stop criticizing moderators!:cry:
It's proven to win you at least temporary support in GOP primaries.

Newt Gingrich shot to the top of the heap last time because he criticized the moderator.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's proven to win you at least temporary support in GOP primaries.

Newt Gingrich shot to the top of the heap last time because he criticized the moderator.
My bad i thought they were talking about the forum. I was wondering why Scarborough was being so hard on me. I had always thought he was a fan.

[fiddy]

My views are more in line with Rand than any of the other candidates, but he just doesn't have the support.

Doesnt fit the agenda, damn juice

[KevinNYC]

Sadly, the presidential election is the Republican nominee's to lose this year. The entire democratic party has been stigmatized under Barack Obama insofar that it's crippled their chances of maintaining the White House.
I very much doubt this is true. Yes, Republicans have stigmatized the Democratic Party, but when haven't they? Did they somehow not stigmatize the Democrats in 2008 and 2012? It has happened before Obama took office and after and it will happen with the next Democratic President.

Or to change the question, are the Republicans more or less stigmatized than the Democrats right now? Obama has approval ratings that only flirting with positive numbers, which makes him one of the most popular national figures in the country.

Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? or the Republican Party?

Congress which controlled by Republicans at the moment has an approval rating of 13% right now. To get that low, you probably need half of Republicans to disapprove.

From July

Poll: Republican Party approval ratings lowest in decades (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/24/poll-republican-party-approval-ratings-lowest-in-decades/)

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/07/7-23-2015-1-55-09-PM.png

[KevinNYC]

:lol
My bad i thought they were talking about the forum. I was wondering why Scarborough was being so hard on me. I had always thought he was a fan.

[KevinNYC]

Also I don't think we're going to have a politician to remain super popular until the economy switches gears.

I also think the current climate driven as it is by media and social media is fueled by outrage and thus low approval ratings are going to be here to stay for a while. Remember how Republicans used to be optimists?

[Dresta]

The obvious problem with the GOP is that the wants of their donors and voters are diametrically opposed, and thus far the wants of the donors have overridden those of the voters. No doubt this necessitates hedging, duplicity, and self-contradictory posturing - also, incoherence and inconsistency, but this is true of all politicians

That, and the present political class have reached such levels of cynicism and hypocrisy (not to mention mediocrity) as to be unworthy of keeping watch over my bicycle, let alone the affairs of state. Tis no surprise that the character and talents of public men have deteriorated in direct proportion to the amount of things for which they are supposed to be responsible. The more our political system requires great statesman, the more frequently it attracts only knaves and charlatans.

[senelcoolidge]

I think it would be interesting to have an outsider. It scares the dems and repubs. Having someone that would not sell themselves out. Rubio is a puppet I don't like him. I like Carson, but I don't think he's fit for the job. Smart guy but foreign affairs and other segments of politics are far from his expertise.

[Nick Young]

Paul has the most reasonable views on foreign policy and civil liberties, but it's becoming increasingly apparent he's not very good at selling them in a presidential campaign setting. His father was much better at generating excitement... despite getting much less media coverage. He'll drop out eventually.

Among candidates who actually have a shot, Rubio is an intelligent man and an incredibly skilled politician who has fully mastered the art of looking good saying presidential-sounding things, but he's surrounded by the same old group of crazy neocons who are desperate to get another opportunity to start a war or two.

He's basically W 2.0, with improved packaging - a Disney hero selling you bombs, drones, and the many benefits of shadow government. I hope you like wars, because you're almost certain to get involved in more of them if he wins... only this time the guy supposedly in charge can put together a complete sentence, so Democratic voters who like that sort of thing are more likely to fall for it.

Unfortunately, his most serious competitors are an unpredictable mafia don who might blow up the world for petty revenge (not Christie, the other one), a human sleeping pill, and a very entertaining sociopath whose career has been built on threatening to shut down the government every other week. I'd pay to watch any of those three become president, but then I wouldn't have enough money left for my one-way trip to Mars.
Hilary and Obama love wars too so I don't see much changing. Bernie Sanders seems to be the only one who doesn't like wars, and the GOAT Jim Webb as well, who despite being a former soldier has a consistent anti-war voting record.

[SexSymbol]

i'd say the republican conference has been weak for a while now. It doesn't really present a threat to the democrats

[DonDadda59]

what's the deal with trump .. is he flipping on his immigration stance ?.. he sounds like he's getting softer on it .. haven't heard him mention deporting illegals much anymore .. last night instead of slamming rubio for his pro amnesty/hb1 bullshit, he deflected and straight up lied about that zuckerberg rubio thing .. in essence siding with rubio .. someone tell him about the disney workers and ask him what he thinks about that .. clarify this donny .. you're going down if you flip on this

That's Trump's M.O. He's like a little kid who gets caught by his parents in the middle of doing something bad. Instead of owning up to what he says/does he pulls the 'nuh uh' card.

He says ridiculous and outlandish things to the poor, ignorant yokels at his rallies but then takes it all back when he's later called out on it. He's done it on immigration, on the war in Afghanistan, even on personal attacks (ie, when Carly checked him during the first debate).

[UK2K]

I very much doubt this is true. Yes, Republicans have stigmatized the Democratic Party, but when haven't they? Did they somehow not stigmatize the Democrats in 2008 and 2012? It has happened before Obama took office and after and it will happen with the next Democratic President.

Or to change the question, are the Republicans more or less stigmatized than the Democrats right now? Obama has approval ratings that only flirting with positive numbers, which makes him one of the most popular national figures in the country.

Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? or the Republican Party?

Congress which controlled by Republicans at the moment has an approval rating of 13% right now. To get that low, you probably need half of Republicans to disapprove.

From July

Poll: Republican Party approval ratings lowest in decades (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/24/poll-republican-party-approval-ratings-lowest-in-decades/)

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/07/7-23-2015-1-55-09-PM.png

That's thanks to the liberal media....

Meanwhile, Obama is going back on his promise of ending the wars, and is currently attempting to raise the debt ceiling, yet again.

But your average idiot voter wouldn't know, nor care, about any of that.

The GOP approval rating is low because the GOP is giving in on every, single, little, issue. The GOP voters dont want to be MORE like the left, they want to be less like it. But, the ones we vote into office, after their promises, simply show up and then bend over on every issue.

The GOP's approval rating is low because GOP voters hate them. But really, what choice do they have? If the GOP in congress doesn't go along with every thing Obama wants, the media will blast them and cast them as the problem. Remember when all we heard was the GOP was blocking progress in congress, say, 4 years or so ago? Now the Dems in congress, and Obama, are doing the same thing, but you won't hear the media call them out for it.

[KevinNYC]

Wow, Do you not even see this?

That's thanks to the liberal media....
First you claim this.

And three seconds later you claim this.
The GOP approval rating is low because the GOP is giving in on every, single, little, issue. The GOP voters dont want to be MORE like the left, they want to be less like it. But, the ones we vote into office, after their promises, simply show up and then bend over on every issue.

The GOP's approval rating is low because GOP voters hate them.

So according to your reasoning the the GOP's approval ratings are so low is because GOP voters hate them because..... the liberal media.

C'mon now.

[KevinNYC]

I think it would be interesting to have an outsider........... Having someone that would not sell themselves out.
These are two completely independent statements. There's nothing about being an outsider that means they wouldn't sell themselves out.



It scares the dems and repubs. I like Carson, but I don't think he's fit for the job. Smart guy but foreign affairs and other segments of politics are far from his expertise.
It seems that you yourself are leery of outsiders.

[Nick Young]

That's Trump's M.O. He's like a little kid who gets caught by his parents in the middle of doing something bad. Instead of owning up to what he says/does he pulls the 'nuh uh' card.

He says ridiculous and outlandish things to the poor, ignorant yokels at his rallies but then takes it all back when he's later called out on it. He's done it on immigration, on the war in Afghanistan, even on personal attacks (ie, when Carly checked him during the first debate).
Sounds like Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders too.

[UK2K]

Wow, Do you not even see this?

First you claim this.

And three seconds later you claim this.

So according to your reasoning the the GOP's approval ratings are so low is because GOP voters hate them because..... the liberal media.

C'mon now.

Or its a combination of the two??

Stay with me here...

The media, which is ridiculously left leaning, will highlight anything they can blame on the GOP, thus, the approval rating among the left is low.

The GOP, which has promised voters to fight against leftism in Congress, have done nothing of the sort and in fact, bend over every time anything is up for debate. Thus, the low approval rating among the GOP voters.

When you have low approval ratings from both sides, well, you have the approval rating of the GOP politicians.

[DonDadda59]

Sounds like Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders too.

This is true. Still waiting on Barack to implement his plan to deport 15 million people and get Mexico to fund and build the Great Wall of America. :mad:


Originally Posted by UK2K
The GOP approval rating is low because the GOP is giving in on every, single, little, issue. The GOP voters dont want to be MORE like the left, they want to be less like it. But, the ones we vote into office, after their promises, simply show up and then bend over on every issue.

The GOP's approval rating is low because GOP voters hate them.

Because once they get to Washington, they realize (or most likely already knew) that their nonsensical promises don't hold any water in reality. Many Republicans have for years ran on a platform of anti abortion... knowing damn well abortion will be legal from now until infinity (I'm looking at you, Carly).

It's only the lunatic fringe that uses the threat of shutting down government to try to push their nonsense agenda.

[UK2K]

This is true. Still waiting on Barack to implement his plan to deport 15 million people and get Mexico to fund and build the Great Wall of America. :mad:



Because once they get to Washington, they realize (or most likely already knew) that their nonsensical promises don't hold any water in reality. Many Republicans have for years ran on a platform of anti abortion... knowing damn well abortion will be legal from now until infinity (I'm looking at you, Carly).

It's only the lunatic fringe that uses the threat of shutting down government to try to push their nonsense agenda.

I don't give two shits if the government shuts down. It doesn't affect me, at all. Literally, nothing in my life changed the last time it happened except I couldn't go to a national park thanks to Obama's insistence that EVERYONE feel the government shutdown and not just the people at the bottom or people who actually work for the government (which is really the only place there has been job growth the past few years, go figure).

The problem if the government does shut down, the media will blame the GOP no matter what. Like I said, 4 years ago the Republicans were 'obstructing' congress, but now that the reverse is taking place, it's somehow still the Republicans fault.

For example:


The tentative deal is a byproduct of bipartisan negotiations with the White House which began on September 17th, and aides say that any increases in defense spending included in the deal will be met with equal increases for non-defense programs, a key Democratic priority.

I wouldn't vote for that. At all. Ever. The GOP voters don't want their elected officials to agree to that either. But the officials know if they don't, the media will blame them no matter what happens. So while I understand why they did it, that doesn't make me approve of them.

[Lakers Legend#32]

So the Repugs idea of dealing with the issues that affect us in our daily lives is to attack the debate moderators and the media.

[DukeDelonte13]

Rand Paul and John Kasich are the only two really interest me and neither has a shot. I might be able to stomach Rubio but eh.

Still can't stomach any of the Democratic nominees.

Pretty sure I'm writing in Larry Bird.


Kasich somehow made Ohio, which is already a terrible state for education, even worse off in that department. He's corrupt as f*ck too.

[UK2K]

So the Repugs idea of dealing with the issues that affect us in our daily lives is to attack the debate moderators and the media.

You didn't watch the debate then. :confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

I don't give two shits if the government shuts down. It doesn't affect me, at all. Literally, nothing in my life changed the last time it happened except I couldn't go to a national park thanks to Obama's insistence that EVERYONE feel the government shutdown and not just the people at the bottom or people who actually work for the government (which is really the only place there has been job growth the past few years, go figure).

:oldlol:



The problem if the government does shut down, the media will blame the GOP no matter what.

Yup, that'll be the real problem if the government shuts down... how the media portrays the GOP. :rolleyes:

Why do you think John Boehner gave up the Speaker position so abruptly... Why do you think no one wanted the job until Ryan accepted it reluctantly?


I wouldn't vote for that. At all. Ever. The GOP voters don't want their elected officials to agree to that either. But the officials know if they don't, the media will blame them no matter what happens. So while I understand why they did it, that doesn't make me approve of them.

What is the alternative?

Why do you think this budget deal passed the House (and will presumably pass the House)? What sort of proposal would you vote for or propose yourself if you were the Republican rep from Kentucky?

[KevinNYC]

or people who actually work for the government (which is really the only place there has been job growth the past few years, go figure).

The fact that you believe this shows that you live in an information bubble.

There's two widely know facts about this recovery.

One is we are in the midst of a streak where private sector jobs have increased every month for 5 and a half years. Two is public sector jobs have been very, very slow to recover. Check out the two royal blue lines below. Private sector jobs cross back into positive territory three years into Obama's presidency. Public sector jobs probably won't until after his presidency is over.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V7wef58pv2M/Vg7k1_VnhAI/AAAAAAAAlL8/1r8n6y1simA/s1600/PrivateSept2015.PNG


In terms of private sector jobs Obama's second term (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html#BiJs0do5Djdl8CG1.99) is on pace to create about 10 million new jobs. That's higher than any Republican term since Jimmy Carter. It would come in third to the terms under Bill Clinton. So why aren't we feeling that? Public sector jobs have been a drag.


A big difference between the presidencies has been public sector employment. Note the bumps in public sector employment due to the decennial Census in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ijrOKEVTr7g/Vg7k3i9JAzI/AAAAAAAAlME/BNsIhtWic8U/s1600/PublicSept2015.PNG
The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 550,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level. This has been a significant drag on overall employment.

Public sector jobs like teachers, cops and firefighters usually increase as the population increases. Since the recession, they not only have not kept up with population there are still about 500,000 plus below where they were since Obama took office.

[UK2K]

:oldlol:
Why do you think this budget deal passed the House (and will presumably pass the House)? What sort of proposal would you vote for or propose yourself if you were the Republican rep from Kentucky?
The rest of your post was garbage, so I will ignore it but to answer your question...

First off, I wouldn't allow unlimited debt until 2017. But hey, I'm with ya, at this point we are almost $20 trillion in debt so **** it, right? May as well keep on raising that debt ceiling. Quick question, why don't we just raise it to $100 trillion that way we don't have to have this debate over and over? We're on our way there now anyway.

The GOP congress suspended the debt ceiling for the rest of Obama's term. Literally.

I could go into repealing Obamacare since nobody likes it, nobody wants it, and nobody is signing up for it. Now, you're going to get fined (or taxed? Which is it) for not having it.

Now, the GOP'ers in congress would never do that. Ever. Because the media would crucify them, even though the people who voted them in want them to do it, they won't.

So you see the predicament they are in. That's why their approval numbers are historically low.

[KingBeasley08]

^ Are you serious? Repeal Obamacare? Congressional Republicans have tried repealing it over 50 times. You're acting like they're too scared to try. They've tried and failed every single time because they can't do it. That's just democracy. They don't have the votes for it. They're literally using taxpayer money to constantly bring it to a vote even when they know they have no chance of passing it. Why? So they can tell their base they voted against Obama when they go for re-election :lol

[KevinNYC]

I could go into repealing Obamacare since nobody likes it, nobody wants it, and nobody is signing up for it.

Lord love a duck, this is nonsense. Is it Indiana you're from?

Because if you took every last person in the state of Indiana and then doubled it, you still wouldn't reach the number of people who now have health coverage because the ACA law.

Nobody likes it huh? (http://kff.org/health-reform/press-release/most-people-enrolled-in-marketplace-coverage-are-satisfied-with-plans-premiums-cost-sharing-and-provider-networks-new-survey-finds/)

Following the Affordable Care Act’s second open enrollment period, most people enrolled in marketplace plans report being satisfied with a wide range of their plan’s coverage and features, finds a new Kaiser Family Foundation survey of people who buy their own health insurance.

A large majority (74%) of those in marketplace plans rate their coverage as excellent or good, the survey finds. Most (59%) also say their plan is an excellent or good value for what they pay for it, though the share rating the value as “excellent” declined somewhat from 23 percent last year to 15 percent in the current survey.

Majorities also say they are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with seven different features of their plans, including their choice of primary-care doctors (75%), hospitals (75%) and specialists (64%); what they have to pay out of pocket for doctor visits (73%), prescription drugs (70%) and annual deductible (60%); and their monthly premiums (65%).

[UK2K]

Lord love a duck, this is nonsense. Is it Indiana you're from?

Because if you took every last person in the state of Indiana and then doubled it, you still wouldn't reach the number of people who now have health coverage because the ACA law.

And yet, they're still millions below the new, lower, adjusted target number.

Congratulations, you canceled 4.7 million insurance plans (just in 2013), and enrolled around 5.4 million who didn't have insurance (estimated by Forbes)

[QUOTE]But if we carry forward the more generous Kaiser estimate of 57%, and combine it with the 84% retention rate,[B] we can estimate that about 5.4 million previously uninsured individuals would be enrolled in Obamacare

[Nanners]

obamacare is not going away. when you give health coverage to tons of people who couldnt otherwise afford it, you cant just take it back away. that genie is not going back into the bottle.

[UK2K]

obamacare is not going away. when you give health coverage to tons of people who couldnt otherwise afford it, you cant just take it back away. that genie is not going back into the bottle.

Take the funds from welfare entitlements. Don't force people to buy your shitty product.

Then everyone wins. Republicans win because the Obamacare tax isn't killing middle income families (and a reduction in handouts) and Democrats who didn't have insurance get to keep their shitty government issued insurance.

Win/win for everyone.

[Nanners]

Take the funds from welfare entitlements. Don't force people to buy your shitty product.

Then everyone wins. Republicans win because the Obamacare tax isn't killing middle income families (and a reduction in handouts) and Democrats who didn't have insurance get to keep their shitty government issued insurance.

Win/win for everyone.

great idea, lets take the money out of corporate welfare entitlements.

i propose we start by using the money we spend on subsidies that prop up profit margins in the fossil fuel sector.

[DonDadda59]

The rest of your post was garbage, so I will ignore it but to answer your question...

First off, I wouldn't allow unlimited debt until 2017. But hey, I'm with ya, at this point we are almost $20 trillion in debt so **** it, right? May as well keep on raising that debt ceiling. Quick question, why don't we just raise it to $100 trillion that way we don't have to have this debate over and over? We're on our way there now anyway.

The GOP congress suspended the debt ceiling for the rest of Obama's term. Literally.

I could go into repealing Obamacare since nobody likes it, nobody wants it, and nobody is signing up for it. Now, you're going to get fined (or taxed? Which is it) for not having it.

Now, the GOP'ers in congress would never do that. Ever. Because the media would crucify them, even though the people who voted them in want them to do it, they won't.

So you see the predicament they are in. That's why their approval numbers are historically low.

Perfect example of how completely out of touch and out of ideas the GOP and their followers were. Yeah, let's try for the millionth time to repeal Obamacare... let's shut down the government.

That'll solve all our problems. :applause:


So the Repugs idea of dealing with the issues that affect us in our daily lives is to attack the debate moderators and the media.

Yup, that's the great issue of our time- how the media portrays the GOP. Never mind that their personal cheerleader channel, Fox News, gets the highest ratings of any of the major news networks. So does that make them the main mainstream media source? :confusedshrug:

Like I said above- the Republicans issue is that they are the party of 'No'. They only talk about what (or who) they hate, laws they tried dozens of times unsuccessfully to repeal, creating more gridlock.

But ask an elephant for an alternative, or a better option, or any sort of reasonable idea and you get...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-26-2015/YAUDY8.gif

[DonDadda59]

GOP Presidential Candidate John Kasich (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evqPX_etYqQ) the other day... NAILED IT. :bowdown:

Ronald Wilson Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

[UK2K]

great idea, lets take the money out of corporate welfare entitlements.

i propose we start by using the money we spend on subsidies that prop up profit margins in the fossil fuel sector.

I'm all for it. Yes.

And welfare.

Look, we just made a compromise. Easy peasy.

[Nanners]

I'm all for it. Yes.

And welfare.

Look, we just made a compromise. Easy peasy.

not really.

i want to cut welfare for the rich, you want to cut welfare for the poor.

[KevinNYC]

more than half the country opposes it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/21/obamacare-approval-polls_n_7632070.html
And that's from HuffPo, so the real opposition % is probably higher.
Actually if you read the article, it points out American's don't favor repealing it. A large number wants it to go further.


And yet, they're still millions below the new, lower, adjusted target number.An exchange is not the only way to get an ACA compliant policy. You can also buy them privately. These numbers almost match the exchange numbers. Also the Medicaid/CHIP expansion is due to the ACA and those numbers are roughly equal to Private + Exchange policies bought.

This is why lots of surveys have noted a sharp decline in the uninsured just as the ACA fully comes online

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mo4gjcf53k-eawbzitj_5w.png

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2015/08/CDCUninsured.png


And yes, among everyone (not just those who signed up, cause obviously they'll like it if they didn't have insurance before, no shit right?)
No. Some people who got ACA compliant policies had the shitty nongroup insurance that was legally sold prior the ACA. The kind that was notorious for covering you until you got sick.

[UK2K]

Perfect example of how completely out of touch and out of ideas the GOP and their followers were. Yeah, let's try for the millionth time to repeal Obamacare... let's shut down the government.

That'll solve all our problems. :applause:

Which goes back to the GOP in congress not doing what the voters want. Like I said. Are you having trouble following along?




Yup, that's the great issue of our time- how the media portrays the GOP. Never mind that their personal cheerleader channel, Fox News, gets the highest ratings of any of the major news networks. So does that make them the main mainstream media source? :confusedshrug:

I don't need to explain why Fox has the highest viewership, and if you don't know why, then you're not as smart as I gave you credit for.



Like I said above- the Republicans issue is that they are the party of 'No'. They only talk about what (or who) they hate, laws they tried dozens of times unsuccessfully to repeal, creating more gridlock.

But ask an elephant for an alternative, or a better option, or any sort of reasonable idea and you get...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-26-2015/YAUDY8.gif

See? Its gridlock when you don't get your way. Which again, is what I said a while back.

But this all goes back to the politicians not doing what the voters want. I don't know how many times I can say it. The ones we voted in are not in touch with the voters. You have it backwards.

Honestly, I'd rather the government shut down then us forcing millions to buy shitty insurance. It's odd you don't feel the same.

How did your life change during the last shutdown? Did you notice? I didn't. Only people who would have are those employed by, or dependent on, the government.

[DonDadda59]

Ted Cruz... This nigguh (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jng9zZw54GI) :yaohappy:

Bunch of dogs chasing their own tails. This man has led the charge of get rid of Obamacare or shut down the government... promptly signs up for Obamacare himself.

Unbelievable.

[KevinNYC]

And if we have 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. They would represent like a 25-30% of the folks still uninsured.

[TripleA]

We need a nerd for our next president not a politician.
Scientists for prez.

[NumberSix]

Ted Cruz... This nigguh (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jng9zZw54GI) :yaohappy:

Bunch of dogs chasing their own tails. This man has led the charge of get rid of Obamacare or shut down the government... promptly signs up for Obamacare himself.

Unbelievable.
You're aware that he's a government employee, right?

[NumberSix]

We need a nerd for our next president not a politician.
Scientists for prez.
Yeah, his name is Dr. Ben Carson.

[DonDadda59]

Which goes back to the GOP in congress not doing what the voters want. Like I said. Are you having trouble following along?

Again... if you were one of the House Reps from your State, what type of realistic bill would you vote in favor for? If you had the ability- what sort of proposals would you personally put forth that would have any chance of passing both the Senate and House?

I asked this earlier and as is the elephant way, you avoided it and went on some rant about the media. :lol





I don't need to explain why Fox has the highest viewership, and if you don't know why, then you're not as smart as I gave you credit for.

Why does the reason matter? Earlier you were rambling on about how the biggest issue we're dealing with is how the media treats the GOP... when the GOP's own lap dog channel is easily the most highly rated in the news business.

The 3 debates had ratings as follows-

FOX- 23 million (record)
CNN- 15 million (record)
MSNBC- 14 million (record)

So just from the debates alone, the most eyeballs watching the GOP candidates happened when they had home field. It wasn't even close. Fair and balanced? No, heavily slanted toward Fox News... but approval ratings in the gutter. Why? Because media.

So what is your argument in regard to the media exactly?



See? Its gridlock when you don't get your way. Which again, is what I said a while back.

But this all goes back to the politicians not doing what the voters want. I don't know how many times I can say it. The ones we voted in are not in touch with the voters. You have it backwards.

Honestly, I'd rather the government shut down then us forcing millions to buy shitty insurance. It's odd you don't feel the same.

How did your life change during the last shutdown? Did you notice? I didn't. Only people who would have are those employed by, or dependent on, the government.


So basically instead of compromise and actual ideas being put forth, the best option is to do nothing and force shutdowns? Let's say that we live in Republican Narnia and Donald Trump becomes President. After somehow magically not bankrupting the country and leading us into another great depression wasting trillions of dollars in resources to forcefully remove 11 million people and trying to get another country to build a wall... He somehow manages to repeal Obamacare.

What replaces it? Do we just go back to the old system that literally everyone agrees was broken?

Maybe you can do better than Mr. 'Shut 'er Down' himself, the Obamacare signee Ted Cruz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T30Eh73oabk).

Let's hear some ideas...

[DonDadda59]

You're aware that he's a government employee, right?

Who could've signed up for Cobra or a private plan.

He chose Obamacare. Despite wanting to shutdown the government in a useless effort to repeal Obamacare.

[Akrazotile]

Like I said above- the Republicans issue is that they are the party of 'No'. They only talk about what (or who) they hate, laws they tried dozens of times unsuccessfully to repeal, creating more gridlock.

But ask an elephant for an alternative, or a better option, or any sort of reasonable idea and you get...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-26-2015/YAUDY8.gif


They are the party of saying 'No' to having the government be responsible for the implementation of everything. Not to every idea in concept. Why did we need to federalize healthcare based on Mitt Romney's state plan, rather than just let each state adopt similar models and compete? There is no good reason, except the federal government wants more control, more dependents, more concentration. It doesnt even occur to people to leave it as a state matter, bc the govt purposely didnt frame it in that context during the debate. Politicians on both sides WANT Obamacare. Republicans pretend they dont bc thats their job. But it's more power for them - of course they want it. PEOPLE should have wanted to leave it to the states, but bc the argument was only put in front of them as "federal healthcare or no healthcare" they picked the one where govt "gave" them something.

There is a reason Democrats have historically been poor blacks, women, union members and effeminate men. Groups who, in the past, and in some cases for understandable reasons, could not succeed without aid. Theres a reason republicans are historically white men, latin immigrants who show up here to work, successful minorities like Jackie Robinson, Sammy Davis Jr, Wilt Chamberlain, Carson, Cain etc.

Democrats are mostly people who dont believe they can get anywhere with their own skill and ability. They're the insecure in society. The awkwards, the emos, the effeminate, the outcast. They want to band together, to unionize, to harness strength in their numbers because individually theyre weak. In 2015 with all the laws against discrimination, the opportunities, the access... It's EMBARRASSING to be a male and actually identify as a full fledged democrat. I mean there are people who may lean a lil more left than I do and I can respect, but these fully leftist 'men' you see crying about trump not being pc and republicans are meanies and the govt needs to help everyone more... Thats straight f@ggot shit. It's downright embarrassing to be in that boat if your driver license says 'male' on it. Get somewhere yourself and then help people yourself. Dont cry about the government not making everything okay while you put on mascara and blush, dye your hair black and take 'brooding' selfies to post on the Taking Back Sunday message board. That's Democrat shit.

[oarabbus]

Marco Rubio is the best repub candidate

Followed by Trump (:facepalm but it's true)

Carson, Jeb and the rest are a collective dumpster fire

[ThePhantomCreep]

Right-wing conservatism = relic that long outlived its usefulness.

Like Christianity.

[Roc Nation]

Democrats are mostly people who dont believe they can get anywhere with their own skill and ability. They're the insecure in society. The awkwards, the emos, the effeminate, the outcast. They want to band together, to unionize, to harness strength in their numbers because individually theyre weak. In 2015 with all the laws against discrimination, the opportunities, the access... It's EMBARRASSING to be a male and actually identify as a full fledged democrat. I mean there are people who may lean a lil more left than I do and I can respect, but these fully leftist 'men' you see crying about trump not being pc and republicans are meanies and the govt needs to help everyone more... Thats straight f@ggot shit. It's downright embarrassing to be in that boat if your driver license says 'male' on it. Get somewhere yourself and then help people yourself. Dont cry about the government not making everything okay while you put on mascara and blush, dye your hair black and take 'brooding' selfies to post on the Taking Back Sunday message board. That's Democrat shit.

No disrespect but based on how you seem in real life, this is the biggest case of projection I've ever read

[Akrazotile]

No disrespect but based on how you seem in real life, this is the biggest case of projection I've ever read


You know me in real life?? :biggums:

[NumberSix]

Right-wing conservatism = relic that long outlived its usefulness.

Like Christianity.
How about you just live your own life and leave people to lead theirs? Is that so hard?

[bladefd]

Yeah, his name is Dr. Ben Carson.

How can I consider someone a scientist that believes the world is 6000 years old, doesn't think evolution is happening and belives dinosaurs lived with humans? I wonder if he also believes dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark too? He is anything but a scientist.

[NumberSix]

Again... if you were one of the House Reps from your State, what type of realistic bill would you vote in favor for? If you had the ability- what sort of proposals would you personally put forth that would have any chance of passing both the Senate and House?

I asked this earlier and as is the elephant way, you avoided it and went on some rant about the media. :lol






Why does the reason matter? Earlier you were rambling on about how the biggest issue we're dealing with is how the media treats the GOP... when the GOP's own lap dog channel is easily the most highly rated in the news business.

The 3 debates had ratings as follows-

FOX- 23 million (record)
CNN- 15 million (record)
MSNBC- 14 million (record)

So just from the debates alone, the most eyeballs watching the GOP candidates happened when they had home field. It wasn't even close. Fair and balanced? No, heavily slanted toward Fox News... but approval ratings in the gutter. Why? Because media.

So what is your argument in regard to the media exactly?





So basically instead of compromise and actual ideas being put forth, the best option is to do nothing and force shutdowns? Let's say that we live in Republican Narnia and Donald Trump becomes President. After somehow magically not bankrupting the country and leading us into another great depression wasting trillions of dollars in resources to forcefully remove 11 million people and trying to get another country to build a wall... He somehow manages to repeal Obamacare.

What replaces it? Do we just go back to the old system that literally everyone agrees was broken?

Maybe you can do better than Mr. 'Shut 'er Down' himself, the Obamacare signee Ted Cruz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T30Eh73oabk).

Let's hear some ideas...
Do you have any idea how the government works? Explain exactly how it is that the republicans could shut down the government? How does that process work?

[DonDadda59]

Do you have any idea how the government works? Explain exactly how it is that the republicans could shut down the government? How does that process work?

Did you hibernate through all of 2013? :biggums:

They (led by nut job Obamacare fan #1 Ted Cruz) refused to pass the Appropriations Bill that funds government agencies because the bill contained funding for the ACA. That led to a temporary shutdown.

[DeuceWallaces]

Did you hibernate through all of 2013? :biggums:

They (led by nut job Obamacare fan #1 Ted Cruz) refused to pass the Appropriations Bill that funds government agencies because the bill contained funding for the ACA. That led to a temporary shutdown.

Lol, he condescendingly asks if someone knows how government works and then claims it's not possible for one party to shut it down. ****ing retard.

Dude has been asleep the past 5 years and oblivious to the simplest facts of government. It's the sole reason there's a new speaker of the house and the GOP is strife with internal chaos, but apparently DipshitSix thinks it's impossible.

[NumberSix]

Did you hibernate through all of 2013? :biggums:

They (led by nut job Obamacare fan #1 Ted Cruz) refused to pass the Appropriations Bill that funds government agencies because the bill contained funding for the ACA. That led to a temporary shutdown.
So why is it that the people who insisted that ACA funding be included didn't "shut down" the government, but those who insisted that it not be included did shut it down? Wouldn't a more accurate description be that because both sides couldn't agree there was a shut down?

Btw, the senate (which Cruz is a member of) did send numerous bills to the house that included ACA funding. It's the house that kept refusing its inclusion. I'm not sure how exactly that falls on Ted Cruz.

[DonDadda59]

So why is it that the people who insisted that ACA funding be included didn't "shut down" the government, but those who insisted that it not be included did shut it down? Wouldn't a more accurate description be that because both sides couldn't agree there was a shut down?

:oldlol:

Because the people who insisted ACA, a federal government controlled program, be included voted in favor of the Appropriations Bill being passed- which would allow for funding of federal government agencies. Even others who were against the ACA voted in favor of the Appropriations Bill in the House, where it was passed. It wasn't until it reached the Senate and Obamacare #1 supporter Ted Cruz led opposition to keeping the government running.

The ACA was the law of the land and those literally holding the government hostage in a vain attempt to defund it were clearly the ones who caused the shutdown, not the people who voted to fund the government. It's really that simple.

[Jailblazers7]

So why is it that the people who insisted that ACA funding be included didn't "shut down" the government, but those who insisted that it not be included did shut it down? Wouldn't a more accurate description be that because both sides couldn't agree there was a shut down?

Btw, the senate (which Cruz is a member of) did send numerous bills to the house that included ACA funding. It's the house that kept refusing its inclusion. I'm not sure how exactly that falls on Ted Cruz.

Because the ACA got passed as law and upheld by the Supreme Court but Republicans threw a hissy fit and tried to hold the government hostage to get it defunded? :confusedshrug:

One group governed like adults and the other did. Can you guess which is which?

[NumberSix]

:oldlol:

Because the people who insisted ACA, a federal government controlled program, be included voted in favor of the Appropriations Bill being passed- which would allow for funding of federal government agencies. Even others who were against the ACA voted in favor of the Appropriations Bill in the House, where it was passed. It wasn't until it reached the Senate and Obamacare #1 supporter Ted Cruz led opposition to keeping the government running.
Why do you keep talking about Ted Cruz? He's one vote. The senate overall voted in favor of it, so what's the problem? That it wasn't a 100-0 vote?

[Akrazotile]

Because the ACA got passed as law and upheld by the Supreme Court but Republicans threw a hissy fit and tried to hold the government hostage to get it defunded? :confusedshrug:

One group governed like adults and the other did. Can you guess which is which?

Why do you prefer a federally run healthcare system to state-run systems?

Please dont dodge. Just let me know what the argument is for federal over state.

:confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

Because it's an important right that should be equally accessible to all Americans.

It's the only reason you have insurance. You should be happy. Next time you fake getting beat up on the internet you can compliment it with a fake story about going to the hospital and filing a claim.

[Akrazotile]

Because it's an important right that should be equally accessible to all Americans.

It's the only reason you have insurance. You should be happy. Next time you fake getting beat up on the internet you can compliment it with a fake story about going to the hospital and filing a claim.


Cringe.

You're terrible at intellectual debate, AND at being funny/social. I'm not gonna belabour a bullying here bc it's not worth my time anymore, but suffice to say theres a REASON you get picked on and laughed at constantly. If it's this bad online, I can only imagine what it was like for you growing up.

[KingBeasley08]

How can I consider someone a scientist that believes the world is 6000 years old, doesn't think evolution is happening and belives dinosaurs lived with humans? I wonder if he also believes dinosaurs rode on Noah's ark too? He is anything but a scientist.
This is my problem with Carson. The dude's a total fundamentalist nutjob. And ask him anything on specific policies, he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but to me, he just seems like a well spoken Mike Huckabee :confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

Cringe.

You're terrible at intellectual debate, AND at being funny/social. I'm not gonna belabour a bullying here bc it's not worth my time anymore, but suffice to say theres a REASON you get picked on and laughed at constantly. If it's this bad online, I can only imagine what it was like for you growing up.

Sadly, none of these points require intellect or comedic intent:

1. Health insurance is a right amongst developed nations outside of ours.
2. You didn't have health insurance.
3. Now you have health insurance.
4. You don't pay taxes.
5. Hence, you have free health insurance and should be happy.
6. You make up stories about being beat up for attention.
7. Now you can provide greater context to your fake stories by including a narrative about making an insurance claim without being discredited as easily.

[Nanners]

Because it's an important right that should be equally accessible to all Americans.

It's the only reason you have insurance. You should be happy. Next time you fake getting beat up on the internet you can compliment it with a fake story about going to the hospital and filing a claim.

:oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

Why do you keep talking about Ted Cruz?

I swear you just blacked out that whole shutdown fiasco from your memory. :hammerhead:

Ted Cruz and Heritage Action were the driving forces behind the shutdown tactic. I thought this was common knowledge.

[QUOTE]Hidden Hand: How Heritage Action Drove DC To Shut Down

Republicans and Democrats in Congress are trading blame ahead of Tuesday

[Akrazotile]

Sadly, none of these points require intellect or comedic intent:

1. Health insurance is a right amongst developed nations outside of ours.
2. You didn't have health insurance.
3. Now you have health insurance.
4. You don't pay taxes.
5. Hence, you have free health insurance and should be happy.
6. You make up stories about being beat up for attention.
7. Now you can provide greater context to your fake stories by including a narrative about making an insurance claim without being discredited as easily.


Stopped reading here because you dont understand what a right is :facepalm


The other cringeworthy reaching is so sad I dont even have the energy to engage you about it. I just... Why would I pretend to have gotten beat up? Like it's such a bad attempt at a taunt it depresses me just thinking about how you sat there and typed it and thought it was injurious. It literally makes me SAD to think this was your try-hard insult. Youre claiming I pretended to get beat up. The issue is not whether you believe that, obviously you dont, but to even say you do, to make fun of me with THAT??? Like... what Im pissed about is what a typical failure to be alpha it was. It doesnt even make sense.

This is not like you getting exposed for claiming to have a gf when you didnt, and someone found your myspace proving it. there was an obvious reason you claimed that. But what sense does it make for me to come on here and MAKE UP losing a fight?? It's not even... I mean I just... God I had you. Not becaus anything youve ever said has ever insulted me, but because you are SO JNBELIEVABLY BETA. Words cannot describe how corny and cringeworthy you are. Youre unwitty, no charisma, effeminate, sensitive, emotional, 37 years old and liberal... I just.. I cant deal. It's too depressing to think we have guys like you in America.

[GIF REACTION]

Stopped reading here because you dont understand what a right is :facepalm


The other cringeworthy reaching is so sad I dont even have the energy to engage you about it. I just... Why would I pretend to have gotten beat up? Like it's such a bad attempt at a taunt it depresses me just thinking about how you sat there and typed it and thought it was injurious. It literally makes me SAD to think this was your try-hard insult. Youre claiming I pretended to get beat up. The issue is not whether you believe that, obviously you dont, but to even say you do, to make fun of me with THAT??? Like... what Im pissed about is what a typical failure to be alpha it was. It doesnt even make sense.

This is not like you getting exposed for claiming to have a gf when you didnt, and someone found your myspace proving it. there was an obvious reason you claimed that. But what sense does it make for me to come on here and MAKE UP losing a fight?? It's not even... I mean I just... God I had you. Not becaus anything youve ever said has ever insulted me, but because you are SO JNBELIEVABLY BETA. Words cannot describe how corny and cringeworthy you are. Youre unwitty, no charisma, effeminate, sensitive, emotional, 37 years old and liberal... I just.. I cant deal. It's too depressing to think we have guys like you in America.
Holy shit

Did this really happen?

[Akrazotile]

Holy shit

Did this really happen?


I'm afraid it did, GIF.

[GIF REACTION]

I'm afraid it did, GIF.
_RI_GE

Anybody want to guess the word?

[DonDadda59]

_RI_GE

Anybody want to guess the word?

Fringe?! Is it Fringe?! It's Fringe isn't it?


Stop snitching.

[GIF REACTION]

Incorrect

You have 1 more guess

[RidonKs]

Fringe?! Is it Fringe?! It's Fringe isn't it?


Stop snitching.
no idiot

its bridge

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

https://www.fisherpaykel.com/vault/images/prod_mugshots/Refrigerators/E522BRX2_EXTERIOR_MUG_mug.JPG

[DonDadda59]

no idiot

its bridge

That was gonna be my second choice.


Incorrect

You have 1 more guess

Is it Bridge?

[GIF REACTION]

https://www.fisherpaykel.com/vault/images/prod_mugshots/Refrigerators/E522BRX2_EXTERIOR_MUG_mug.JPG
We have a winner

[Akrazotile]

I know it.... But I dont think I should say it...

[GIF REACTION]

Say it brother. You're in a safe environment with FRIENDS. We got you.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Cringe.

You're terrible at intellectual debate, AND at being funny/social. I'm not gonna belabour a bullying here bc it's not worth my time anymore, but suffice to say theres a REASON you get picked on and laughed at constantly. If it's this bad online, I can only imagine what it was like for you growing up.

He answered your question, and you replied with a dodge. Typical right-wing shill.

[GIF REACTION]

Isn't that what deuce just did by calling him out about getting attacked by a cholo?

Left top keks.

[DonDadda59]

Isn't that what deuce just did by calling him out about getting attacked by a cholo?

Left top keks.

The real question is- how fast will President Trump kick said Cholo out of the country and get him started on building that Game of Thrones Wall free of charge? Will Trumpcare cover Staface's medical bills or will he have to prove his worthiness on a reality show first?

All important questions for our time.

[Akrazotile]

He answered your question, and you replied with a dodge. Typical right-wing shill.

His "answer" was a logical fallacy that has been disproven on this board since before you had pubes, ie last week. The "right" to healthcare implies someone has an OBLIGATION to treat you. You are as entitled to a doctors treatment as I am to have you come over here and lick my nuts you pea-brained fakkit.

Other countries operate on a much smaller, more homogenous scale than us and its their PRETOGATIVE to socialize their healthcare. People in this much larger country have different priorities from state to state. They can select within their own state how they want THEIR state to deal with the issue of healthcare. Creating a much broader bureacracy with less direct involvement from citizens is pointless. He did not address that issue. He said "everyone has the right do have deh same healthcare in every state that i say they shurd have." He was literally wrong twice within the same sentence.

Just bc youre a 16 yr old party soldier and havent learned to use words and logic that werent spoon fed to you by a face on the television yet, doesnt mean we're all operating on that same base retard level - altho Deuce obv is.

[Nanners]

His "answer" was a logical fallacy that has been disproven on this board since before you had pubes, ie last week. The "right" to healthcare implies someone has an OBLIGATION to treat you. You are as entitled to a doctors treatment as I am to have you come over here and lick my nuts you pea-brained fakkit.


the only one using logical fallacies here is you, your post is practically the dictionary definition of a straw man.

when deuce said a "right" to healthcare, he obviously means in the same sense that you have a "right" to a publicly funded education, or the "right" to access publicly funded roadways.... not that every doctor is obligated to treat every patient for free.

pea-brained fakkit

[Akrazotile]

the only one using logical fallacies here is you, your post is practically the dictionary definition of a straw man.

when deuce said a "right" to healthcare, he obviously means in the same sense that you have a "right" to a publicly funded education, or the "right" to access publicly funded roadways.... not that every doctor is obligated to treat every patient for free.

pea-brained fakkit


Uhh, no.

If your mom offers free blowjobs to every guy with coke, does that mean every guy with coke has a RIGHT to free blowjobs from your mom? No. It's a social agreement that is in place at the time. Your mom can back out if she wants (she wouldnt).

Just bc the govt provides something doesnt make it a right. The govt bougt lemon vehicles for a while, is it now a permanent right to sell your car to the govt if you want to? You probably think it is. Dummy. :hammerhead:

A doctor goes and gets a med degree, hes not obligated to treat anyone, free OR otherwise. Doesnt matter if they offer him a million bucks. Doesnt matter if your wh0re mom offers him a blowjob. HIS right is to barter his trade how he wants. We might elect to set up social systems that pay the fare for certain patients he treats... That doesnt bring anything about "rights" into the equation you retarded fvck. And these issues are all handled more efficiently regionally, the O.N.L.Y. reason you cant see the logic is bc your party masters tell you "give it to the federal govt. Thats our position so thats YOUR position. Obey you dumb sheep."

Do you see how stupid you are? You cant understand simple logic?? Stick to hiding behind links to far left websites, you are out of your element in an independent discussion of reason.

[GIF REACTION]

Strawman is a liberals favorite word

The "I don't have an answer" go to response

[Akrazotile]

Strawman is a liberals favorite word

The "I don't have an answer" go to response


Its bc theyre so used to hearing their package described that way :oldlol:




Nikkas cant FVCK wit Lebron :crazysam:

[GIF REACTION]

Its bc theyre so used to hearing their package described that way :oldlol:




Nikkas cant FVCK wit Lebron :crazysam:
http://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv3tWb91dxiEg9i/giphy.gif

[DonDadda59]

Other countries operate on a much smaller, more homogenous scale than us and its their PRETOGATIVE to socialize their healthcare.

But the ACA has largely made Health Insurance standards homogenous. IE, insurers can't turn down people with pre-existing conditions, kids can stay on their parents plans until age 26, etc



People in this much larger country have different priorities from state to state. They can select within their own state how they want THEIR state to deal with the issue of healthcare.

Are you advocating an Interstate Insurance Market? 3 States (Maine, Georgia, Wyoming) tried that experiment already.

How'd that work out?

[GIF REACTION]

Liberal type like Deuce are those pencil neck dweebs at the bar wearing a fraudulent leather jacket and gripping their light-weight drink tightly

[Akrazotile]

But the ACA has largely made Health Insurance standards homogenous. IE, insurers can't turn down people with pre-existing conditions, kids can stay on their parents plans until age 26, etc

Uhh, not homogenous plans. Homogeneous cultures and lifestyles. Like, not millions of fatsos. Not epidemics of violent crime. Why should a small town in New Mexico be lumped in together with the social issues facing Detroit? The federal government doesnt exist to play social hero. Check the 10th amendment. The govt regulates trades between states, provides for a national defense, handles things like the space program and internation trade stuff. They arent a babysitter for every community. The more power you give them, the more power goes away from your state where you live, the more leverage they have for corruption. They do stuff like this bc it takes the focus off Obama continuing to wage wars, spy, run up the deficit, all the things the left hated Bush for. You ever read Machiavelli? The govt will ALWAYS put up exterbal liberal, pro-citizen appearances to be able to keep doing its greedy shit. Obamacare is a bullshit fluff program designed to appease and fool SJW's while the Bush Administration Pt II keeps rolling.





Are you advocating an Interstate Insurance Market? 3 States (Maine, Georgia, Wyoming) tried that experiment already.

How'd that work out?

I'm talking about the Massachussetts system that Obama frequently credited as the model for his own policy that would unilaterally supercede Massachussetts and any other state.

[DeuceWallaces]

I've been drinking knob creek on the rocks with no jacket since you were a ten dollar bill in your dad's wallet.

[GIF REACTION]

I've been drinking knob creek on the rocks with no jacket since you were a ten dollar bill in your dad's wallet.
:lol :lol

[Akrazotile]

:lol :lol



:roll:

[GIF REACTION]

Watch out everyone! Looks like we've got an OG Knob drinker on our hands!

[DeuceWallaces]

Lol, Starface doesn't understand a legal right and I got GIF using my name like clickbait to get some traction. Sad times these are.

[DonDadda59]

Uhh, not homogenous plans. Homogeneous cultures and lifestyles. Like, not millions of fatsos. Not epidemics of violent crime. Why should a small town in New Mexico be lumped in together with the social issues facing Detroit? The federal government doesnt exist to play social hero. Check the 10th amendment. The govt regulates trades between states, provides for a national defense, handles things like the space program and internation trade stuff. They arent a babysitter for every community. The more power you give them, the more power goes away from your state where you live, the more leverage they have for corruption. They do stuff like this bc it takes the focus off Obama continuing to wage wars, spy, run up the deficit, all the things the left hated Bush for. You ever read Machiavelli? The govt will ALWAYS put up exterbal liberal, pro-citizen appearances to be able to keep doing its greedy shit. Obamacare is a bullshit fluff program designed to appease and fool SJW's while the Bush Administration Pt II keeps rolling.

No offense, but this just reads like conspiracy theory rambling. How is the ACA a 'fluff program'? Is he just using it to distract us from cutting the deficit down by 2/3 and ending most military engagements we were in when he took office? :confusedshrug:

Anyway, back on topic... There's no reason that a lack of 'homogeneous cultures' nationwide should be used as an argument against the ACA, that's completely nonsensical. That doesn't even exist within States. Hell it doesn't even exist within cities. The social issues facing Detroit aren't the same as the issues that College towns in other parts of Michigan deal with... so that means each city/town/neighborhood should have healthcare programs crafted based around how homogeneous they are.

This sounds logical to you?


I'm talking about the Massachussetts system that Obama frequently credited as the model for his own policy that would unilaterally supercede Massachussetts and any other state.

It's funny now that Mitt Romney (the 'architect' of that plan) lost the election, he's a fan of Obamacare.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-admits-romneycare-had-to-precede-obamacare.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare

So basically every State should have a system similar to RomneyCare... which is already the basis of the law that covers every State now?

:lol

[Akrazotile]

No offense, but this just reads like conspiracy theory rambling. How is the ACA a 'fluff program'? Is he just using it to distract us from cutting the deficit down by 2/3 and ending most military engagements we were in when he took office? :confusedshrug:

Oh, Don... :ohwell:

The line Obama is trumpeting about "cutting the deficit 2/3 since the year he took office" comes from the fact that HE ballooned it with the stimulus that year :lol . The deficit was actually lower in Bush's final year than it is today.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

^ Here's something else from that article:

And there's another issue. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen said the more important question is if Obama has put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. "And the answer is no," Rosen said, because entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have not had substantial reform.

The long-term forecast for the deficit illustrates this point.


Please note the person cited. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen. So we know clearly this man is an Academia liberal jew. And HE says Obama's economic money give-outs are unsustainable. I mean... come on now! If democrat college professors are saying it doesn't add up... We gonna take Deucewalacss word for it??

[ThePhantomCreep]

Uhh, no.

If your mom offers free blowjobs to every guy with coke, does that mean every guy with coke has a RIGHT to free blowjobs from your mom? No. It's a social agreement that is in place at the time. Your mom can back out if she wants (she wouldnt).

Just bc the govt provides something doesnt make it a right. The govt bougt lemon vehicles for a while, is it now a permanent right to sell your car to the govt if you want to? You probably think it is. Dummy. :hammerhead:

A doctor goes and gets a med degree, hes not obligated to treat anyone, free OR otherwise. Doesnt matter if they offer him a million bucks. Doesnt matter if your wh0re mom offers him a blowjob. HIS right is to barter his trade how he wants. We might elect to set up social systems that pay the fare for certain patients he treats... That doesnt bring anything about "rights" into the equation you retarded fvck. And these issues are all handled more efficiently regionally, the O.N.L.Y. reason you cant see the logic is bc your party masters tell you "give it to the federal govt. Thats our position so thats YOUR position. Obey you dumb sheep."

Do you see how stupid you are? You cant understand simple logic?? Stick to hiding behind links to far left websites, you are out of your element in an independent discussion of reason.

That would include the 2nd Amendment, would it not? :hammerhead:

Does this idiot have to write a thesis every time he wants to embarrass himself? The only thing worse than stupidity, is long-winded stupidity. Good grief.

Any one with half a brain understands the context in which the word "right" was used. You're spinning into an idiotic argument because you know damn well that healthcare in Western Europe destroys ours.

[DonDadda59]

Oh, Don... :ohwell:

The line Obama is trumpeting about "cutting the deficit 2/3 since the year he took office" comes from the fact that HE ballooned it with the stimulus that year :lol . The deficit was actually lower in Bush's final year than it is today.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

^ Here's something else from that article:


Please note the person cited. Princeton University economics professor Harvey Rosen. So we know clearly this man is an Academia liberal jew. And HE says Obama's economic money give-outs are unsustainable. I mean... come on now! If democrat college professors are saying it doesn't add up... We gonna take Deucewalacss word for it??

Yes, because several massive industries that were inextricably tied to not only the American but also International economy were on the brink of collapse... a process which occurred during Bush's second term.

The stimulus was a necessary evil that prevented the nation from sliding into another Great Depression instead of just the terrible recession we endured and now recovered from. Look at how much damage the collapse of Lehman Brothers alone devastated Worldwide markets. Now if we had listened to some of our more conservative brethren and allowed other entities like that to simply fail, we'd all be waiting on line outside of soup kitchens instead of talking online about the deficit being reduced by 2/3 and the unemployment rate being at 5%.

But again, none of this has anything to do with healthcare. :confusedshrug:

[Akrazotile]

It's funny now that Mitt Romney (the 'architect' of that plan) lost the election, he's a fan of Obamacare.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-admits-romneycare-had-to-precede-obamacare.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare

So basically every State should have a system similar to RomneyCare... which is already the basis of the law that covers every State now?

:lol


Yeah, and Mitt Romney's statements are notoriously genuine and heartfelt. The man has ne'er uttered a single word of self-serving politics.


And no, I'm not saying every state should have a system like RomneyCare. I'm saying every state should have a system that works best for THEM. Isn't competition good? Isn't that why we have anti-trust legislation? Shouldn't states want to be seen as a better place to live than the next?

This federal government bureaucratizing robs people of incentive. It keeps them dragging along at just a minimum level. Whatever level the government can provide that will placate people just enough to be complacent. People should be active and involved in their own communities. Not rely on Washington DC to take care of everything for them. How is this working for the homies in Baltimore and Detroit and New Orleans? They've had liberal mayors and city councils for decades, and they just had 8 years of a black president! Why do I keep hearing stuff about white privilege and black struggles and poverty. I mean those cities have been Democrat for SO LONG. And we've had a Democrat president for 16 of the last 24 years. How is there still poverty in these cities!?!? I thought Democrats fixed poverty with government? I can't believe it!

It's not your job to do everything for people in Kansas. If they want to socialize healthcare, or not, let them worry about it. Why does it matter to you? Honestly. It's not your decision just like it's not their decision how your state handles abortion laws. It's not Obama's decision. This is not what the federal government was created for. It never was.

People just get on board with this federal government stuff because that's what's on the TV. Cable news talking head debate shows don't deal with state issues, they deal with federal issues. And here on the message board, we're all in different states. So it only makes sense to debate federal issues. The TV is all federal issues, the internet is all federal issues, and we get people thinking that whatever way they see things, it MUST be enacted on a federal level. It's simply not true.

[NumberSix]

That would include the 2nd Amendment, would it not? :hammerhead:
No, it would not.

[Dresta]

Because it's an important right that should be equally accessible to all Americans.

It's the only reason you have insurance. You should be happy. Next time you fake getting beat up on the internet you can compliment it with a fake story about going to the hospital and filing a claim.
Idiot. This abstract concept of 'rights' of yours has no basis in reality - just because you imagine things should be a certain way, doesn't mean that they are, or even that they ever could be. In every system known to man there simply cannot be equal access to medical treatment - and it is a utopian lunacy to suggest there could be.

In the UK, where i was raised, and where they have socialised medicine, the only right i can see that seems equally applied, is the right to wait in line while your health deteriorates. Anyone with the money to go private does, because the NHS provides such a brilliant service that the 'rights' it provides are often things like the right to die in a hospital bed from maltreatment and neglect:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10778537/Thousands-die-of-thirst-and-poor-care-in-NHS.html

This is where planned medicine leads - while also leading to inhuman crudities in fields like 'Health Economics' where people feel they have the right to calculate the value of human life and apply their fatuous models to actual human beings - errr.. no thanks. And i assure you, access is not equal: the people who get the best treatment just end up being the ones with connections (like Chris Marshall, a former acquaintance of mine who recently died - his status allowed him the best available treatment and care - that which 90+% of people do not have). The treatment of the elderly can be particularly horrific (one of the problems with the state taking this burden from its proper place: the family).

Obamacare really did nothing to correct the actual problems (of inordinate cost) of American healthcare, no! It simply added further costs and created the need for more laboratories of bureaucrats - whatta success! That's just what the Federal government needed: more cancerous growths eating away at the languid husk of an American Republic - great!

[Dresta]

Yes, because several massive industries that were inextricably tied to not only the American but also International economy were on the brink of collapse... a process which occurred during Bush's second term.

The stimulus was a necessary evil that prevented the nation from sliding into another Great Depression instead of just the terrible recession we endured and now recovered from. Look at how much damage the collapse of Lehman Brothers alone devastated Worldwide markets. Now if we had listened to some of our more conservative brethren and allowed other entities like that to simply fail, we'd all be waiting on line outside of soup kitchens instead of talking online about the deficit being reduced by 2/3 and the unemployment rate being at 5%.

But again, none of this has anything to do with healthcare. :confusedshrug:
Oh no, not that old chestnut. I see the political and economic quacks have done their work on you well. This assertion of yours is completely unprovable, which is very much why it is made: 'give us your money or everything will collapse' they say - DonDadda obliges. What is this absurdist faith in politcians, and the academic pedants that are either hired or self-interest cronies? The same people who have supported the disastrous system that has led to this point (and no, you can't blame it all on Reagan and the Bushes - the problem, the scab of political incompetency has long been bipartisan).

And the facile belief that it is demand which drives growth seems derived mainly, from the assertion that FDR's series of New Deals (for there were many) repaired the disasters of the biggest crash EVAR. When in reality FDR followed a plan (if one could call it such) of wanton and extravagant government intervention in the economy, and he failed to reduce unemployment at all until the war saved his failed policies from the death they duly deserved. The modern financial structure is just better at hiding unemployment through various statistical manipulations, by creating crappy part-time work, by keeping the young in education (ha!) indefinitely, by printing money and subsidising various industries (cheap and unsustainable auto-loans say 'hi' - the stock and housing bubbles give you their greetings) - there has been no crash and no real recovery - the recovery you talk of was nothing more than the forestalling of an actual crisis and of the public sector cuts and restructuring of debt that was so clearly necessary. Find me an example of any other recovery that upheld 0% interest rates for over a half-dozen years: you can't, because there's no such thing - it's a myth, an invention - and you could not want a surer sign of the morbid state of the US economy than its unchangeably low interest rates (and its dependence on them). There couldn't be a more certain sign of sickness than this - it is an illogical and unprecedented experiment - we are now due another recession (average time between recessions has already passed), and when that hits, with the country still with 0% rates, there will be no protection left.

And all this for that most delightful of pleasures - the spending of other people's money - in this case, the hopes and fortunes of posterity, who look doomed to a kind of perpetual dependence and insolvency. Indebtedness is really a form of servitude, mental and physical, which is why the governing classes have been so keen to bind the American people to ever-growing mountains of debt - something they know people like you (blinded by their present and temporary affluence) won't care about or bother to look into - life is already amply comfortable, better not look to potential misfortunes and disturbances; that could upset your digestion, or worse, God forbid, the legacy of that all-wise and all-knowing demi-God Barack Obama. No, Sir, nonsense of this kind has not enjoyed such widespread belief since the witch trials of Salem - nay, the logic that led to the belief in witches is far sounder than that which preaches indebtedness as a means to prosperity.

[DeuceWallaces]

If only you had an enriched professional and social life such that we weren't continually subjected to your inane and verbose commentary.

In the battle for expanding personal rights conservatives always come out on the losing side. History always favors the progressive or liberal minded. If this were 100 years ago Dresta, Starface, and UK2K would be out on the street railing against a woman's right to vote or desegregation of schools in the 60s.

[falc39]

If only you had an enriched professional and social life such that we weren't continually subjected to your inane and verbose commentary.

In the battle for expanding personal rights conservatives always come out on the losing side. History always favors the progressive or liberal minded. If this were 100 years ago Dresta, Starface, and UK2K would be out on the street railing against a woman's right to vote or desegregation of schools in the 60s.

As opposed to your commentary, which is usually devoid of any substance?

You are confusing rights. Rights that require someone to provide a service to someone else is different from personal rights.

[Dresta]

"History always favours the progressive or liberal minded" - does it indeed? Talk about inane, for what could be more inane and inaccurate than such a statement? What exactly is 'the progressive or liberal minded?' Because if you knew anything about the history of liberalism, you'd know it as a progression from one cause to the next (it cannot stop, it lusts for change), where each generation of liberals make war upon the previous generation. It has no real values apart from a desperate need for change and agitation - it is driven largely by vanity and the need for purpose and meaning (which increasingly can only be found on the macro level with people like yourself). The world would be a much better place if you and your ilk focused on doing good in your own immediate domains, rather than prattling on about rights, tearing down the rule of law, and taking the entire human family under your own graceful and very special protection (what could be more arrogant? more vain?!).

Not to mention that industrialisation (according to the views of many of your fellow 'progressive minded' peeps) could well spell the end of humanity and cause the decimation of life on Earth. Pity, you and your friends are 200+ years too late in restraining the zeal of your progressive ancestors if that is the case. Only time tells who was right and who was not - the scope through which you view history is far too narrow - tis why you're incurably myopic. Only a myopic miscreant couldn't recognise that protection of nature has been throughout history far more of a conservative sentiment than a liberal one; oh, how things flip over on themselves, and in so little time! Are you still so sure about those cast-iron distinctions of yours - is your faith truly so unshakable?

Perhaps my posts are long because they talk about specifics, whereas you rely purely on metaphysical abstractions such as calling everything 'rights' (with, of course, no corresponding duties) and incessantly talking about the 'right side of history' like the naive child you are (fyi: there is no such thing, and your view of this matter is based on groundless abstractions like historical determinism and meliorism).

I don't know what i would have said 100 years ago, and neither do you - that's just another worthless hypothetical sprung from that worthless mind of yours. I might as well say that if it were 80 years ago you'd be cheering on Stalin and the Soviet Union, like so many of your academic predecessors did. I certainly am no fan of universal suffrage because it is an illogical dogma: crown a mob and be ruled by its values - there you have the reason for cultural decay and the kind of mass-atrophy that has vast swathes of people feeling rootless, listless and depressed (perhaps you would do too if you didn't have your liberal universalist faith to sustain you and make you feel better about your own petty and fruitless life).

Oh, and i post on here far less often than you do buddy: you are a continuous presence on this site - it's like you have nowhere else to go. No surprise really, considering such a wimp as yourself couldn't possibly vent his resentful spleen on any real person (and it is a need of yours, is it not?) - tis only on here that you can get those feelings of superiority you so desperately crave, making sarcastic remarks and laughing at yourself like a buffoon.

I suggest you stop bothering to reply to me if you can't string an argument together - it seems the barbed insult is the only scalping knife in your arsenal, and it's grown quite blunt over the years. Try spicing things up for once; try actually thinking about and trying to discuss something like a man for once - enough of the petty and irrelevant bullshit.

[Dresta]

As opposed to your commentary, which is usually devoid of any substance?

You are confusing rights. Rights that require someone to provide a service to someone else is different from personal rights.
Everything has become a 'right' in the abstract. It's absurd. Forgotten is the fact that the vote was never intended as a 'right' but as a public trust, as all political power ought to be. And now some fools want to give the vote to criminals :lol .

[GIF REACTION]

"History always favours the progressive or liberal minded" - does it indeed? Talk about inane, for what could be more inane and inaccurate than such a statement? What exactly is 'the progressive or liberal minded?' Because if you knew anything about the history of liberalism, you'd know it as a progression from one cause to the next (it cannot stop, it lusts for change), where each generation of liberals make war upon the previous generation. It has no real values apart from a desperate need for change and agitation - it is driven largely by vanity and the need for purpose and meaning (which increasingly can only be found on the macro level with people like yourself). The world would be a much better place if you and your ilk focused on doing good in your own immediate domains, rather than prattling on about rights, tearing down the rule of law, and taking the entire human family under your own graceful and very special protection (what could be more arrogant? more vain?!).

Not to mention that industrialisation (according to the views of many of your fellow 'progressive minded' peeps) could well spell the end of humanity and cause the decimation of life on Earth. Pity, you and your friends are 200+ years too late in restraining the zeal of your progressive ancestors if that is the case. Only time tells who was right and who was not - the scope through which you view history is far too narrow - tis why you're incurably myopic. Only a myopic miscreant couldn't recognise that protection of nature has been throughout history far more of a conservative sentiment than a liberal one; oh, how things flip over on themselves, and in so little time! Are you still so sure about those cast-iron distinctions of yours - is your faith truly so unshakable?

Perhaps my posts are long because they talk about specifics, whereas you rely purely on metaphysical abstractions such as calling everything 'rights' (with, of course, no corresponding duties) and incessantly talking about the 'right side of history' like the naive child you are (fyi: there is no such thing, and your view of this matter is based on groundless abstractions like historical determinism and meliorism).

I don't know what i would have said 100 years ago, and neither do you - that's just another worthless hypothetical sprung from that worthless mind of yours. I might as well say that if it were 80 years ago you'd be cheering on Stalin and the Soviet Union, like so many of your academic predecessors did. I certainly am no fan of universal suffrage because it is an illogical dogma: crown a mob and be ruled by its values - there you have the reason for cultural decay and the kind of mass-atrophy that has vast swathes of people feeling rootless, listless and depressed (perhaps you would do too if you didn't have your liberal universalist faith to sustain you and make you feel better about your own petty and fruitless life).

Oh, and i post on here far less often than you do buddy: you are a continuous presence on this site - it's like you have nowhere else to go. No surprise really, considering such a wimp as yourself couldn't possibly vent his resentful spleen on any real person (and it is a need of yours, is it not?) - tis only on here that you can get those feelings of superiority you so desperately crave, making sarcastic remarks and laughing at yourself like a buffoon.

I suggest you stop bothering to reply to me if you can't string an argument together - it seems the barbed insult is the only scalping knife in your arsenal, and it's grown quite blunt over the years. Try spicing things up for once; try actually thinking about and trying to discuss something like a man for once - enough of the petty and irrelevant bullshit.
:applause:

[KyrieTheFuture]

Dresta seems like one of those guys with a word a day calendar and he just has to flex his vocab skills

[RidonKs]

What exactly is 'the progressive or liberal minded?'
the more we help the weakest among us, the stronger a society we will be

in a nutshell anyway




i mean feel free to disagree with basic legal scheme adopted by every single international body in the world as the standard of governance by which every nation ought to be judged...

pretend as if the whole of human history hasn't been a gradual acceptance of the fact that we are so much more than monkeys, a move toward a conception of the human soul as definitively equipped with distinct attributes that enable each and every one of us to a higher plane...

you can ignore these notions all you like but it won't change the world's common acceptance of them, everywhere every year more and more, people strenuously believe (on faith or not, who cares) we are endowed with both negative and positive rights alike, since as everybody knows, the precondition to human flourishing is not just avoiding harm but finding help.



i'm sure you will say "BUT WE ARE NOT THAT WE ARE MAMMELS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM"

but you aren't

you are a human being in a christian culture that conquered thanks to its freedoms to take take take and its freedoms from... anything the state decided was a threat. this was the development of everything in the western tradition you hold dear.

live with it

[NumberSix]

As opposed to your commentary, which is usually devoid of any substance?

You are confusing rights. Rights that require someone to provide a service to someone else is different from personal rights.
Whites in the south had a right to free cotton. Unfortunately, cotton doesn't just put itself into bags. It required somebody being forced to pick it.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Whites in the south had a right to free cotton. Unfortunately, cotton doesn't just put itself into bags. It required somebody being forced to pick it.

You just compared paying a fine (the penalty for not signing up for health insurance) to SLAVERY.

You and your conservative ilk are an absolute embarrassment.

[RidonKs]

You just compared paying a fine (the penalty for not signing up for health insurance) to SLAVERY.

You and your conservative ilk are an absolute embarrassment.
virtually everything is slavery the way he defines it

if you make a little girl cry at the playground and her mom stars yelling at you, you are under obligation to shut your trap

that's pc slavery folks

oh geez how foreboding

[NumberSix]

You just compared paying a fine (the penalty for not signing up for health insurance) to SLAVERY.
I didn't say a single thing about fines.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Oh, Don... :ohwell:

The line Obama is trumpeting about "cutting the deficit 2/3 since the year he took office" comes from the fact that HE ballooned it with the stimulus that year :lol . The deficit was actually lower in Bush's final year than it is today.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

^ Here's something else from that article:

Here's something else from the article. The majority of the spending for FY 2009 was already on the books when Obama assumed the presidency. Do you want to blame Obama for TARP and the steep decline in revenues following the economic meltdown?


In fiscal year 2009, which started almost four months before Obama's presidency began and ended eight months into it, the deficit was 9.8 percent of GDP. The 2014 shortfall is 2.8 percent of GDP -- a decrease of 71 percent.

Keep in mind the current deficit would be even lower had Obama, like America's Idiot Bush, kept war spending off the books.

[Nanners]

why do so many people around here think that "right" to healthcare = "doctors forced to treat everyone for free"

having the "right" to an education doesnt mean that you can force any teacher to educate your kid for free, it means that if you cant afford a private school your kid will still have access to a publicly funded school in your district.

having the "right" to a public defender doesnt mean you can force any lawyer to represent your case for free, it means if you are accused of a crime and cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided to you.

having the "right" to healthcare doesnt mean you can force any doctor to treat you for free, it means that some level of basic care will be provided for free to anyone who cannot otherwise afford it.

[KevinNYC]

You just compared paying a fine (the penalty for not signing up for health insurance) to SLAVERY.

You and your conservative ilk are an absolute embarrassment.
Actually he said this


It required somebody being forced to pick it.

So he seemed to think that doctors are being forced into slavery to provide their services.

[DonDadda59]

Yeah, and Mitt Romney's statements are notoriously genuine and heartfelt. The man has ne'er uttered a single word of self-serving politics.


And no, I'm not saying every state should have a system like RomneyCare. I'm saying every state should have a system that works best for THEM. Isn't competition good? Isn't that why we have anti-trust legislation? Shouldn't states want to be seen as a better place to live than the next?

This federal government bureaucratizing robs people of incentive. It keeps them dragging along at just a minimum level. Whatever level the government can provide that will placate people just enough to be complacent. People should be active and involved in their own communities. Not rely on Washington DC to take care of everything for them. How is this working for the homies in Baltimore and Detroit and New Orleans? They've had liberal mayors and city councils for decades, and they just had 8 years of a black president! Why do I keep hearing stuff about white privilege and black struggles and poverty. I mean those cities have been Democrat for SO LONG. And we've had a Democrat president for 16 of the last 24 years. How is there still poverty in these cities!?!? I thought Democrats fixed poverty with government? I can't believe it!

It's not your job to do everything for people in Kansas. If they want to socialize healthcare, or not, let them worry about it. Why does it matter to you? Honestly. It's not your decision just like it's not their decision how your state handles abortion laws. It's not Obama's decision. This is not what the federal government was created for. It never was.

People just get on board with this federal government stuff because that's what's on the TV. Cable news talking head debate shows don't deal with state issues, they deal with federal issues. And here on the message board, we're all in different states. So it only makes sense to debate federal issues. The TV is all federal issues, the internet is all federal issues, and we get people thinking that whatever way they see things, it MUST be enacted on a federal level. It's simply not true.

The States with the highest rates of poverty and the ones that rely most on federal 'handouts' are the States that have been firmly in the control of Republicans/Conservatives... the so-called 'Red States'.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Reserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd?ReportSession= ljsr2d45ks0crrncr3y3wofz&Culture=1033&CultureOverrides=True&UICulture=1033&UICultureOverrides=True&ReportStack=1&ControlID=7d1b494e211142718217e67a9f26b911&OpType=ReportImage&IterationId=9c045c437a3842a1a381c2eb63a21144&StreamID=M_15_1

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/05/Slide3/966724856.jpg

You mean to tell me that those States that have that highest % of people living in poverty and rely heavily on federal dollars just to function will have the ability to setup and run healthcare/insurance programs without government interventions? :oldlol:

Again, since 2011 3 states (Georgia, Wyoming, Maine) have put the Republican Interstate Insurance plan into action. Do some research... how is that working out for them?

It's just another one of those conservative ideals that sound good on paper but never work out in real life. Toss it in the pile with trickle down economics and deregulation.


Oh no, not that old chestnut. I see the political and economic quacks have done their work on you well. This assertion of yours is completely unprovable, which is very much why it is made: 'give us your money or everything will collapse' they say - DonDadda obliges. What is this absurdist faith in politcians, and the academic pedants that are either hired or self-interest cronies? The same people who have supported the disastrous system that has led to this point (and no, you can't blame it all on Reagan and the Bushes - the problem, the scab of political incompetency has long been bipartisan).

And the facile belief that it is demand which drives growth seems derived mainly, from the assertion that FDR's series of New Deals (for there were many) repaired the disasters of the biggest crash EVAR. When in reality FDR followed a plan (if one could call it such) of wanton and extravagant government intervention in the economy, and he failed to reduce unemployment at all until the war saved his failed policies from the death they duly deserved. The modern financial structure is just better at hiding unemployment through various statistical manipulations, by creating crappy part-time work, by keeping the young in education (ha!) indefinitely, by printing money and subsidising various industries (cheap and unsustainable auto-loans say 'hi' - the stock and housing bubbles give you their greetings) - there has been no crash and no real recovery - the recovery you talk of was nothing more than the forestalling of an actual crisis and of the public sector cuts and restructuring of debt that was so clearly necessary. Find me an example of any other recovery that upheld 0% interest rates for over a half-dozen years: you can't, because there's no such thing - it's a myth, an invention - and you could not want a surer sign of the morbid state of the US economy than its unchangeably low interest rates (and its dependence on them). There couldn't be a more certain sign of sickness than this - it is an illogical and unprecedented experiment - we are now due another recession (average time between recessions has already passed), and when that hits, with the country still with 0% rates, there will be no protection left.

And all this for that most delightful of pleasures - the spending of other people's money - in this case, the hopes and fortunes of posterity, who look doomed to a kind of perpetual dependence and insolvency. Indebtedness is really a form of servitude, mental and physical, which is why the governing classes have been so keen to bind the American people to ever-growing mountains of debt - something they know people like you (blinded by their present and temporary affluence) won't care about or bother to look into - life is already amply comfortable, better not look to potential misfortunes and disturbances; that could upset your digestion, or worse, God forbid, the legacy of that all-wise and all-knowing demi-God Barack Obama. No, Sir, nonsense of this kind has not enjoyed such widespread belief since the witch trials of Salem - nay, the logic that led to the belief in witches is far sounder than that which preaches indebtedness as a means to prosperity.

God, not this tired windbag again :rolleyes:

I've never seen someone work so hard and spam thesaurus.com so much and manage to say absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is- the country went along with the Republicans' deregulation bullshit. We repealed Glass-Steagall and before even a decade went by we were plunged into the worst economic catastrophe since the Depression... which is what prompted Glass-Steagall in the first place. Many of the financial entities on Wall Street took full advantage of deregulation and formed international conglomerates that were so intertwined with the financial health of not only this country but the Worldwide economy that we were forced to either bail them out or allow them to fold and drag us into another Great Depression.

But of course the Elephants on the campaign trail right now will go on and on about how we need to get rid of Dodd-Frank (which is a tame version of G-S) and give deregulation another try... and people actually cheer and vote for these clowns. It really is mind-boggling. :wtf:

[thefatmiral]

Randal Paul .being the son of Ron Paul is good enough for me.

[KevinNYC]

Forgot to reply to this a while ago, but you could define conservative almost however you wanted to get these results. I mean, what exactly defines a religious nut like Huckabee as conservstive compared to Rubio? There policies ardnt really related. could define a graph where bernie sanders or ted cruz were centrists, that doesnt make it so.

You can take a look at how they did it here.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-president-republican-primary-2016/

[DeuceWallaces]

"History always favours the progressive or liberal minded" - does it indeed? Talk about inane, for what could be more inane and inaccurate than such a statement? What exactly is 'the progressive or liberal minded?' Because if you knew anything about the history of liberalism, you'd know it as a progression from one cause to the next (it cannot stop, it lusts for change), where each generation of liberals make war upon the previous generation. It has no real values apart from a desperate need for change and agitation - it is driven largely by vanity and the need for purpose and meaning (which increasingly can only be found on the macro level with people like yourself). The world would be a much better place if you and your ilk focused on doing good in your own immediate domains, rather than prattling on about rights, tearing down the rule of law, and taking the entire human family under your own graceful and very special protection (what could be more arrogant? more vain?!).

Not to mention that industrialisation (according to the views of many of your fellow 'progressive minded' peeps) could well spell the end of humanity and cause the decimation of life on Earth. Pity, you and your friends are 200+ years too late in restraining the zeal of your progressive ancestors if that is the case. Only time tells who was right and who was not - the scope through which you view history is far too narrow - tis why you're incurably myopic. Only a myopic miscreant couldn't recognise that protection of nature has been throughout history far more of a conservative sentiment than a liberal one; oh, how things flip over on themselves, and in so little time! Are you still so sure about those cast-iron distinctions of yours - is your faith truly so unshakable?

Perhaps my posts are long because they talk about specifics, whereas you rely purely on metaphysical abstractions such as calling everything 'rights' (with, of course, no corresponding duties) and incessantly talking about the 'right side of history' like the naive child you are (fyi: there is no such thing, and your view of this matter is based on groundless abstractions like historical determinism and meliorism).

I don't know what i would have said 100 years ago, and neither do you - that's just another worthless hypothetical sprung from that worthless mind of yours. I might as well say that if it were 80 years ago you'd be cheering on Stalin and the Soviet Union, like so many of your academic predecessors did. I certainly am no fan of universal suffrage because it is an illogical dogma: crown a mob and be ruled by its values - there you have the reason for cultural decay and the kind of mass-atrophy that has vast swathes of people feeling rootless, listless and depressed (perhaps you would do too if you didn't have your liberal universalist faith to sustain you and make you feel better about your own petty and fruitless life).

Oh, and i post on here far less often than you do buddy: you are a continuous presence on this site - it's like you have nowhere else to go. No surprise really, considering such a wimp as yourself couldn't possibly vent his resentful spleen on any real person (and it is a need of yours, is it not?) - tis only on here that you can get those feelings of superiority you so desperately crave, making sarcastic remarks and laughing at yourself like a buffoon.

I suggest you stop bothering to reply to me if you can't string an argument together - it seems the barbed insult is the only scalping knife in your arsenal, and it's grown quite blunt over the years. Try spicing things up for once; try actually thinking about and trying to discuss something like a man for once - enough of the petty and irrelevant bullshit.

Your posts are long because you having nothing to say and likely have no one to listen to you in your real life; so you subject us to your inane ramblings. You have no specifics, only verbosity and faux intellectualism fueled by your poorly constructed anti-Cornel West internet persona. You want to be accepted as an intellectual so badly but it's evident by your feeble attempts on a basketball message board that you have no professional audience because you have no knowledge or skill as a philosopher or scientist.

You don't even understand the simplest concepts of liberal or progressive thought; i.e. the expansion of personal rights via the right to vote, own property, legally marry who you want, receive health care or adequate education, and so on. I make clear and concise points based on facts alone; that is science. I understand that's a bit beyond you, but one day I hope you might grow up and understand this.

[DeuceWallaces]

Because the right to vote, a concept with no material goods attached to it, is the same as paying for services, right? The idea that goods or services can be a right is completely childish and ignorant, and when people attempt to implement it, you get statistically lower quality of life. American Healthcare is no different.

So...you've obviously never voted? Do you think polling equipment, facilities, and administrators appear out of thin air? The right to a basic education requires schools, teachers, and administrators. The right to marry includes services provided by governmental clerks and other bureaucrats. The right to bear arms requires illicit gun show booths.

Can you and the other Conservatards not realize that the right to health care does not require free services beyond that which is required by other federally mandated rights.

[BoutPractice]

Instead of arguing in the abstract about "rights", Americans should probably begin by realizing that their big healthcare problem - the lack of affordability and coverage - is something that the highly developed countries of the world typically don't have to worry about.

Forget about Denmark... in most of Europe everyone is covered, expenditures are lower than in the US, and health care systems almost always include at least a dose of public health care and some form or another of insurance "mandate". What happened is that different countries with different traditions (France, Germany, the UK, Greece...) eventually stumbled upon best policy practices, each in their own way.

This didn't lead to socialism, tyranny, or whatever boogeyman you can think of. Europeans pretty much like it the way things are... any controversies are about tweaks to the system, not basic assumptions on whether government should get involved in health care at all or who has a "right" to affordable health care. Which is why the American debate over those questions is seen as something of a joke in the rest of developed world.

Make of it what you will, but any discussion of health care has to start with this simple reality.
(A similar point about the weirder aspects of American "exceptionalism" can be made about guns, but at least there's the Second Amendment to explain it)

[KevinNYC]

Here's something else from the article. The majority of the spending for FY 2009 was already on the books when Obama assumed the presidency. Do you want to blame Obama for TARP and the steep decline in revenues following the economic meltdown?



Keep in mind the current deficit would be even lower had Obama, like America's Idiot Bush, kept war spending off the books.

Yes from Wikipedia, The US fiscal year is well under way by January when a new president is innaugurated.

United States[edit]
Federal government[edit]
The United States federal government's fiscal year is the 12-month period ending on 30 September of that year, having begun on 1 October of the previous calendar year. In particular, the identification of a fiscal year is the calendar year in which it ends; thus, the current fiscal year is 2016, often written as "FY2016" or "FY16", which began on 1 October 2015 and which will end on 30 September 2016.

The deficit was 1.2 trillion on the day Obama took office. He added some emergency stimulus on top of that and the deficit that year was 1.4 trillion.

The few years before this one is the fastest deficit reduction ever.

[Nanners]

So to elaborate, youre comparing education, which is 3-5% of GDP, has a high rate of return on investment, and is in many circles seen as a failing system anyway, to something that is 20% of GDP, often is just a burden to society in terms of cost, and gets the highest rates of curable disease survival in the world.
But yeah, totally the same thing.

exaggerate much?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Total_health_expenditure_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_%2 82005-2008%29.JPG

for the vast majority of developed countries, the ratio of education to healthcare spending is about 1:2

if you really think public education is a "failing system" and public healthcare is a "burden to society", i dont think we have much left to discuss here.

[Nanners]

US healthcare is 17% of GDP. Idk why youre showing graphs of euro countries.

I didnt say either of those things. Reread what I wrote.

The fact that the privatized US health system takes up 17% of GDP, and provides far less coverage for that money than countries like France that only spend 11% of GDP (and have full universal coverage of all citizens), says a lot about just how shitty and inefficient the US approach to healthcare really is. I posted graphs of euro countries because thats what the US should be trying to copy.

[Nanners]

The US system is higher quality

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2011/11/CONCORD-table1.jpg

Or treatment rate for curable disease is far far higher

And even our uninsured get quicker screenings and treatment than other developed nations

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

the US system is very high quality if you can afford high end care, but on the whole we are behind most european nations in almost every measurable way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

[quote]Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care.

Access: Not surprisingly

[Hawker]

the US system is very high quality if you can afford high end care, but on the whole we are behind most european nations in almost every measurable way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

The majority of medical science research is performed in America so these other countries benefit from this. Not really fair to compare US to other countries. Just take a look at boutpractice's post..."europeans are generally ok with how things work." You don't have that type of attitude in America. It's very divisive.

I am fine with public healthcare as long as you have separate public/private hospitals so I can go to a private hospital and not have to wait in line at a public hospital (in Texas).

And you don't increase taxes and cut spending in other areas. You should also get some type of tax refund every year if you use private health insurance.

[Nanners]

The majority of medical science research is performed in America so these other countries benefit from this. Not really fair to compare US to other countries. Just take a look at boutpractice's post..."europeans are generally ok with how things work." You don't have that type of attitude in America. It's very divisive.

I am fine with public healthcare as long as you have separate public/private hospitals so I can go to a private hospital and not have to wait in line at a public hospital (in Texas).

And you don't increase taxes and cut spending in other areas. You should also get some type of tax refund every year if you use private health insurance.


well i certainly dont want to shut down private hospitals. its nice that there is top quality healthcare available to people who are wealthy or have good jobs.

i just dont like how the current system forces millions of less fortunate people to chose between receiving medical treatment and financial ruin.

[Dresta]

the more we help the weakest among us, the stronger a society we will be

in a nutshell anyway

i mean feel free to disagree with basic legal scheme adopted by every single international body in the world as the standard of governance by which every nation ought to be judged...

pretend as if the whole of human history hasn't been a gradual acceptance of the fact that we are so much more than monkeys, a move toward a conception of the human soul as definitively equipped with distinct attributes that enable each and every one of us to a higher plane...

you can ignore these notions all you like but it won't change the world's common acceptance of them, everywhere every year more and more, people strenuously believe (on faith or not, who cares) we are endowed with both negative and positive rights alike, since as everybody knows, the precondition to human flourishing is not just avoiding harm but finding help.



i'm sure you will say "BUT WE ARE NOT THAT WE ARE MAMMELS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM"

but you aren't

you are a human being in a christian culture that conquered thanks to its freedoms to take take take and its freedoms from... anything the state decided was a threat. this was the development of everything in the western tradition you hold dear.

live with it
No, that is your definition, and its ends can be equally applied to most conservatives - it is the means and not the ends that differ. Liberals like to ignore the long-proven fact that their welfare initiatives have done very little to help the poor, and have plunged the nation into a state of indebtedness that looks unlikely to ever be repaid. Social security is bankrupt; the student loan programs all throughout the Western world are basically insolvent - charity is a central aspect of both conservatism and Christianity, only it is personal charity that is valued, not the appeasement of the collective conscience through an elaborate Federal welfare system. If anything this makes people less generous, as the responsibility for charitable behaviour has been taken from them, and so they can recline at ease in their expensive suburbs, with clear consciences because they've shown through their political beliefs that they truly care and are really charitable (when their actual behaviour so often tends towards the opposite).

Are you telling me conservatives who complain about immigration don't care about the plight of the poor American worker? Because, to me at least, it seems they care far more than the liberal-corporate mass-immigration consensus that lives off cheap labour and exploitation. Who really 'cares' here?

My problem isn't even with those Christian values that you quite accurately recognise as the moral basis for such behaviour, but this state ideology is really is a perversion of Christian doctrine, because it takes responsibility away from the individual, and grants it to the collective. An abnegation of personal responsbility is the opposite of the actual Christian doctrine. Modern liberalism, like Marxism, is a gross perversion of Christianity - perhaps the inevitable consequence of its decay - but that it is essentially decadent there can be no question.

Oh, and i don't have much faith in international bureaucracies, instigated at the behest of Communists like Alger Hiss (or vague utopians like Woodrow Wilson - who provided the basis of the worldwide American interventionism you so often deplore) - no thanks. The current consensus can not and will not last: it is self-destructive to the extreme.





God, not this tired windbag again :rolleyes:

I've never seen someone work so hard and spam thesaurus.com so much and manage to say absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is- the country went along with the Republicans' deregulation bullshit. We repealed Glass-Steagall and before even a decade went by we were plunged into the worst economic catastrophe since the Depression... which is what prompted Glass-Steagall in the first place. Many of the financial entities on Wall Street took full advantage of deregulation and formed international conglomerates that were so intertwined with the financial health of not only this country but the Worldwide economy that we were forced to either bail them out or allow them to fold and drag us into another Great Depression.

But of course the Elephants on the campaign trail right now will go on and on about how we need to get rid of Dodd-Frank (which is a tame version of G-S) and give deregulation another try... and people actually cheer and vote for these clowns. It really is mind-boggling. :wtf:Glass-Steagall was repealed by Clinton, and to focus on that single things is to completely ignore the far more pervasive problems with the American economy. Glass-Steagall would not even be necessary if the Federal government didn't guarantee bank deposits - the problem is lies far deeper than the repealing of a single regulative measure - the system is corrupted to its core, and a few regulations is never going to change that.



Your posts are long because you having nothing to say and likely have no one to listen to you in your real life; so you subject us to your inane ramblings. You have no specifics, only verbosity and faux intellectualism fueled by your poorly constructed anti-Cornel West internet persona. You want to be accepted as an intellectual so badly but it's evident by your feeble attempts on a basketball message board that you have no professional audience because you have no knowledge or skill as a philosopher or scientist.

You don't even understand the simplest concepts of liberal or progressive thought; i.e. the expansion of personal rights via the right to vote, own property, legally marry who you want, receive health care or adequate education, and so on. I make clear and concise points based on facts alone; that is science. I understand that's a bit beyond you, but one day I hope you might grow up and understand this.
Oh ok, being liberal is just favouring 'the expansion of rights' - considering your conception of rights is vague and abstract and meaningless that means **** all, which helps to explain why you're so incessantly confused. Ignore that Eugenics was a progressive cause, as was prohibitionism, as were religious fanatics like William Jennings Bryan - ignore all this because it suits your idiotically simplistic agenda.

Again, you've failed to even recognise the points i've made, and have again fallen back on such pseudo-authority as saying 'I am a botanist; i know all about politics through my science' - you talk of facts, and yet i've not seen you present a single one, only a continuous championing of yourself as a 'scientist' - in a completely irrelevant field, no less. Tis the typical arrogance of the mediocre scientist: thinks because he has expertise in one area, all his opinions ought to be accepted as gospel. Well, Sir, you haven't got a clue - you really ought to stick to your plants.

[Nanners]

You do realize I just gave you two links that point to the opposite right?

you do realize i qualified my post with "almost", right? no doubt if you do enough cherry picking you can find a few metrics that show US care is comparable.

btw the ncpa is the national pharmacy lobby, not exactly an unbiased source.