• SeanRenaud said on Jul 23, 2009....

  Good post.  Great post actually.  There are only a few things that I will point out though.

  1.  For a great capitalist you are being truly supportive of socialism.  As was pointed out very clearly in your report we are already providing free services.  Obama is going to lower how much money we spend.  

  2.  There is no reason why socialist health care cannot exist alongside public health care.  There are scores of examples.  Tired of UPS vs USPS?  How bout public libraries vs Barnes n Noble?  How bout cops vs security?  Shit how bout fucking buses and trains vs cars?

  3.  This billfrom what I've seen and read is a fucking abomination and needs to be stopped.  While UHC is a necessity apparently nobody currently working on it is smart enough to get it right.

• D6fer said on Jul 23, 2009....

  nice......shut up grandma and drink the kool-ade.....it's time to go....it's best for society!

• secretlife said on Jul 24, 2009....

  pray some of them at least listen to the synopsis of the bill.  cause certainly no elected officials read it.  including the president.  hey, he's too busy campaigning. 

• UnicornForm said on Jul 24, 2009....

  when im old if some pompas indiidual tells me to step in the chamber, I dont know if id shoot them or ignore them and go camping... answer to your question.. Duh. But they are worse than the mentally ill. They are savages.

• ALIENated said on Jul 24, 2009....

  SeanRenaud:

  1. Free services? Check out your last paycheck. It should list what you paid in for Medicare. And look what people get for it. Many doctors have stopped taking Medicare patients.

  2. The library loans you old books. It does not give you new books at a greatly reduced cost, which would put Barnes and Noble out of business? And there is no law that outlaws all other book stores.

  3. That one I can agree with, and I doubt that this conglomeration of wacko liberals can come up with anything better. The reason being they want the government to control everything, not work along side other plans as you mentioned in number 2.

  Makes you wonder if the offical movie of the Democrat / Socialist party is Solent Green. Is there a movie about using aborted babies for stem cell research? Maybe the Democrat party should be renamed the Deathocrat party.

• pickersplock said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Think it can't happen here?
  It already has;
  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

• ALIENated said on Jul 24, 2009....

  This just shows what I have been saying for so long. The Deathocrat party has become numb because of abortion. Death is routine for them and fully condoned. Why would people who are OK with killing innocent babies think twice about just letting older people die? They do not want to be inconvenienced by either group -- the too young and the too old. What they forget is, they will be older people, too, someday. It is like my father told me in his final months of life. I jokingly told him that if I got terminally ill I would jump off a building or a bridge. He said I might change my mind when that time came. And he was right. I heard OhBummer talking that way last week. He was crowing about not wanting to be hooked up to tubes and machines. When that time comes and he is getting glimpses of his afterlife in hell (for sentencing so many others to death), he might just change his mind.

  Death with dignity has a shred of logic, but someone who is not ready to die should not be told to kill themselves. The lady should get some good lawyers and sue their pants off and take it to the Supreme Court is necessary.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 24, 2009....

  1.  That was actually my point.  We are already paying for this, socialized medicine is here.  So unless you are talking about cutting the current stuff we have then making it cheaper is better.

  2.  There is a difference between terminally ill and living by machine. 

  3.  You're right someone who is not ready to die should not be told to kill themselves.  I"m behind you 100% here. 

  The problem is that unless you're going to be the one who starts telling those same old people that while you aren't going to ask them to kill themselves, but they have to go home to die then. . .tax payers are already supporting these people. 

• ALIENated said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Everyone pays into Medicare and Social Security, which is aimed at helping older, retired people. If you have been working (ligitimately) and are about to retire, you have probably been paying into these funds most of your life. You only get Social Security benefits if you have worked and had it withheld (or your deceased spouse or parent has, I suppose). I am not sure if that is true of Medicare. Anyway, the point is that both of these systems are designed to help older people and even then, if you have paid into it. The alternative is the Indian way -- let them fall to the rear and die by the wayside. The other point is, Obamacare is designed to outlaw all other coverage (what we have now does not) and reduce the benefits to older citizens (who have been funding it all these years). How is reducing care to the old and destroying the competition a good thing. This is not solving the problem. This is passing a law to ignore the problem -- sick people who need care. And it is just another example of Deathocrats doing exactly the wrong things while claiming to be improving things, making problems that they will eventually blame on the Republicans so they can create more damaging laws under the guise of fixing the problem, which they created. What a sweet shell game. Deathocrats -- morons who stand for nothing elected by people who will fall for anything.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  That's why this bill must not pass.  But still Medicare dishes out much more to any individual than they paid for it because technology just keeps getting better.  We're about a hair shy from being able to keep a brain alive in a jar and under the current system we gotta do it.  We really only have two ratioinal choices.  Forge forward into a  UHC that will at some point have to pull the plug on people who are going to die soon anyway OR pull the government out completely and hope that somehow the free market magically finds ways to drive down the prices of the supertech we use. 

• D6fer said on Jul 25, 2009....

  I think the scare here of impending UHC could be what the free market needs to do the right thing.......If this gets rejected in every form it comes down the pike and Dems lose ground in 2010 or Obama loses in 2012.....I think we could see some kind of swing back the other direction and better solutions made available.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Such as?

   

• D6fer said on Jul 25, 2009....

  a public option for pre-existing conditions to start......insurance companies can not be expected to take a guaranteed loss.
  
  more effort to promote Health savings accounts with catastrophic health insurance and high deductible plans.......employers could be required to have the plans in place and then it's up to employees for the contribution rate......HSA Banks and insurance companies would jump at the chance to administrate the plans for free.....AFLAC does it all the time for employee deduction CAFE plans.
  

• ALIENated said on Jul 25, 2009....

  If anything, Social Security and Medicare have both shown us that government should never have gotten into that business in the first place because it is somewhat socialistic. It has the feel of something for nothing. You are right, we pay into it, but often get way more back than we put in. The big problem with any socialistic endevor is that there are always people who need, require, or demand more than their fair share, which leads to problems. Eventually, everyone demands more than their fiar share, which leads to shortfalls and thn rationing. At some point, those who burden the system will be cut off.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  D6:  Isn't a public option basically socialistic?  I'm asking because it's an important distinction, if you are against social health care (anything that uses government money) or if you are against all of the current methods for providing said treatment.

  Just to cherry pick one of the points in your second paragraph the way I understood it one of the major rallying points AGAINST Obama care was that it would require employers to have it in place which would in turn cost companies money and force lay offs.

  ALIEN:  I'm all for rolling back government systems that aren't working properly and your basic evaluation is not innacurate.  However it seems that at the very least the programs introduced after the Great Depression have smoothed the ride considerably.  I challenge that you look into depressions in the United States.  The country used ot have depressions like we have recessions.  Every fifteen to twenty years the system would break.  Just break.  And unless this one stretches into a depression which only the most pessimestic of analysts expect then we'll be creeping up on eighty years without a legit depression.  Something of a record.  So SOMETHING is working and I'm in no rush to break it. 

  I'm un certain on how to fix medicare.  I think that having a national system (similar to schools or better yet similar to USPS where it still isn't "free" (I understand taxes yada yada) it's just greatly reduced price.

• ALIENated said on Jul 26, 2009....

  As I understand it, the USPS is run by the government, but is not subsidized by taxpayers. It has to make its own way. It is doing that by raising prices, not by being competitive. It cannot be competiitive because the workers are overpaid for what they do, no doubt. They probably live by fat cat government rules even if they do not get taxpayer money. Government-run healthcare would be the same deal. The government employees (doctors, nurses, hospital staff) would get outrageous salaries and benefits (similar to union workers) and patients (all of us) would end up paying for it, financially and otherwise. Public schools are nothing more than liberal bootcamps and do not serve as a good example of anything. All the bilingual crapola is just an example of all the things wrong with public schools. The people who run them do not even know what language we speak in this country. Any parents that can afford it are removing their children as quickly as possible. I doubt Borax's or any politician's children go to public school. And I doubt that any politician would want to use the healthcare system Deathocrats are planning. I would imagine the FDIC has had a lot to do with heading off depressions. People have felt that their money was safe in a bank ... up until now. After our recent problems, who knows.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  I'll have to check on how much USPS is government funded vs making its own way.  My point however is that its existance has not prevented UPS and FEDex from existing and there is no reason why healthcare should be any different.

  Are schools are crap for a number of reasons, billingualism is one but a small one unless you live in a border state.  The biggest is that we simply don't value education.

• ALIENated said on Jul 26, 2009....

  If you listened to that link, the lady says the legislation outlaws all but government healthcare. Even if it does not, private policies will soon go away because they will not be able to compete with free healthcare from the government. I doubt that Borax has even read what is being passed. I wonder how many Deathocrats have read it all.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Have I not been clear that I am against the current bill?

• D6fer said on Jul 27, 2009....

  If it were up to me....I would have no public option......but unfortunately there are enough socialists around that it doesn't look like we have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding some kind government program.....the HSA option would be best for a majority of Americans......allow the insurance companies to compete across state lines.....with everybody choosing their own doctors, and competition between insurance providers, we would see prices come way down across the board......combine that with tort reform and it couldn't miss.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Sean-Hold your fist up in the air for a moment then let is come crashing down on the side of your head.

  Socialism, full or partial in every form falls incredibly short.  Medicare, social security, our roads, our schools, Canada, the UK and on and on and on.  There are smaller countries who seemed to have pulled it off but these countries don't have 300 million people.

  This comparison of the postal service versus UPS.  Are you serious?  The postal service delivers our mail while UPS does shipping and about a zillion other things.  You know if the government somehow pushes socialized medicine that millions of people are going to drop their private health insurance because of this stupid, ridiculous, and just plain nonsensical notion of "free healthcare."  Nothing is free and everyone knows this.  If you weigh the pros and cons of our current system versus socialism it is beyond ridiculous to even assume the government could do a better job. 

  Look at any census report for the last practically 20 years and you see that the vast majority of the population has health coverage while 100% have access to an emergency room.  Now you want to give your money in taxes to the government so they can come up with a healthcare plan BECAUSE a few poor and/or lazy people won't get off of their asses and go and get health coverage?

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2009....

  the USPS and UPS do identical work save that some UPS locations offer other services like Notary but that is far from universal.  The only reason FEDex does things differently at all is because they merged with Kinkos a few years back.

  Are schools are failures simply because we do not value them.  It has nothing to do with it being socialized.

  You're point about millions of people dropping their existing coverage is probably true, but that's because people are stupid. Besides it'll force the private insurers to come up with competetive prices.

  Socialism, full or partial in every form falls incredibly short.  Seems my freeway works pretty good.  As a proud veteran I think our socialist military is damned fine.

• ALIENated said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Socialist military? The military is not socialist. The military is ... military. It is a dictatorship. There are people of rank who tell other people what to do, which works well for the military. Is that the way you want your healthcare done, someone telling you what to do? Oh his TV show tonight, asswipe Jon Stewart was trying to trick Bill Kristol into saying the government is successful at running healthcare for the military so we should let the government run healthcare for us all. Anyone who understands military healthcare would not make such a stupid statement. In the military, you get what they give you. You do what they tell you to do. You get shots when they tell you to, and you get what you get even if that means you get some doctor that you think has shit for brains. You get military issue eye glasses. On and on. The government also runs the VA. Have you ever heard ahything good about the VA? I know about both first hand. Military healthcare and VA healthcare are better than nothing and that is about it. What everyone forgets in these comparisons is that taxpayers are paying for military and VA healthcare. IT IS NOT FREE. Deathocrats act like the government is going to take over healthcare and all the rich people (that magic fatted cow, that goose that lays the golden eggs) are going to pay for it. Ha ha ha. Liberals are so stupid it is hard to fathom.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Who pays for the military again?  Maybe I missed when the army started being funded by Bill Gates and not tax payers.  I'm sorry missed the ticket.

  Military Health Care 1, isn't that bad and 2 you can still go outside the system (and do whenever possible) but you are forced to get regular physicals and blood checks to catch problems early.  I've avoided the VA like the plague so I don't know about that.

  But I would 100% support a military style mandatory check up every year for every citizen.  It would be like renewing your car registration or something.  You wouldn't get an option about it.  And yeah I'd be willing to increase taxes to get that if that is what it took.  However it shouldn't take that because I'm quite certain that one hundred check ups don't cost as much as one major surgery (that again we are going to give the person anyway once it gets to the point of being fatal) and catching it early when less drastic measures would be needed.

• ALIENated said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Who pays for the military again?

  Did you go to the bloc school of reading (and not comprehending)?

  What everyone forgets in these comparisons is that taxpayers are paying for military and VA healthcare. IT IS NOT FREE.

  Healthcare for the military is a necessary evil, not the only game in town. Plus, military healthcare is mostly about wounds, amputations, battlefield medicine, and a few aliments (colds, flu) peculiar to younger people. Gvernment-run healthcare will become the only game in town. Private insurance companies will not be able to compete and (as discussed in that link) WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. That seems to be what everyone is missing. Alternate coverage WILL NOT BE ALLOWED, which makes sense. Doctors are now dropping Medicare patients because of all the red tape and insufficient payments. Why would government healthcare for everyone be any different? Doctors would be forced to take it. Why pay for your own insurance plan if it is not going to guarantee any better coverage, or any coverage at all. If the government takes over, healthcare will eventually be rationed and we will all be herded around like cattle, made to take tests and our own lives in order to serve the state. Hey, instead of dispensing those costly suicide pills, how about mass suicide by lethal gas in a showerlike facility? We could all sing a Michael Jackson song -- we are the world, we are the (stupid) people.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Okay one more time.  Our military is the finest on the planet.  It is funded 100% via tax dollars.  It is a socialist program, it has almost no competition from the legal sector.  The US military single handedly shuts down the rest of your logic.

  I've already made clear that this bill is toxic,a nd it seems close to death anyway. 

• stopmediabias said on Jul 28, 2009....

  The government contracts out for healthcare for Federal employees.  These people are pushing something on us that they themselves will not even have to deal with. 

  And another bad example.  The military does not consist of 300 million people and the military can dictate whatever they want to the people they oversee.

  And if our schools are bad because we don't value them how much value are people going to give to something they believe is free? 

  Postal service:  Pick up a piece of mail and deliver it to another location.

  Healthcare:  Facilitate healthcare programs for hundreds of millions of people of vastly different cultures, ages, bodytypes, social status etc...

  Bad comparison.

  The government is capable of running certain projects but providing healthcare paid for in taxes is ridiculous and has been tried before and failed.

• UnicornForm said on Jul 28, 2009....

  you care or you dont.. you do something or you dont something, can one of you gentlemen shed some light on me why people in small towns and other places sit and argue about politics, what it does for the situation?

• D6fer said on Jul 28, 2009....

  it's fun? ;p
  
  seriously though unicorn....vigorous debate is what brings about change......sitting on ones hands in silence brings on dictatorships!
  

• ALIENated said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Laura Ingraham said something on her radio show tonight that was very profound. Obamacare is full of taxes and committees of non-elected people who will be telling you and your doctor what to do. Nothing will be up to you and your doctor anymore. However, every argument you hear about abortion from the left is always "abortion is up to a woman and her doctor" blah, blah, blah. Another trying to have it both ways by liberals / socialists.

  I would rather think we are discussing politics, not arguing about politics. We have a representative form of government even though most think we have a democracy. We (the people in large and small towns) elect people and send them to Washington D.C. to represent us. Those representatives, senators, and president need to know what the people who elected them are thinking about the things they are doing. For example, if the Democrats / Socialists sneak this horrible legislation by the people who elected them, they will most likely be voted out at the next possible opportunity (like 2010 and 2012). However, even if they are thrown out (and they will be thrown out just as Clinton's Democrat congress was thrown out in 1994), it will be a long time dismantling this legislation. Once a beurocracy is put in place, it is hard to get rid of it. Look at LBJ's welfare legislation. It was a horrible system that took 25 years to reform after countless lives were ruined by it. If Obamacare is passed, how many people (baby boomers) will die before it is thrown out.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Actually surprisingly quality points.  It's rare.

  1.  SMB:  I could give a shit less if the government has dealt with the same situations that they are subjecting others too.  It's quite possible that it's for the best that they have not.  Just like I'm glad that congressmen have relatively few children in the miltary.  The military, to include myself is a tool to be used to accomplish goals.  It turns out it's hard to think of your son as a tool to be used and discarded when he breaks.  But that is the only way a military works and if you aren't willing to do that you may as well not have a military in the first place.  So yeah not sure I care.

  We don't value our schools because we are a superficial people more interested in looks than in smarts.  The American school system sucks compared to the rest of the world  But the rest of the world, all of it, is socialist in their education department.  Their cultures however value inteligence (particularly Asian cultures) and drill it in to the point of having longer school days, years and weeks.  Our system sucks simply because we've come to the lazy realization that okay is good enough.  (note that when we give a shit, I.E. colleges that we account for most of the top schools around the world.)  It has nothing to do with how much we charge it has to do with our culture.  If it doesn't then you need to explain the nations above us educationally OR make a case that a private only system would overcome them by leaps and bounds. 

  You end with the concept that postal care is possible but health car is not because postal service is pretty simple.  Thing is that arround the world they pay LESS IN TAXES than we do.  Which means two things.  If we were to switch to a system based on one of theirs and give it the same funding currently available (which Obama is fighting against.  He has been adamant about lowering costs, hense the mandatory suicide classes for you old folk) we would almost undoubtedly receive better service just based on us spending more cash.

  Unicorn:  Pretty sure you're an idiot.  also pretty sure someone answered your question already.

  D6:  Five fucking stars!!!!

  ALIEN:  I swear I just asked this but again.  Are you against UHC or are you against OBama care?

  2.  Uh. . .I agree too much to point out your minor mistakes so we're cool here.

  3.  Obama care is not a take over.  I've started reading it (particularly the parts conservatives take offense to and you guys are jumping at shadows or shadows) but regardless the important detail you make in this sentence is what clearly isn't happening.  In America we are supposed to be tried by a panel of our PEERS.  To a doctor this would mean others who are medically trained and of similar (if not identical when possible) background.  Based sheerly on the number of comercials I see on "are you suffering from X" I"d be willing to to bet if people with similar risks were making the judgements different judgements would be made.

  4.  LOL

• javadewd said on Jul 29, 2009....

  Okay, Sean, obviously nobody told you that UPS and Mail Boxes Ect merged a while back, too... UPS & FedEx are direct competitors (along with DHL if you can believe that, woo!) and the government has tried to tap that market with very, very limited success. Again, though, when the USPS started that marketing campaign they didn't try to push a bill through making shipping with UPS, FedEx or DHL illegal. So you can't hold that analogy up apples to apples with this horrific health care bill.
  
  Also, the United States Military is voluntary. It is not a socialist mechanism like in China where you MUST serve in the military. I can't figure out where you made that particular leap...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2009....

  DHL is barely competitive in the field.  There is nothing in the bill that would outlaw private insurance.  I've actually been reading sections of it.  It's still a fucked bill for a few reasons but no it would be exactly the same.

  The US military is funded by the US government, by tax payers.  With no direct competition within the United States.  I don't know why I'm clarifying this since you are deftly dodging the point because I'm so completely undeniably right here that your only choice is to try to divert into well you don't HAVE to serve in the military.

• javadewd said on Jul 29, 2009....

  Sean, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the very first section I read in that bill was that it literally made any other private company's coverage illegal. Yes, it's a very, very fucked bill and it should be doused in gasoline and set afire.
  
  You're not only missing my point, but you're making yours weaker here. The US Military is a government funded program (duh!), but it does not draft soldiers nor does it force anyone to join. It is not a socialist program, otherwise EVERYBODY would have to join the military (i.e. socialized health care = everybody gets it in some similar form). I think you're getting your -ism's confused, or you took a big leap off a short pier... But it's quite the leap nonetheless, I guess.
  

• ALIENated said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Are you against UHC or are you against OBama care?

  I am against the government taking over things like healthcare, car manufacturers, banks, etc. As I have said before, I think "free" healthcare insurance provided by companies is a big part of the problem with healthcare today. The government making it all "free" will destroy our healthcare system all together. The telephone industry is a good example of the success of getting government out of things. We all used to have one phone in the house and it was run by ma bell. Ma bell was broken up in the 80s and then the Republican congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Many politicians felt they should "get rid of the rules and let competitive markets provide choice, fairness, and opportunity on their own."

  http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/rhodesprp/01_02/divide/dereg.htm

  There is no telling how many jobs this deregulation has created. Look at the iPhone, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, etc. Of course, my combined telephone bill for landline and cellphones is maybe $140 a month, but that includes additional service (a couple of mobile phones instead of just one phone at home and internet over the landline). Competition works best for everything. The government usually squashes competition. It always wants to be the only game in town.

  The military is better compared to the highway department, the fire department, or the police department than to healthcare. When someone is building a highway or bridge, or saving us from danger, we really do not care what tactics or methods they use (except for maybe all the whining about waterboarding, which we should not care about). Healthcare is a more personal set of circumstances that occurs over long periods of time. I suppose OhBummer's plan might be better compared to one of these plans -- if it cannot be cured by a swat team in a matter of hours, throw a grenade at it (ask the person to take a cyanide pill and get it over with). This healthcare plan demonstrates the nonsense about Deathocrats being more compassionate than Republicans. Deathocrats would not blink an eye at terminating older Americans just as they turn a blind eye to abortion, murder of our youngest citizens. This is why Borax's attitude about abortion was so important. You either respect life or, as in his case, you do not, which is evidently the case with most Deathocrats / Socialists.

• javadewd said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Oh, and just for the record, fire districts are not socialist groups, either. Otherwise everybody would be a fire fighter! They are a government funded entity, through taxpayer dollars, but nobody is obligated to be a fire fighter.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2009....

  1.  So wait just so I'm clear, it's not socialist if we dont' FORCE everybody to join.  We are working on the complete lie that because we don't have a draft that our military is not socialist.  It's complete bullshit but that is the premise we're working with?

  2.  There is only one part of the bill (I'm trying to look up the exact page) that has any direct effect on private insurance (and it has no effect on those that are currently in existance) it merely states that all FUTURE companies are required to hold the same standards or higher than are currently in effect.

  3.  Come on ALIEN, you're really bringing up Ma Bell as a good example of what happens when the government gets out of the way?  Really.  I wasn't even alive and I know that the exact opposite of what you said is true.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bell  Ma Bell was broken up into seven smaller companies because it had a monopoly and was able to control prices.  The current competition and level of quality we have is directly due to government interference.  Sure they may have gone a little nuts and as a result they backed off a bit in the mid 90s but how you can even say with a straight face without at least giving a nod to the government anti-trust laws is insanity.

  4. Health Care is specific to each person that is true.  Though it's funny to hear people who are against UHC talk down to deathocrats and their plan to teach people who are dying already to kill themselves (and I assume to legalize assisted suicide which should have never been illegal) when the Republican plan is so much better.  In that plan you spend all your money until there is none, we kick you out on the street and watch you. . .well most diseases you'll starve to death long before the disease actually finishes you off.

  5.  ANYTHING THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT IS SOCIALIST.  IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS PART OF IT.  WHERE THE HELL DID THIS DEFINITION CROP UP FROM? 

• ALIENated said on Jul 30, 2009....

  If you do not like the telephone company example, that is fine. Some utilities are probably better off run by one company with some government oversight. But in most cases, competition is better. My main point was the inovation in technology (telephones, cellphones, etc.) that comes with competition.

  And your whole tone is unbelievable. Well, not just yours, but most Democrats. You are now arguing FOR socialism. That is just incredible. Democrats and Republicans would have bitten their tongues off instead of defending some of this crap not that long ago. No Republican and most Democrats would not have supported an obviously racist candidate like Sotomayor in the past. We have been duped by the OhBummer crowd into thinking socialism is OK. Do you even read what you write? Do you actually believe what you say? Maybe I do need one of those cyanide pills. I am not sure I want to live in a world that thinks suicide is a valid alternative to healthcare.

  The military, police, firefighters, etc. are structured the way they are for a reason. It is not socialism; it is a hierarchy. In order to function, some have to give orders and others have to take those orders. Do you want our whole society structured that way, like China or North Korea? God help us if you do. There is no freedom in the military (as far as taking orders goes). I do not want the government giving me orders about which doctor I should see or which hospital I should go to, or whether I can even go to a doctor or hospital. This legislation is not about regulation, it is about control and creating more government beurocracy, which Democrats just love to do for some reason.

  I think a lot of this crap is "my party, right or wrong". I would love for someone like Borax to become president and solve all our problems, but, as in this case, sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. Germans elected Hitler to solve all their problems, too, and look what they got -- the Final Solution.

• javadewd said on Jul 30, 2009....

  1. The only way you can agree that our military is socialist is if you agree with a Canadian fascist like this guy.
  
  2. You're a fucking liar -- Page 16 reads :
  
  
  Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
  
  
  And this was also taken to the House Ways and Means Committee that confirmed it! Not to mention all the other crap associated with this bill.
  
  5. You're not only a liar, but also a moron. Even a bunch of fuck-tards on Yahoo! Answers can distinguish between a socialist program and our beloved military!
  
  So choose a new word to define our military. Socialist it is NOT. Choose a new word and then it will void the two dozen responses above this one and you'll finally be on the same page as everybody else... I hope the journey wasn't too painful!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Okay in a rare show maturity I'm going to skip both post and ask a very simple question.  What is socialism.  Since both of you seem to use a definition that is vastly different from the dictionary definition I need to figure out what we are talking about before continuing forward. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Also Java.  Quoted DIRECTLY from the bill

  Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
  So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

  You're locked in yes, and I"ve been quite clear this bill is toxic for many reasons, and this is one of them.  But maybe before you call me a liar you should have proof, like I do each and every time I call you a liar.  I'm giving you the benefit this time of assuming you didn't read it but rather read something someone else read.  Peice of shit

• ALIENated said on Jul 30, 2009....

  I try to stick to the issues and away from the name calling and personal attacks. That gets us nowhere. I often quote sources I think are reliable or let people speak for themselves (like the lady on the link). I think she is reliable because she is a patient advocate and probably fights for patient's rights. My feeling is that, in reality, the legislation will not be as bad as Republicans think it is and it will not be as good as Democrats hope it is. However, I think we should shoot for smaller government wherever possible because the day will come that the government will be a giant monster that no one can control. We will all become slaves to the system. Democrats seem to agree with that when a Republican is in the White House, but they go ape shit when a Democrat takes over and they try to do all the liberal crap they have been cooking up while out of power.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Not disagreeing with anything you said.  (actually agreeing with most of it)  Still I need a simple answer from you before we can proceed productively.  What EXACTLY is socialist?

• ALIENated said on Jul 31, 2009....

  That is another topic ... kind of.

  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/244381/What-Is-Socialism#

• javadewd said on Jul 31, 2009....

  Hey, fuck you, Sean. I read it straight off the bill, you moron, over a week ago. I got that quote straight off the bill's PDF and didn't quote from either of the sources I linked. Get fucked you fucking fucker! I'm not the one spanking that liar button like a retard on Jeopardy!
  
  And since you're a fucking three year old, here's the definition of socialism. Sorry I had to Google that for you, because you were too busy screwing a horse. Notice that socialism has absolutely nothing to do with funding, but encompasses participants (i.e. universal health care = socialized health care = everybody has it in some form).
  
  Go back to school you idiot!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2009....

  Sorry Java.  You lose, again.  I quoted the passage you read and it very clearly grandfathers in old sources just like I said.  It sucks that you can't keep your facts straight, even when I give you the benefit of the doubt as being mistaken instead of a liar.  If you read it as you claim though you are a liar, because I just quoted the EXACT text and it doen's say what you claim.  So what are you, a liar or an idiot?

  Thank you for the definition of socialism.  Of course I already know everything in that link and nothing in that link in anyway supports your theory that a volunteer army is magically capitalist instead of socialist.

  Thank you for defining that in your opinion the definition of socialism is that there is no option but the government option. So by your definition taxing people and handing the money to others, reparations would not be a form of socialism because jobs still exist?  You know I'd laugh if you weren't so fucking pathetic. 

  Instead it makes me want to cry because I wish Republicans would make a comeback but they aren't purging the likes of you, they are imbracing you and all the seething racist idiotic rants that you and your ilk are pushing out.  This country is going to fall to hell in 2010 when Dems don't even have to pretend to care what you think.  Right now it's still polite to pretend that you matter but in two years, in two years it won't matter at all if you guys don't get off of stupid like Javadork.

• javadewd said on Jul 31, 2009....

  No by my definition, I'd say you suck a mean monkey dick and encourage little boys to shoot heroin. Here's the fucking bill, dip shit, not from the Washington Monthly you twit, but from the House itself. It's worded EXACTLY as I quoted it. I'm sorry that because you can't Google it that in your mind it simply doesn't exist.
  
  
  Thank you for defining that in your opinion the definition of socialism is that there is no option but the government option.
  
  
  I don't buy into your cryptic double-speak, you asshole tonguing retard. Even when faced with the very definition of Socialism, either you can't make out the big words or you simply don't seem to understand that a group of citizens of a country paying in taxes does not make it a socialist country. By a federal government using those taxes to fix roads... (by the way, you remember roads, right, Sean? How you claimed that California pays for Missouri and Illinois roads? Yeah, and you have the nerve to make half-assed comments like that and then have the audacity to call me a fucking liar, dick breath!?) ... Establish public education, establish a police force, fire departments, A MILITARY and other such services defined by the US Constitution it does not make that country socialist, either. But you can call it anything you want, except Socialist, and you'd probably be more accurate. Our military is not based on a political ideology and therefore it will never be valid to term it socialist, marxist, fascist, communist or otherwise, and shame on you for trying to plug it into such nonsense. I hope a group of bad-ass Marines drag you out into the street, set you on fire and skull fuck you while they're doing it. You deserve nothing less!
  
  Now in my personal quest to find the magic word that you really mean to describe our US military -- I consider it a "magic" word, because as soon as you hear it, you'll probably agree and then FUCKING FINALLY you'll be back on the same page as everybody else here instead of acting like a flagelling dick smack with a grasp of the english language comparable to a seven year old girl -- I have had to do a bit of digging and here's what I found, just for you, Sean :
  
  
  “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint” (Federalist, no. 15) -- Alexander Hamilton
  
  
  
  The definition of a military. Notice that it is a society within a society, which is perhaps where you're trying to make this impossible leap that the US military is somehow socialist, but in reality it is simply non-civilian.
  
  
  
  A military organization is hierarchical like a corporation and not like a welfare commune. There are no hand-out hippies and illegal immigrants sucking a government tit here. Everybody does some capacity of work to get paid.
  
  
  
  The ideology of a military is called militarism. Again, it is not Socialism, Communism, Marxism or Fascist in nature. Imperialism (autocratic) or expansionism may have come from this ideology, if we were to want to go down that path, but since you're acting like a fucking seven year old girl, I'll keep it simple for you as to not confuse you!
  
  
  So -- as bloc and the rest of the brain-dead liberals around here like to say -- please keep talking, Sean. You only make yourself out to look like an idiot. You certainly don't need any help from me.
  
  I am not crying, because they've already staved off the likes of half-ass hardliners like you who keep chanting "choice" but haven't realized that some choices are wrong -- having government make decisions concerning everybody's health care without a patient's input is one of them.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2009....

  I started to read your post and then I realized you thought that socialism was a political idea.  I'll try to stop laughing sometime this month.

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  Love your edit. Perhaps you'll re-write history so we can Google it later... Tool.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  You might want to read pg16 again.  On your link about how existing insurance is grandfathered in.  While I still think you're a liar it's an easy mistake to have made not reading the entire thing.

  As for your little list of definitions it's clear you don't actually have a clue about what you're talking about.  So let me educate you.  A Country need not be socialist to have socialist programs.  I'll leave you to your fantasy that the military is not funded by the government.  I can't remember them asking for donations and I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan is paying us for our work.  But fine whatever I'll stop arguing and admit that the military is a not-for-profit.  It's like Batman they just print money.

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  How long do you figure that "grandfathered" insurance will last? As everybody jumps to a government option those companies will wither and die until we'd all be on the government plan. Since no new ones can be instated, my biggest fear is that only the rich / elite will be able to go find a doctor who will illegally bypass all government regulation to provide "excellent" health care... For a price... The rest of us can suck ass. I have great health care now, through my wife, who's a nurse, so why would I want to go to a half-assed government plan and hope that if something horrible happens that we can scrounge up the dough to find a black-market doctor?
  
  A military is funded by the government, but it doesn't make the US military democratic. It follows a chain of command, a hierarchy, and it survives to fulfill its purpose of protecting its citizens, not to become its own utopia.
  
  Also, Iraq has been and will be dumping money back into our economy in due time.
  
  I like the Batman analogy, though. I'm sure the military folks around here appreciate the compliment...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1.  And that is why you should be against the plan.  Because it is so damaging to private insurance that it might become something only for the elite.  In away it already is but this could greatly exaperate the problem.

  2. Can you rewrite your second sentence.  I think for some reason you think that socialism has something to do with democracy but I know you're more inteligent than that so what did you mean there?

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  Okay, but wait, after your run of calling me a liar, me presenting the actual PDF from the House itself, and pointing out the very thing that you pointed out over the grandfathering, you're finally coming back around to where everybody else is?
  
  Oh, fuck me!
  
  All I'm saying as far as your flipping obsession with socialism is that :
  
  US = Democratic Republic = Has Military = Not A Socialist Military
  China = Communist = Has Military = Not A Socialist Military
  Russia = Representative Democracy (as of 1993) = Has Military = Not A Socialist Military
  Iran = Islamic Republic = Has Military = Not A Socialist Military
  
  No country's military is socialist and so far you have yet to prove otherwise.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  You mean where I've been since the begining.  You did lie.  you either didn't read the page in its entireity which you claimed or you chose to ignore the part where it spoke of existing policies.  Either way you lied.  And I gave you the chance to say you make a mistake.
   
  Any military that is funded by the government is by definition socialist.  Oh my fucking God what don't you understand?  Every nation on this earth has a socialist military because no nation on this earth is dependent on mercenaries.   
   
  You're chart is insane.  It doesn't even make sense.  I think the problem here is you don't understand what makes a program socialist though.  I've already proven it.  Not a single one of those nations outsources their military or uses mercenaries.  What are you not understanding?

• ALIENated said on Aug 01, 2009....

  I fail to see the military as socialist or capitialist. The military is the military. It is a group of people we pay to defend our country. The government of any country, be it democracy, socialist, communist, or whatever, takes care of their military whether it is pay by rank or just room and board. I also fail to see what difference it makes. (I did not read all your mud slinging up there, so I do not know if you already pointed out what it matters.) Do we really want more military-type outfits around? Do we want more CIAs, FBIs, Homeland Securities, IRSs? What the fuck is everyone thinking. The government has never improved anything it takes over in my opinion. The military does what it does pretty well, but do you want your everyday life controlled like that? Oh my god. We need to be figuring out how to cut back government and government spending. Not figuring out ways to make it bigger and more intrusive in our lives.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  We do need to be figureing out how to cut back on government and government spending wherever and whenever we can.  That goes without saying.  As I've stated previously any UHC that doesn't bring DOWN our costs must be shot down.

  You do understand that democracy is something to be comparerd to monarchy, dictatorships and to an extent communism (which is a tricky beast) not to capitalism or socialism?  You understand these are COMPLETELY unrelated subjects right?

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  I lied because I didn't state the obvious that grandfathered policies would eventually die stranding those who had them with the single option of a government plan? Perhaps I didn't spell it out enough to your satisfaction, but to flat out call it a lie is absurd! I still find it obnoxious that you have to transverse so far to come around to the same point I was trying to make all along and then claim it was yours from the beginning. I fail to see the point of your stringing out your views just to come to the same conclusion as everybody else...
  
  So in your opinion, any military funded by tax payers through a sovereign government is considered socialist to you? So in your definition a corporation is a socialist body because all the people who pay into it get benefits from the corporation...? That would somehow make which -- the employees of such a corporation or the customers thereof -- Socialists?? Perhaps specific corporations that handle food, clothing and shelter (homes) are then socialist bodies? Again, I can't seem to connect your logic... But no matter at some point I'm sure you'll come around to what we're all saying, and somehow you'll simply make it your idea, so why do we bother indulging you?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  1.  It wasn't a lie because you failed to point it out.  It was a lie because I mentioned the grandfathering part and you called that a lie.

  2.  No a corporation that receives its funding from the general public is not socialist.  What part of funded by the government do you not understand.  That is the literal definition of a socialist program.  Just like Medicare and NASA.

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  1. Did not... I even looked up to find out what you were talking about. I simply didn't mention the grandfathering part because I figured you were smart enough to see how that would eventually run everybody out of private insurance policies. I could have sworn you already addressed the whole grandfathering issue in one of your own blog posts, but maybe I was giving you too much credit?
  
  2. So then if not a private corporation then a government one like USPS? So that would make my postal carrier a socialist? Shit, I'm going to have to ask him how he feels about that on Monday! I'm just hoping he doesn't slug me!!
  
  Found some crazy shit in relation to what you're talking about here and even more crazy shit here, but again it doesn't mention the military... So again, I'm a bit stumped how you come to your conclusion. It just seems like a leap with no bridge.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  1.  Since I am having trouble finding the exact post I'm simply going to apologize for jumping the gun.

  2.  Yes your postal carrier is paid by a socialist program.  He may or may not be a socialist (probably not as he's an American)  But yes the USPS is a socialist program.  It is paid for by the government.  It uses tax dollars.  It does not get funded by the public (by means of being hired or purchased, though personally I would start renting out military types for security detail if I had my way) 

  To be fair USPS can almost be debated since it does have to compete for market share and does charge in the form of stamps.  (which keep going up.  I wish they'd just jump to 50 cents and call it a fucking day for the next few years.  I'm tired of buying stamps (specially when I fuck up and don't get Forever Stamps) and by the time I finish I have to either double up or buy a fuck ton of those 1cent ones.

• ALIENated said on Aug 02, 2009....

  I am pretty sure I heard or read somewhere that the U.S. Postal Service is not funded by taxpayers. It is just run by the government. It has to charge for its services and pay its own way, which makes sense. If you do not use it, it does not cost you anything unlike a government-run health care system, Medicare, or social security. People pay into these, like it or not, and may or may not have an opportunity to receive any benefits from it. In this case (post office) the government is simply acting as a coordinator, running a company that has to be competitive in order to stay alive. The day might come that it goes out of business in favor of privately run companies. However, I would think delivering the mail is somewhat vital to our national security and the government has to assure that someone does it. That makes me think it will price itself too high for most to use and simply hang around just in case everyone else goes under.

  I think the main buggaboo about Obamacare is that it is not about offering an alternative to private coverage, it is about growing government and taking over a large segment of our economy, doing away with all other plans eventually. As I said, I think it is a socialistic stepping stone to communism. That is Borax's real goal. He is a Marxist at heart. He hates rich white people (why else would he sit in Rev. Wright's racist church for so long) and he wants to take what they have and redistribute it to deadbeats who cannot make it any other way. To do that, he has to dismantle the American system we have had for over 200 years. I doubt that the American voters are going to go for that once they wake up and realize what is going on.

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Okay, so let me get this straight, you'd put the national guard under this same socialist program umbrella you're toting? Can you at all separate the military as a government program sited by the US Constitution from the "socialist programs" -- or I'd even call them "progressive programs" but that's a whole other bailiwick -- I sited above like Medicare and Social Security? If so, there has to be a better word to describe this discrepancy than "socialist."
  
  I'm with you on stamp prices. 50 cents is a damn good bargain for what the USPS does if you really think about it. I'd say let's put 50 cents toward the national debt and just raise stamps to a buck and then not raise the prices for a few decades! I'd start sending snail mail to my parents just to help the effort! Hell, just doing that for my parents and siblings alone for birthdays and holidays would throw over $10 per year just for myself alone at the debt.
  
  I'm not convinced that Obama is a Democrat at all, at least not how a Democrat is defined. So he used that party line to get elected. Just like his Muslim heritage and the fact that he has a dark skin tone, he saw an opportunity to exploit these things and successfully schnuckered everybody who fits in the individual categories : Democrats, Muslims and blacks! Now if you want to debate me on whether or not the guy is a Socialist, be my guest...
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 02, 2009....

  ... our media seems to want to do nothing more than hump Obama's leg ...

  Great statement. Sad, but great. Big corporations (like GE) own the network and most of the cable news outlets. ABC spent a day pushing Obamacare. Conservatives should be turning these programs off and making that known, and stop buying GE products and make that known.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Yes I would put the National Gaurd under the same label.  It is a government run entitity paid for through tax dollars.  Exactly like health care would be.  There are problems with this health care issue, most notably that it is very damaging to the private sector and it hasn't been proven to lower costs at all.  And both of those are vital to any plan that gets passed.

• ALIENated said on Aug 03, 2009....

  Exactly like health care would be.

  Sorry, that is just not true. The government-run military is not at all the same thing as government-run healthcare. Apples and oranges. The military is a dictatorship, not a democracy or socialism. They are in the business of killing people and breaking things (something the government is good at). Do you want people who are good at killing people and breaking things running your healthcare program? I certainly do not, no matter what they come up with. IT IS NONE OF GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. I do not want some unelected bureaucrat making decisions about what healthcare I can have and what is too expensive. Government-run Medicare is part of the problem. Many doctors have given up on taking Medicare patients because of government red tape. Why would it be any different if the government takes over ALL healthcare? Doctors would then just give up all together. Anyone smart enough to be a doctor could work at just about anything else. Do you want some questionably trained doctor from Slumgovia trying to treat your pot induced cancer someday? Holding up the VA as a socialist system is certainly a GOOD analogy and might even be a solution to the whole problem. The role of VA hospitals run by the government could be expanded to treat those who choose the government option. They could not refuse to see you if you were on the government plan (which would include Medicare). However, give people the option to pay taxes into the healthcare/Medicare system and leave those people who want to provide for themselve alone. But that brings us full circle. The takeover of the healthcare system is not about solving the problem. If it was, Barry would be advocating setting up a government system of doctors and hospitals like the VA, comparable to the post office. Then people could provide for themselves or, if they see that the government-run system is better, they could get into that. However, that is not the underlying reason for this legislation. It is just a steppingstone to socialism in general and you know that.

• javadewd said on Aug 03, 2009....

  Now, now, Alien, we shouldn't say that the military is a dictatorship. It's militarism!
  
  And I'm sure Sean is getting all wound up saying that socialism has nothing to do with democracy or totalitarianism or dictatorships because he edited the wiki to reflect that socialism isn't an ideology...
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 03, 2009....

  Edited the wiki? What does that mean?

• javadewd said on Aug 03, 2009....

  The wiki on socialism. One day (July 31st to be exact) the phrase :
  
  
  "... however, socialism itself is not a political system or ideology; it is instead an economic system distinct from capitalism..."
  
  
  Suddenly appeared with a Los Angeles-based IP address in the history. Talk about corrupting truth!
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 03, 2009....

  I may never trust Wikipedia again. Actually, I do not trust it now unless it agrees with what I think is right. I use it to cut and paste any statements I would say myself. For something like socialism, I would go to a dictionary.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2009....

  To bad I'm not in Los Angeles.  And Wiki is a solid source it is forced to cite its sources so if you doubt something on it you can check to see where they got it.

  It's not my fault java doesn't know the meaning of words, or did you happen to save a screen shot of what the wiki said PRIOR to the change?  Do you know it was that line as opposed to anything else on there?

• javadewd said on Aug 03, 2009....

  Contrary to popular belief, once you track an IP address into a metro area, you can't narrow it down to an address without intervening with a service provider or I would have posted it.
  
  Also, if you look at the history, it's pretty obvious.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2009....

  I'm not even in the LA Metro area.  Sorry.  You know what stop lying, it doesn't suit you.  I would never stoop to that and even if I did it would be changed back within a matter of days if not hours.  Go on try to change something, pick something relatively obscure so you'll get a little extra time on it.  Wiki doesn't work that way.

  Also Republicans, this is the man who is representing you right now and I don't see any of you smacking him down.  You know how only 10% of Muslims strap bombs to themselves but 90% are silent and we're all pretty comfortable calling them the scum of the earth?  Figure your shit out.  Yesterday

• ALIENated said on Aug 03, 2009....

  I am not sure what your last paragraph means. Who is representing me? If you are talking about javadewd, I am not concerned with Wikipedia. I figure, as you said, someone is monitoring what goes on there. And I am pretty comfortable with the definition of socialism I stated in my Socialism post.

• javadewd said on Aug 04, 2009....

  You make me laugh, Sean. You try to make me out to be some sort of right-wing extremist and I think it's hilarious. You try to make Republicans seem unfounded in their principles and in the end you fail miserably.
  
  God forbid I ever step into the public realm of politics! Could anybody (right or left) really see the irony of somebody like me being voted in as a mayor of a small town, mid-sized city or large municipality? Spooky!
  
  I actually called out some blow-hard jack-ass city official the other day in one of those spunky "town hall" meetings and had a group of individuals come up to me later asking if I'd run for mayor. I looked at them and said, "Go find your own scapegoat. I said my peace. If all of you would have had the collective balls to say the same thing months earlier, you wouldn't need a leader, especially this one." I think one might call it a "Savage" moment, I guess. May it be Randy or Michael. Either way, if I didn't think you were honestly trying to slam me I'd say thanks for the compliment. Go get 'em, Ray!
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 06, 2009....

  I like to think of myself as an independent politically, and I am begining to think the same of Sean. I would call myself a Libertarian, but they are too anti-government to suit me. I think government has its place. For example, I think that people should not be allowed to have pigs in their backyard in the city, but pigs should not be outlawed all together. That is government's role: regulate to some degee. Government can help the healthcare situation without destroying it, as Obama's plan would do.

• javadewd said on Aug 06, 2009....

  I prefer that the government check my meat for E-coli and flesh eating viruses before I eat it... So Libertarian I am not.

• ALIENated said on Aug 06, 2009....

  Good example. Government has its place, just not at the head of the table.

• javadewd said on Aug 06, 2009....

  Hell, in Greece it was the elders, the smartest, the wisest and so forth. Try making that distinction today of politicians. I don't even think they'd rate that high as the top 50 "best" con-artists!

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 06, 2009....

  As I've stated time and time and time again.  I'm a Democrat for one reason and one reason only.  In California (and most civilized states as well) you don't get to vote in the primaries if you don't pick a party.  Independents are ignored (and it's a choice to be ignored cus it's not like there is a law requiring you to vote for your candidate.

• ALIENated said on Aug 06, 2009....

  I like that, but I think that is why McCain became the Republican candidate. And there must be a lot like you in California since you keep electing Republican governors, if you can call Arnold a Republican. His wife is related to the Kennedys, right? You know she has some strong influence over him, if you know what I mean. I am a registered Republican, but I would most likely just sit out a vote instead of voting for a Democrat. They have just lost their way in my opinion, gone over to the dark side.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 07, 2009....

  If Republicans would drop the social agenda I'd be a Republican.  I prefer their fiscal (though they occasionally are stubborn to the point of insanity as there are several good ways to initiate UHC) and foriegn policies. 

• javadewd said on Aug 07, 2009....

  I don't think they'd let you in, Sean. You may qualify for McCains "Republican Lite" party some day, but you're hardly a conservative nor much of a traditionalist. Perhaps you can be a "conservative Democrat" like the blue-dogs who slammed the brakes on the health care debacle. At least they're good for something...

• ALIENated said on Aug 07, 2009....

  As far as I am concerned, the Republican social agenda is just to keep things like abortion and homo marriage in check, not let it go any farther. People who believe in God and study the Bible know that there are reasons God tells us not to do things. They may not keep you out of heaven, but they can destroy society or you. For example. Old testament dietary laws were meant to protect Jews from disease as they wandered around from place to place. They are pretty much unnecessary these days unless maybe you travel to weird places that do not process their food correctly. (Ever been to Mexico?) Keeping abortion legal and rare is OK, but it is just a catch phrase with people like Obama. He wants no restraints on abortion. No abortion should take place unless there is some kind of medical reason. I would even say in cases of rape and incest since that is such a small, small percent of abortions. Most abortions are to end an inconvenient birth. We have covered all this ground ad nauseum. The sad thing is that things like this are even an issue. Women should not want to murder their own babies except maybe if they were forced on them. People should be able to take their children to psychiatrists at the first sign of homosexuality and try to get it corrected just as they do other disorders instead of letting them grow up thinking they are thinking clearly.

Comment on "Obamacare Exposed"

Currently tagged	healthcare morons ALIENation medicare head about to explode socialism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment