Hillary / Obama or Obama / Hillary Ticket? Are the Dems Trying to Lose?

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
it seems hard to fathom hillary actually accepting anything less than being on the top of the ticket. i think she will attempt to drive the entire party off a cliff at the convention rather than accepting a loss to obama.

i don't see why she wouldn't try to talk obama into accepting the VP, setting him up for a solid run at the top position in 8 years.

from my perspective, it seems like neither one actually shores up the ticket in the way someone like maybe general wesley clark would, or perhaps the way a popular governor from a 'red' or 'purple' state would...in fact, it seems like a guarantor of total defeat.

loving the mayhem...let's sit back and watch the dems devour themselves completely!
 

pd_cm

Miki Dora status
May 20, 2003
5,323
0
0
SoCal
pretty safe to say...... my party has been handed the presidency on a silver platter...... and we're gonna mess it up and give it to Grandpa Munster.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bawling.gif" alt="" />
 

dkennedys11

Miki Dora status
Jul 17, 2006
5,175
0
0
beneath the blue suburban sky
Obama doesnt want Hilary as his VP. And I doubt obama would sack up and be her VP. Although I think whoever loses should be begging for the VP position, but what do i know?

I think if Obama wins he might choose Edwards though, they seemed to mesh.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
wow, this thing is gonna get ugly. hillary is NOT going to surrender, and she WILL strong arm the super-delegates.

hillary has got to be just livid because just about everything she would like to attack obama on would alienate the base, all the while knowing that it is exactly those things that mccain will focus on with great effectiveness.

this is the arguement she will make to the super-delegates behind closed doors, and they might just listen, especially with guys like lanny davis out there hammering the reason for the democrat super-delegates in the first place (as a check on popular emotion nominating a candidate who cannot win in the general).

i do agree that obama would not offer, and hillary would never accept, the VP offering. i do think that hillary may try to work a deal to avoid a complete meltdown at the convention where obama is offered the VP, and i think he would accept.

democrats are big on the party machine, hierarchy, and seniority, and hillary has that in spades (thanks to bill), over obama.

unfortunately, obama as VP only heals the wounds internally to the dem party, but weakens the ticket on whole.

wow...who would've thunk it? chalk it up to idiotic democrat party proportional representation.

dumb.

there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

thank god we are not a democracy.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

Yes, pandering to the rich, white minority is much better. I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Neocons also tried to make the word 'liberal' a slur. Thankfully, Crypto-Nazi squad hasn't managed to change the dictionary definition yet.


• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
well, i think you have a misunderstanding of what nazis were.

they were national socialilsts, and were very, very liberal, and very much opposed to free market capitalism. they had much more in common with the democrats than republicans!

perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it is the democrats that are opposed to 'maximum personal liberty'.

the democrats want to force children into public education, tell you what to eat, prohibit you from smoking, force you to pay for other people's food, housing, and healthcare (which means you are a slave to the state).

the democrats are trying to ban fireplaces and barebecues, and incandescent light bulbs in favor of toxic mercury leaching crappy cfl bulbs.

it is the democrats who have no respect for private property, and use every excuse available to seize private property, from eminent to endangered species, to watershed issues, to affordable housing. land owners have seen their private property rights and their ability to develop their land increasingly come under state control.

it is the democrats that want to take over administration and responsibility of nearly every aspect of your personal life, from cradle to grave, making you a ward of the ever expanding socialist bureaucratic state.

california is leading the charge in the erosion of personal liberty, responsibility, and private property rights in favor of the collective.


anyway, this is digression...why is the democrat party on a path of self-destruction? its very amusing to watch their bus careen out of control towards the cliff as hillary and obama fight for control of the wheel.
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

Yes, pandering to the rich, white minority is much better. I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Neocons also tried to make the word 'liberal' a slur. Thankfully, Crypto-Nazi squad hasn't managed to change the dictionary definition yet.


• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
well, i think you have a misunderstanding of what nazis were.

they were national socialilsts, and were very, very liberal, and very much opposed to free market capitalism. they had much more in common with the democrats than republicans!

perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it is the democrats that are opposed to 'maximum personal liberty'.

the democrats want to force children into public education, tell you what to eat, prohibit you from smoking, force you to pay for other people's food, housing, and healthcare (which means you are a slave to the state).

the democrats are trying to ban fireplaces and barebecues, and incandescent light bulbs in favor of toxic mercury leaching crappy cfl bulbs.

it is the democrats who have no respect for private property, and use every excuse available to seize private property, from eminent to endangered species, to watershed issues, to affordable housing. land owners have seen their private property rights and their ability to develop their land increasingly come under state control.

it is the democrats that want to take over administration and responsibility of nearly every aspect of your personal life, from cradle to grave, making you a ward of the ever expanding socialist bureaucratic state.

california is leading the charge in the erosion of personal liberty, responsibility, and private property rights in favor of the collective.


anyway, this is digression...why is the democrat party on a path of self-destruction? its very amusing to watch their bus careen out of control towards the cliff as hillary and obama fight for control of the wheel.
I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know. Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe. Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

Yes, pandering to the rich, white minority is much better. I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Neocons also tried to make the word 'liberal' a slur. Thankfully, Crypto-Nazi squad hasn't managed to change the dictionary definition yet.


• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
well, i think you have a misunderstanding of what nazis were.

they were national socialilsts, and were very, very liberal, and very much opposed to free market capitalism. they had much more in common with the democrats than republicans!

perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it is the democrats that are opposed to 'maximum personal liberty'.

the democrats want to force children into public education, tell you what to eat, prohibit you from smoking, force you to pay for other people's food, housing, and healthcare (which means you are a slave to the state).

the democrats are trying to ban fireplaces and barebecues, and incandescent light bulbs in favor of toxic mercury leaching crappy cfl bulbs.

it is the democrats who have no respect for private property, and use every excuse available to seize private property, from eminent to endangered species, to watershed issues, to affordable housing. land owners have seen their private property rights and their ability to develop their land increasingly come under state control.

it is the democrats that want to take over administration and responsibility of nearly every aspect of your personal life, from cradle to grave, making you a ward of the ever expanding socialist bureaucratic state.

california is leading the charge in the erosion of personal liberty, responsibility, and private property rights in favor of the collective.


anyway, this is digression...why is the democrat party on a path of self-destruction? its very amusing to watch their bus careen out of control towards the cliff as hillary and obama fight for control of the wheel.
I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know. Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe. Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
what do you mean you don't 'believe any of those things'!?!?

its exactly what democrats are doing! its the party platform!

are you brain dead?

democrats want to make home schooling illegal. democrats opposed vouchers. our wonderful democrat controlled state legislature is banning fireplaces, and discussing outlawing personal outdoor bbq's.

the democrats both in our state and nationally DO want successful individuals to pay for food, housing, and healthcare of others.

the democrats are outlawing your personal decision making responsibilities when it comes to things like smoking, eating, drinking, etc...

it is the democrats who are social engineering based on racial and gender identifications.

it is the democrats who are exercising state control over private property.

wake up.

i'm not a big fan of the republican party, but it sure beats the socialist totalitarian democrat party as the only other option.
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

Yes, pandering to the rich, white minority is much better. I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Neocons also tried to make the word 'liberal' a slur. Thankfully, Crypto-Nazi squad hasn't managed to change the dictionary definition yet.


• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
well, i think you have a misunderstanding of what nazis were.

they were national socialilsts, and were very, very liberal, and very much opposed to free market capitalism. they had much more in common with the democrats than republicans!

perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it is the democrats that are opposed to 'maximum personal liberty'.

the democrats want to force children into public education, tell you what to eat, prohibit you from smoking, force you to pay for other people's food, housing, and healthcare (which means you are a slave to the state).

the democrats are trying to ban fireplaces and barebecues, and incandescent light bulbs in favor of toxic mercury leaching crappy cfl bulbs.

it is the democrats who have no respect for private property, and use every excuse available to seize private property, from eminent to endangered species, to watershed issues, to affordable housing. land owners have seen their private property rights and their ability to develop their land increasingly come under state control.

it is the democrats that want to take over administration and responsibility of nearly every aspect of your personal life, from cradle to grave, making you a ward of the ever expanding socialist bureaucratic state.

california is leading the charge in the erosion of personal liberty, responsibility, and private property rights in favor of the collective.


anyway, this is digression...why is the democrat party on a path of self-destruction? its very amusing to watch their bus careen out of control towards the cliff as hillary and obama fight for control of the wheel.
I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know. Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe. Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
what do you mean you don't 'believe any of those things'!?!?

its exactly what democrats are doing! its the party platform!

are you brain dead?

democrats want to make home schooling illegal. democrats opposed vouchers. our wonderful democrat controlled state legislature is banning fireplaces, and discussing outlawing personal outdoor bbq's.

the democrats both in our state and nationally DO want successful individuals to pay for food, housing, and healthcare of others.

the democrats are outlawing your personal decision making responsibilities when it comes to things like smoking, eating, drinking, etc...

it is the democrats who are social engineering based on racial and gender identifications.

it is the democrats who are exercising state control over private property.

wake up.

i'm not a big fan of the republican party, but it sure beats the socialist totalitarian democrat party as the only other option.

I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know.

Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe.

Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
Background: Estimates on the number of home-schooled children in California range from 100,000 to 200,000. Parents can teach their children at home by filing a private school affidavit, hiring a credentialed tutor or enrolling them in an independent study program run by an established school.

What's changing: A state appellate court ruled that it is illegal for parents to teach their children without a teaching credential.

The future: There are no plans to enforce the ruling. An appeal is in the works.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything about Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------

As far as banning fireplaces, read all about it here...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11433

Wood-burning Fireplaces May Be Banned in California

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

-------------------------------------------------------

I enjoyed my fireplace this winter, did you?

If I'm informed that it's simply too crowded and too polluted in San Diego to continue to use my fireplace, then I'll stop using it. If they advise me that I can use it only with some type of synthetic funky little log thing, then I'll probably not use it, cause I don't like those fake logs.
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
California, the home of Regan, Nixon &amp; Arnold. And "Duke" Cunningham, before and after he went to jail.
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest (last year at this time) New York Times/CBS News Poll.

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system.
Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.

Check it out, and more –
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf


The Republicans are out of step with what we Americans value.
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
Question: What is the maximum age to enlist in the Military?

Answer: The maximum age of non-prior service enlistment, under federal law used to be age 35. In 2006 the Army convinced Congress to change this to age 44.

Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for each of the services are:

Active duty Army - 42
Army Reserves - 42
Army Natinal Guard - 42
Active duty Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Air National guard - 34
Active duty Navy - 34
Navy Reserves - 39
Active duty Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserves - 29
Active duty Coast Guard - 27
Coast Guard Reserves - 27

Age waivers are possible for those with prior military service.

If you have prior military service they might allow you to reenlist. You should check it out. Do you want to go to Iraq?
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
there's a reason the founding fathers considered the term 'democrat' a slur, meaning, "one who panders to the masses'.

Yes, pandering to the rich, white minority is much better. I'm sure that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Neocons also tried to make the word 'liberal' a slur. Thankfully, Crypto-Nazi squad hasn't managed to change the dictionary definition yet.


• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
well, i think you have a misunderstanding of what nazis were.

they were national socialilsts, and were very, very liberal, and very much opposed to free market capitalism. they had much more in common with the democrats than republicans!

perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it is the democrats that are opposed to 'maximum personal liberty'.

the democrats want to force children into public education, tell you what to eat, prohibit you from smoking, force you to pay for other people's food, housing, and healthcare (which means you are a slave to the state).

the democrats are trying to ban fireplaces and barebecues, and incandescent light bulbs in favor of toxic mercury leaching crappy cfl bulbs.

it is the democrats who have no respect for private property, and use every excuse available to seize private property, from eminent to endangered species, to watershed issues, to affordable housing. land owners have seen their private property rights and their ability to develop their land increasingly come under state control.

it is the democrats that want to take over administration and responsibility of nearly every aspect of your personal life, from cradle to grave, making you a ward of the ever expanding socialist bureaucratic state.

california is leading the charge in the erosion of personal liberty, responsibility, and private property rights in favor of the collective.


anyway, this is digression...why is the democrat party on a path of self-destruction? its very amusing to watch their bus careen out of control towards the cliff as hillary and obama fight for control of the wheel.
I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know. Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe. Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
what do you mean you don't 'believe any of those things'!?!?

its exactly what democrats are doing! its the party platform!

are you brain dead?

democrats want to make home schooling illegal. democrats opposed vouchers. our wonderful democrat controlled state legislature is banning fireplaces, and discussing outlawing personal outdoor bbq's.

the democrats both in our state and nationally DO want successful individuals to pay for food, housing, and healthcare of others.

the democrats are outlawing your personal decision making responsibilities when it comes to things like smoking, eating, drinking, etc...

it is the democrats who are social engineering based on racial and gender identifications.

it is the democrats who are exercising state control over private property.

wake up.

i'm not a big fan of the republican party, but it sure beats the socialist totalitarian democrat party as the only other option.

I'm a Democrat and I don't believe any of those thing, nor do any of the Democrats I know.

Why don't you tell us what you believe rather that tell everyone what you think others believe.

Or hasn't Rush Limbah told you yet what you believe.
dude, then it begs the question, 'why the fark are you a democrat?'

this IS what the democrats are doing when they have political power and control. it is happening NOW!

every single item i mentioned is what democrats are in the process of doing...just take a look at the california legislature's agenda for chrissakes!!!
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
Background: Estimates on the number of home-schooled children in California range from 100,000 to 200,000. Parents can teach their children at home by filing a private school affidavit, hiring a credentialed tutor or enrolling them in an independent study program run by an established school.

What's changing: A state appellate court ruled that it is illegal for parents to teach their children without a teaching credential.

The future: There are no plans to enforce the ruling. An appeal is in the works.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything about Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------

As far as banning fireplaces, read all about it here...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11433

Wood-burning Fireplaces May Be Banned in California

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

-------------------------------------------------------

I enjoyed my fireplace this winter, did you?

If I'm informed that it's simply too crowded and too polluted in San Diego to continue to use my fireplace, then I'll stop using it. If they advise me that I can use it only with some type of synthetic funky little log thing, then I'll probably not use it, cause I don't like those fake logs.
dude, you are not paying full attention...this was a liberal democrat judge making this ruling. in addition to this, the teacher's unions and democrats in california have made home schooling of children increasingly burdensome over the years, and the reasons are twofold: attendance revenue and indoctrination.

as for socialized medicine, it is a horrible idea. currently, the US has more MRI machines than the rest of the world COMBINED! this is because our system is still a for profit system.

do you want to wait 6 months for an MRI after you tear your MCL surfing, and then wait another year for the surgery?

the founder of quebec's universal system on which the canadian system was modeled has recently stated that the system is a complete failure, and is now working hard to re-introduce privatization to canada.

the larger question is: why in the world would you want to turn healthcare management over to government!?!?

the same people who designed the completely assanine and idiotic democrat primary system which is on full display is the same group of people you trust to engineer an infinitely more complex bureacracy!?!?

people, its your life, and your health is YOUR responsibility. if you turn it over to the government, you are effectively handing over your autonomy, your body, your decisions, to the state....the state will OWN you.

don't for one second that the spiraling costs of universal health care won't cause the state to start deciding who gets to live, and who gets to die.

don't think for one second that the state won't start to dictate, as costs go through the roof, your lifestyle decisions, and penalize HEAVILY those who don't get in line.

don't think for one second, once you turn ownership of the health of YOUR body to the state, that they won't start looking to eugenics...

national socialism (nazism) comes to america.

are you really that dumb?
 

Lankameese

Billy Hamilton status
Sep 26, 2006
1,740
0
0
not crazy about George W and voted for him, but voting for John Kerry was never going to happen, but not voting gives me no right to complain

Hillary is Bill's third and possibly fourth term, but this time he just will not have the spotlight on him as he pulls the strings... I'm no politico, but wasn't Bill disbarred from practicing law... does this not matter to anybody? Maybe I am mistaken...Hillary would sell Chelsea into Thailand sex slavery if it meant she could get elected, power whore, she no more cares about you than a dog at the pound, but she sure knows how to endear herself to you... love the "she has not run a corner store" yet everybody wants to go down and gag on her strapon as Bill pushes the back of your skull

Obama... sounds like he is at least an intelligent guy when he opens his mouth but was filmed in plain view not putting his hand over his heart nor did he utter one word of the national anthem, has parties with George Soros, and his wife is ashamed to be an American until only the past 60 days... has he run a corner store? yes, he stands for change alright, but his version of change and your understnding of it, or what version he wants to pimp to you, may end up being two very different things... you like the berka? Its a new low that the planes fell out of hte sky, we are at war with islamic/muslim terrorists, and everyone wants to elect a muslim.. I just do not get it, people are so desparate and mad at GW that I think they would vote for Putin if he was running...

And there is McCain... yes, old, but is that all there is to say about the guy.. he's old?.... anybody, man or woman, who served their country and was literally tortured for years i think has earned at least the right to be heard, at least he has run a corner store and been held up and put in the freezer and came out guns blazing.. the guy is a bonified hero, the real kind, not the guy who climbed a tree and saved the neighborhood cat... and i do not even care too much for him as well, but he is more trustworthy, more honorable, and has earned the right to be repected by his peers, and he even has a first hand experience of war and combat because he has doen it before, he's been there w the gun in his hand, he knows what our fighting men and women are going through, you cannot even say that about GW... he's old, he cannot lift his arms, etc etc... did you ever think to considerthese physical ailments/disabilities may just be the direct result of the torture?.... hes no idiot, and if age, sex, or more free gubberment money is the reason you vote for someone you might want to rethink that and possibly have a list that is at least 3 bullet points long in order to cast your vote for someone...

just remember that if you need a ride to the voting booth Al and Jesse will provide you all with a free ride and tell you who to vote for, and why wouldn't you trust them?

whatever happens, it is one of the more interesting elections, in my voting life that I can remember
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
in addition to this, the teacher's unions and democrats in california have made home schooling of children increasingly burdensome over the years, and the reasons are twofold: attendance revenue and indoctrination.
Indoctrination is why there shouldn't be home schooling. People in America home school their children primarily for religious or moral reasons, and are almost twice as likely to be Evangelical than the national average. Indoctrination is right.

as for socialized medicine, it is a horrible idea. currently, the US has more MRI machines than the rest of the world COMBINED! this is because our system is still a for profit system.
What's the use of having all those MRI machines if only the chosen few have access to it? Only so that insurance middle men, leaches and parasites can make profit from the system. They don't contribute to the system itself, only themselves.


do you want to wait 6 months for an MRI after you tear your MCL surfing, and then wait another year for the surgery?
You base this "fact" on what? If your surgery is urgent you will not wait for 6 months. It's a fat lie, lifted from a Rush Limbaugh's script. System like that does not exist.
If you haven't been anywhere or experienced health care in other western countries with established Universal Health system and still refuse to do your own research, you should really shut the f*uck about something you have no clue about.

Opinion is one thing, everybody is entitled to it, but basing it on ignorance and non-facts is idiotic.


the larger question is: why in the world would you want to turn healthcare management over to government!?!?
Why would we want police, fire or judicial system run by the government?
Because when profit and greed mixes with public service that our lives depend on, there's a conflict of interest.


people, its your life, and your health is YOUR responsibility. if you turn it over to the government, you are effectively handing over your autonomy, your body, your decisions, to the state....the state will OWN you.
How will state "own you"? Because it will make health care accessible to you instead of burning the money that could be spent on health, on lining up the pockets of people who profit from human misery and contribute a FAT ZERO back to the system?

don't for one second that the spiraling costs of universal health care won't cause the state to start deciding who gets to live, and who gets to die.
That's what's happening right now. Where have you been? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />

national socialism (nazism) comes to america.

are you really that dumb?
You are flat out one of the dumbest people who ever posted here.
Not because of your inept thinking, but because you run away from threads like this like a little girl because other than slapping labels like "Bolshevik" and "national socialism" on people, you don't know how to debate issues because you are incapable of reason, like most of your ilk.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
well, dude, you've proven that:

1. you hate free markets,
2. you don't understand how powerful the profit incentive is and has been in the advancement of society, liberty, and technology (including medical),
3. you think the federal government can efficiently and cost effectively administer a national socialist health insurance program,
4. that you don't understand that health insurance coverage is NOT the same thing as affordable health care availability,
5. that abdicating your responsibility to provide for your own health care services to the state (especially in a plan like hillary's) is effectively turning ownership of your body over to the state,
6. you believe that the state should have ownership over children, instead of parents.

sounds like a national socialist to me...opposition to the free market system, and state control over individuals, their health, and their children.

i actually think you are probably more of stalinist, too far left for even nazis to stomach.

you've also shown that you will not deal with some of my other salient points, like why is the founder of quebec's socialized healthcare system, the one on which the national program was modeled, admitting it is a failure, and is working hard to bring privatization and profit incentive back?

dude, the USSR failed for a reason, but apparently, the lesson is lost on you.

seriously, a national socialized health care system would eat up a huge percentage of our GDP and reduce everyone's standard of living, cause a shortage of actual health care services (health insurance is NOT the same as health care), and limit the choices and freedom of individuals to choose the level of coverage or care they want.

anyway, all of this is off-topic: wow, are the hillary democrats and obama democrats going to rip the party apart at the seams?

interesting that bill 'disbarred' clinton is floating the joint ticket balloon, and obama is just shooting it down. of course, he's winning the pledged delegate and popular vote count, so he's in the cat-bird seat. hillary is sweating, but will work the party machine for the super delegates.

stupid democrats and their lame-brained proportional primary system and obviously rigged rules. unfortunately, hillary is looking at the one opponent she can't use the rules to beat, because he's black, er, half-black, er african-american (but not like most 'african americans', he's more like a half kenyan-american, or an american half-kenyan, in that he's not really from the same cultural extraction we usually think of when we say 'black' er, 'african-american').

the rules are the rules, and neither one is going to have enough delegates going into the convention, but can democrats afford to lose the 10% vote of blacks in the general? can the democrats afford to alienate all the single women that would follow hillary into hell (you know, the ones who want to marry the government, and want all those entitlement programs hillary admits we cannot afford)?

crazy. they are heading for the cliff, and they know it, but there's nothing anyone can do about it.

well, hillary could do something about it...

the dems are doomed. obama is fatally flawed, and so is hillary.

mccain has potential health issues, but he's head and shoulders above the competition.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
1. you hate free markets,
Not true. Is UK not a free market? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />

2. you don't understand how powerful the profit incentive is and has been in the advancement of society, liberty, and technology (including medical),
It would be helpful if you read what I wrote and then comment on it, instead of repeat the same old. I'll say it again since you refused to read the first time: "Why would we want police, fire or judicial system run by the government?
Because when profit and greed mixes with public service that our lives depend on, there's a conflict of interest." Mixing for profit business with life depending public services is wrong in many, many ways.

3. you think the federal government can efficiently and cost effectively administer a national socialist health insurance program,
I don't "think", I know it can, as proven many times in examples around the world. And again, you choose to ignore those examples in favor for empty Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Unbelievable. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

4. that you don't understand that health insurance coverage is NOT the same thing as affordable health care availability,
I know it's not the same because insurance based health service is NOT affordable. Even if it was, insurance companies pick and choose who they want to insure. Even if you can afford insurance, you are not guaranteed to receive care. Even if you are insured your claim can be denied. Because insurance companies are in business of MAKING MONEY, NOT HELPING PEOPLE LIVE. It's an unethical system that harms the majority of Americans. They consist of greedy, leeches and parasites - you know, the people you despise. Which is why the US health care system is the one of the cruelest and the least efficient in the world.

5. that abdicating your responsibility to provide for your own health care services to the state (especially in a plan like hillary's) is effectively turning ownership of your body over to the state,
As opposed to turning the ownership of my body to corporation who's only goal is to pay out as little claims as possible in order to make profit - killing and harming millions in the process? Yeah, that's really smart.
I'm already paying my taxes. Why do I have to pay the middle man in order to get health care, while my tax money goes on bullshit wars, out of control military spending, giving money away to private contractors and putting corporations on welfare? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the oney directly into the health care instead of giving it to insurance parasite who doesn't put a penny back into the system? Are we doing it just so the insurance man can make profit from my illness? Health system can only benefit from removing that bottomless money pit. How's paying money to some fat dude sitting on his ass and picking which claims to approve and which to reject and jacking the premiums up while f*cking people out of health care by small print disclaimers help anybody?

6. you believe that the state should have ownership over children, instead of parents.
It's a rhetoric and you know it. It's absolute bullshit. Get out and see the world. Nobody "owns children" in any of the civilized western countries where health care is accessible to everyone. I know for fact that you've never left this continent, because your talk reeks of small minded ignorance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />



i actually think you are probably more of stalinist, too far left for even nazis to stomach.
Sure, western Europe is ruled by Nazis and Stalinists! Last I checked, they have a capitalist free market over there. You seem to be pretty well of. Sit on the ***** plane and see for yourself.

you've also shown that you will not deal with some of my other salient points, like why is the founder of quebec's socialized healthcare system, the one on which the national program was modeled, admitting it is a failure, and is working hard to bring privatization and profit incentive back?
Big deal, one guy doesn't like the system. I don't see a mass movement to privatize health care anywhere. Why would people NOT want to have access to health care? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

And you haven't responded to ANY of my points. None. You just repeat the same old right wing crypto-Nazi bullshit over and over again.

dude, the USSR failed for a reason, but apparently, the lesson is lost on you.
And UK, Sweden, France ++++++++ all failed..... oh wait, they didn't! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />

seriously, a national socialized health care system would eat up a huge percentage of our GDP and reduce everyone's standard of living, cause a shortage of actual health care services (health insurance is NOT the same as health care), and limit the choices and freedom of individuals to choose the level of coverage or care they want.
Again, this claim stems from pure ignorance. I lived in the UK for 10 years. I could absolutely choose which doctor I wanted to see. I did not wait for emergencies. I waited only for non-emergency surgeries. I could see a doctor faster than anywhere in the US. The care I received was better than any I experienced in the US. Doctors don't work for the government, they work for themselves. You can still pay for private health care if you choose to do so. You are clueless.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service
the UK is NOT a free market system...users of privatized care pay twice!

why shouldn't insurance companies earn a profit? its just amazing that people have this attitude that they are entitled to health care paid for by others. i guarantee that the federal government will take a much larger chunk of every health care dollar in transfer costs than any private provider.

btw, police and fire departments are run by local governments, not the federal bureacracy.

the profit incentive in the private sector and the establishment of free markets has proven to be the most efficient and cost effective method for delivering goods and services of all types.

if you can't see how the kind of universal health care coverage being proposed will stip individuals of privacy, how it will increase costs, reduce availability, and basically give the federal government a huge increase in control over individuals, you are hopelessly naive.

the best solution would be to get the federal government completely out of the health insurance business altogether. if insurance companies could legally offer customized plans without all the federal coverage mandates, then there would be very low cost options for the vast majority of americans who don't need coverage for everything under the sun.

health care ain't cheap...how could it be?

the idea of a federal government takeover of 40% of the american economy, and the largest expansion of the federal government in our history, is a recipe for disaster.

why do liberals, socialists, and communists think the solution to every problem is more centralized federal government control? socialist wealth redistribution programs and their associated inefficient bureacratic monsters just suck the lifeblood capital out of the economy, reducing everyone's ability to prosper.

who cares, though...universal healthcare is going to go down in flames, again, along with the democrat nominee.

its funny how anti-individualist collectivists like yourself trust the government so much, as long as its your all-powerful leftist bureacratic regulatory version.
 

swegin

Gerry Lopez status
Sep 20, 2007
1,068
0
0
carolina
are you really that dumb?
You're calling me dumb? Don't make me come over there and kick your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------
An example of national healthcare:

The Best Care Anywhere
Veterans hospitals are producing the highest quality care in the country. Their turnaround points the way toward solving America's health-care crisis.
By Phillip Longman

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

I wish I was a veteran. You could be one if you wanted to be, as long as you're not over age 42. If you previously served in the military that you are eligible for high quality healthcare from the VA.
---------------------------------------------------------

By the way, nice "free market."

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.
 

GWS

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
42,605
21
0
done
I always thought Veterans Hospitals were a step below Veterinarians. They're kind of an incompetence cliché. I even googled “veterans hospitals incompetence” and there was plenty of current material. Newer than yours even.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

I'm all for doing something to fix healthcare, but I'm thinking the VA is not even close to a shining example.