Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose?

41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
HE HAD TO. All the money Clinton too away from Military and Intelligence spending to "balance the budget" was HURTING us. Not that the Clinton's were ever fans of the military. Or vice versa.
See above - lack of military pork projects was not the problem.
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
And I am tired of the left over-exaggerating the "crises" for shilly reasons.
Yeah, people pointing out that the bill has to be paid, eventually, is really inconvenient for the Bush Regime.

I love that you're happy to scare-monger about the idea that Democrats MIGHT raise taxes, but are quick to quell worries that credit-card spending by Bush is fine, and 'over-exaggerated', as long as we don't start to pay it down it will be fine!

Massive government over-spend is just fine, as long as it is Pork for Republican Contractors, and it's done on credit, not pay-as-you go! Love it.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Pork spending for Halliburton and Bush's cronies could not have, and has not, made the US any safer.
Look how many times we were attacked during the 90s, and RIGHT AFTER Bush took office. We were attacked twice at home not under Bush's watch, and one of those times was one of our own. Because of the screwups at Ruby lake and Wako that the clinton administration is still denying.
It is not being attacked because it did not spend enough money on defense,
It could have indeed stopped it if MORE intelligence was available.
but because it has a stupid and immoral foreign policy. Wake up.
Oh yes.. I forgot .. it was "our" fault.

It had nothing to do with that. It was a fantasy ideology. Allah had spoken!
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:08 PM
 
You think Wako and Ruby lake were because "Allah had spoken"? You're stupider than even I thought.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
See above - lack of military pork projects was not the problem.
Ok because peeb said so, it's not the problem.
Yeah, people pointing out that the bill has to be paid, eventually, is really inconvenient for the Bu... <irrelevancy removed to save space.>
How in the heck did you get that from what I said? You just took what I said, and spun it into some bizarro extreme version that wasn't even remotely close to what you spun it to. If you have to revert to such shenanigans, you have no argument.
Massive government over-spend is just fine, as long as it is Pork for Republican Contractors, and it's done on credit, not pay-as-you go! Love it.
Who said that? Not I. I said if the Military and Intelligence spending wasn't practically cut in half to "balance the budget" such a spending wouldn't have had to take place.

Just like if you leave a car out for 8 years and don't put any money into it. When you actually have to use it it's gonna be broke. And you'll have to throw a ton of money at it to make it work right.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You think Wako and Ruby lake were because "Allah had spoken"?
Show me where I said that. (Hint, I didn't) as for the rest of your post, I'll pretend you didn't say that for your benefit.

Again, when you have to revert to such tactics, you've already lost.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:12 PM
 
Look, you're done here. You're out of sense. Your argument that Democrats raise government spending more than Republicans is shown to be bogus, your confusion over terrorism, and how to stop it is evident, and your car analogies are opaque. You can't blame Clinton for the mess Bush got the US into.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Show me where I said that. (Hint, I didn't) as for the rest of your post, I'll pretend you didn't say that for your benefit.

Again, when you have to revert to such tactics, you've already lost.
Perhaps if your posts were not so confused, it would be easier to understand what you think.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
waiting to HAVE KIDS until you can AFFORD to take care of them? Interesting concept huh? It's part of that responsibility thing.
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Pity the world doesn't fit into your moral framework, huh?
MORAL FRAMEWORK? How about NOT being stupid and impulsive?
In theory - great. In practice - that's not the real world.

Again, ideology overrides logic.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Look, you're done here. You're out of sense.
Ah here comes the character assassinations again, Why the need for this type of verbal masturbation?
Your argument that Democrats raise government spending more than Republicans is shown to be bogus
Where did I say that. Show me.
your confusion over terrorism, and how to stop it is evident, and your car analogies are opaque.
More lame verbal masturbation.
You can't blame Clinton for the mess Bush got the US into.
I can blame Clinton for cutting military and defense spending when we needed it really bad. Yes indeed I can. And it wouldn't be a baseless blame either.

As for your other post, not even worth replying to. Just more chest pounding silliness.

Again when one reverts to such "tactics" you've shown you've ran out of tricks in your bag. So you just start slinging mud.

I am not sure if you are new here or not, but that stuff doesn't fly here.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 10:47 PM
 
41 days in Iraq.
ebuddy
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Cut military and intelligence spending in the 90s to "balance the budget" when we needed it the most.
I love how you put balance the budget in quotes. Only liberals worry about silly things like that. True conservatives, like you and ebuddy, would rather tax Americans and blow up the money (or, waste it in Iraq).

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
41 days in Iraq.
Why? At least spending it on health insurance would do some good for our country.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You think Wako and Ruby lake were because "Allah had spoken"? You're stupider than even I thought.
It was Waco and Ruby Ridge, both BTW happened under Hillary's hand picked AG Janet Reno.

Jayna Davis, a TV reporter from Oklahoma City uncovered evidence that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing
full article here
Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity | News | This is London
The FBI is under pressure from the highest political levels in Washington to investigate suspected links between Iraq and the Oklahoma bombing.

Senior aides to US Attorney-General John Ashcroft have been given compelling evidence that former Iraqi soldiers were directly involved in the 1995 bombing that killed 185 people.

The methodically assembled dossier from Jayna Davis, a former investigative TV reporter, could destroy the official version that white supremacists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were solely responsible for what, at the time, was the worst act of terrorism on American soil.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:18 PM
 
So that's the new reason we went to war!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Jayna Davis, a TV reporter from Oklahoma City uncovered evidence that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing
Aaaaa...

It would be funny if you weren't serious.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:13 AM
 
Perhaps Iraq is, even as we speak, trying to provide health care for Americans, in order to destroy them! Somehow. Erm, no, that can't be right....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:26 AM
 
Band-aid solutions won't work.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:36 AM
 
By 'band-aid solutions' I presume you mean the guerilla health care coverage by Iraqi insurgents that is being provided illegally to Americas poor?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:43 AM
 
Exactly. The Oklahoma bombing was just smuggled anaesthetic gasses blowing up accidentally. I have proof - there's an article about it on the interwebs.

(goes away to write article about it on the interwebs)
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:56 AM
 
Maybe the KKK was actually a plot by Saddam Hussein?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Maybe the KKK was actually a plot by Saddam Hussein?
No Democrats started the KKK as well as Jim Crow laws, segregation etc. As far as Oklahoma City is concerned the Clinton Junta did everything they could to cover up any possible evidence of middle eastern involvement, outlandish as it may sound. That way he did not have to take any action. You probably believe that Pan Am 747 just blew up due to "faulty wiring" and Boeing just said "OK" our bad. Why wasn't Boeing sued? Its a little fishy that the Clinton Junta approved Boeing to buy McDonald Douglas not too long afterward?, looks like a payoff to me.
So that's the new reason we went to war!
Never said it was.

Exactly. The Oklahoma bombing was just smuggled anaesthetic gasses blowing up accidentally. I have proof - there's an article about it on the interwebs.

(goes away to write article about it on the interwebs)
If you actually read the article you would have seen that it is a reprint from over 5 years ago on a British website.
Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity
By James Langton in New York, for the Evening Standard 21.10.02
What happened to the search for John Doe #2?
http://www.jaynadavis.com/media/newsreport.wmv
Jayna Davis' website
JaynaDavis.com: From Middle America to The Middle East


Hide your head in the sand and maybe it will go away
( Last edited by Chongo; Sep 28, 2007 at 01:34 AM. )
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:32 AM
 
Who faked the Moon landings?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Who faked the Moon landings?
nice try
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:40 AM
 
Come on. Everyone can see this is a painful stretch, ever for you. The Bush Junta was reaching for everything they could find - making up weapons of mass destruction, lying left and right. Even they didn't think of trying to link Saddam to Oklahoma City.
Nice try.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:48 AM
 
Clinton (both of them) believed they were there, and they were and were found.
Democratic Talk Radio: Democratic Voices Column
June 16, 2003

WMD Found In Iraq

Weapons of mass destruction were quietly found in Iraq earlier this month. For reasons that will be revealed in this column, the Bush Administration has been reluctant to promote the discovery of a very large number of offensive missiles. The find was reported in the “Periscope” section of the June 9th, 2003 issue of Newsweek in a short article titled, “Return to Sender.”

While the current Bush Administration is pushing the likely fictional notion that two mobile labs discovered in Iraq were WMD weapons factories, most experts disagree. It looks increasingly likely they were really designed solely to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons. See t r u t h o u t - Iraqi Mobile Labs Nothing To Do With Germ Warfare, Report Finds for details. The hydrogen use has been verified by investigators for the British government.

The offensive missiles discovered are an entirely different matter. The weapons are offensive in nature and definitely threatened peace in the region. They could have killed many civilians in surrounding countries. These WMD missiles were legally sold to Saddam by an irresponsible Western government seeking profit and influence. The sales strengthened the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. They helped protect Saddam from international pressure and made international pressure against his government for killing his own people much less effective.

The most shocking element in the WMD missile story is the country of origin for the missile hoard. Bush Republicans stirring up hatred for our French and German allies for opposing the Iraq Invasion predicted that those Countries would be found to be suppliers to Saddam’s WMD programs. Neither sold the missiles nor did China or Russia. They were sold to Saddam by the United States of America during the Reagan-Bush Administration!

We all know the Reagan-Bush Administration supplied missiles illegally to the mullahs of Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair. It now looks like this was not the only WMD export to rogue nations under Reagan and the senior George Bush. We need public hearings into their actions during that time. The current Bush Administration has restricted public access to the official papers of the Reagan-Bush Administration by executive order since long before the 9-11 attacks. Why? What crimes or mistakes are being covered-up? Are we doomed to repeat them under Bush-Cheney?

This column written by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence (hosts of Democratic Talk Radio). Confirmation of copy: call 931-438-1500 or write Democratic Talk Radio, 7A Planville Drive, Fayetteville, TN 37334.

Sincerely,
Stephen Crockett
Al Lawrence
Co-hosts: “Current Affair” News Talk Program
WEKR 1240 am radio
(931) 433-3545

Maybe we can retroactively impeach and try Bush 41 and dig up Reagan too!
( Last edited by Chongo; Sep 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:54 AM
 
More for you
Full article
WorldNetDaily: Saddam&#39;s WMD have been found
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

Key assertions by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all.

But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:56 AM
 
FOXNews.com - Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Thursday, June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 03:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Well there we agree - I guess I just don't see that anyone has enumerated any merits to the tax code solution, except that it has been reliable so far in producing no progress. Seems to me that that is what the NeoCons like most about it.

The basic idea is simple and elegant: give a tax credit to people who get insurance for their children.

Uhh... that's basically it.

The more credit you give, the more "left" you are getting with the policy. You can give enough that someone who doesn't get premium private health insurance for their children is actually losing money.

Of course, this doesn't work for people who don't pay taxes. They're the ones who need a government program. Everyone else can be carrot and sticked to it.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 28, 2007 at 04:34 AM. )
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
I love how you put balance the budget in quotes. Only liberals worry about silly things like that. True conservatives, like you and ebuddy, would rather tax Americans and blow up the money (or, waste it in Iraq).
No I quoted it cause I didn't really see the budget as being balanced. It just looked like he did it. After it was done we had LARGE losses of money from military and defense spending. That isn't too balanced to me. That was just a quick fix to make people think it was. And of course They knew of a righty got into the white house they will fix the military and intelligence spending back to where it's SUPPOSED to be, and then they can scream BIG SPENDER!11

Just like the whole "The Right favors the rich!" When the left are in office, they over-tax the rich, who already pay over 50% of our taxes. When someone from the right gets into office and they lower it to a more FAIR percentage, the left screams "THEY ARE FAVORING THE RICH! GIVING THEM BIGGER BREAKS!!11" When that isn't the case. They are just putting things back a little more fair.

The Gov isn't Robinhood. It doesn't steal from the Rich, and give to the poor.
Why? At least spending it on health insurance would do some good for our country.
Or maybe it would make our healthcare WORSE.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Aaaaa...

It would be funny if you weren't serious.
So there was nothing about the article you could debunk? Cool.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 07:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Clinton (both of them) believed they were there, and they were and were found.
Democratic Talk Radio: Democratic Voices Column
June 16, 2003

WMD Found In Iraq
Yes but it didn't matter then, Bush wasn't in office. Funny that we didn't need one of these Political threads (all politics went into the main lounge) until Bush got into office and the anti-bush zealots started to flood the Lounge with anti-Bush zealotry. People started complaining about it. That they had to wade through all the political BS to get to anything decent. So they created this trash dump. Regardless of what certain anti-Bush mods will say.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Why? At least spending it on health insurance would do some good for our country.
I was making a mockery of the question posed in the thread title. Genuine questions get genuine answers, stupid questions get...

a lot of peeb and tie involved.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
"New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

The problem with the article is the fact that if there were any compelling "smoking gun" evidences whatsoever, this Administration would've been all over it. This Administration has pretty well conceded that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I can be convinced I'm wrong on this because believe me, I really thought they were there and was hoping for the ones who assured us they were to really show some resolve here, but uh... I was let down.

*edited to include; I see the article there suggesting the Reagan-Bush Administration sold them to Iraq and we can't access the papers and uh... I'm hard-pressed in trying to understand why so many from the other side of the aisle weren't more vocal about this.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Sep 28, 2007 at 08:03 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The problem with the article is the fact that if there were any compelling "smoking gun" evidences whatsoever, this Administration would've been all over it. This Administration has pretty well conceded that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I can be convinced I'm wrong on this because believe me, I really thought they were there and was hoping for the ones who assured us they were to really show some resolve here, but uh... I was let down.
Remember that thread where we showed that before Bush got into office that practically the whole world thought Saddam had WMDs? We linked quotes from countries all over the world claiming something must be done. Even from Canada!

This one really gets me.

"Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

When he said that, NO ONE questioned him. He said we were going to attack Iraq's nuke program. If he didn't have any, why did Clinton bomb Iraq that time?

No one demanded proof. Most everyone believed Iraq had them. Why? Saddam kept telling people he did.

This is one of my fav articles.

CNN - Clinton demands total access for U.N. arms inspectors - February 17, 1998

The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.
Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."


Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them,"


The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

The president said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."



He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

...ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."


Sounds like Bush word for word. But it wasn't! It was Clinton!

Again Bush when he first got into the whitehouse, was juts following the plans and information Clinton was.

BTW This is the real kicker.

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.


I guess it was ok then.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
So there was nothing about the article you could debunk? Cool.
Get real.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
In theory - great. In practice - that's not the real world.

Again, ideology overrides logic.
Stupidity and immaturity are Ideologies?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
At least spending it on health insurance would do some good for our country.
Wouldn't you take better care and be more cautious if you knew you didn't have insurance?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:55 AM
 
As I was driving into work there was a report on this health bill (S-CHIP). The funding will come from ANOTHER increase in tobacco taxes. Looks like there will be a need to get more people to start smoking to repleace the ones that the tobacco companies are killing off by using thier products. This was the funding mechanism Hillary care was going to use, an increase in tobacco taxes. On one hand the left demonizes tobacco companies, and on the other hand it creates programs that require people to use those products to keep them funded. Tell people they are evil for smoking, then fund programs on thier back
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Stupidity and immaturity are Ideologies?
Are they putting something in the water over there?

Seriously, at some point reasonable discourse breaks down to the point where sane people just have to step away.

<steps away>
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Are they putting something in the water over there?

Seriously, at some point reasonable discourse breaks down to the point where sane people just have to step away.

<steps away>
When Face Ache thinks he's one of the sane people compared to the rest of the posters you know this place has gone down the sh**ter......



"Learn to swim"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 09:02 AM
 
It scares me too.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
Get real.
Sit on it Ralph!

Hey, this is fun!
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
When Face Ache thinks he's o
Key word.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
When Face Ache thinks he's one of the sane people compared to the rest of the posters you know this place has gone down the sh**ter......
I disagree with most of ya'll about everything. I just don't have the patience to participate here anymore. It's not even funny to **** with folks anymore. Damn shame the tards took over. I miss the good ole days...

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
I disagree with most of ya'll about everything. I just don't have the patience to participate here anymore. It's not even funny to **** with folks anymore. Damn shame the tards took over. I miss the good ole days...
Agreed......
I think.....
Was that a jab at me!?!?




"Learn to swim"
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 10:25 AM
 
Nah, dood. You and me are cool. You got some beliefs that don't jive with my world-view and you don't condone my animal lovin. We all got our faults (mostly yours) but in the end, at least we're not freakin Aussies.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
Nah, dood. You and me are cool. You got some beliefs that don't jive with my world-view and you don't condone my animal lovin. We all got our faults (mostly yours) but in the end, at least we're not freakin Aussies.
As long as you leave my cat out of your loving I'm fine with it!

I'll keep my sharpening of swords plotting evil schemes of complete world dominance for me (and my cat), OK?

"Learn to swim"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
looks like Wal-Mart can take care of Health Care "Crisis" on it's own.
Wal-Mart Adds Drugs to $4 Program
NY Times Advertisement
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post

Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org

Do you honestly support this?
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-F...cts-070122.pdf
Yes, I do.
The FairTax Plan is a nonpartisan national grassroots campaign to replace the federal income tax system with a progressive national retail sales tax. It provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement and, through companion legislation, repeal of the 16th Amendment.
When the Fair Tax is enacted we will be able to afford to buy insurance on our own, but we can't be trusted to do that can we? Nationalized health care is nothing more than another power grab by the collectivists. The more we rely on the government, the less control we have over our own lives.

Sorry if I am confusing you with facts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-F...cts-070122.pdf
Yes, I do.

When the Fair Tax is enacted we will be able to afford to buy insurance on our own, but we can't be trusted to do that can we? Nationalized health care is nothing more than another power grab by the collectivists. The more we rely on the government, the less control we have over our own lives.
What is stopping the health insurance industry from raising their rates the moment that people have more money to spend on health care?

You do realize that most government health care proposals are about coming up with a hybrid system where you can choose between one or the other? Did you know that Canada's system is also a hybrid system?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
looks like Wal-Mart can take care of Health Care "Crisis" on it's own.
Wal-Mart Adds Drugs to $4 Program
NY Times Advertisement
I'm glad you mention Wal-Mart, since the taxpayer cuts them a 1.7bn check every year for health care for their workers.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2007, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What is stopping the health insurance industry from raising their rates the moment that people have more money to spend on health care?

You do realize that most government health care proposals are about coming up with a hybrid system where you can choose between one or the other? Did you know that Canada's system is also a hybrid system?
Britain also has a hybrid system - every modern economy does. You can choose your own private health care provider if you want to. The government intervenes to make sure that everyone can have healthcare.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2