Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- JKristofer0
The majority of arguments to vote for Obama is based on why not to vote for Mccain - and the majority of arguments to vote Mccain is based on why not to vote for Obama.
I would much rather question the candidate I am voting for then the one I am not.
- JKristofer0
I'll stop questioning my candidate just as soon as his/her campaign puts me on the payroll.
- BattleAxe0
you see , this kind of shit just does nothing for us ,
- BattleAxe0
who buys into this shit anymore
"U.S. military sources are confirming that on Sunday U.S. special forces raided a location in eastern Syria that was being used by a network of Syrian military officials and al Qaeda-connected groups to smuggle foreign jihadists into Iraq. The Syrians, predictably, denounced the raid as "an outrageous crime" and an "unprovoked" attack on a "sovereign country." "
- enough already
http://online.wsj.co…BattleAxe - The Pakistanis, for their part, have repeatedly decried the strikes as a violation of their country's sovereigntyBattleAxe
- Buys what? Our reported reasons or Syrias response?JKristofer
- reported reasonsBattleAxe
- I think it's kind of funny that because most people don't agree with the war or Bush that automatically countries liketommyo
- Syria are innocent little lambs.tommyo
- the nature of black ops is no information. It follows that what is public is scripted.********
- yes because syria is attacking a lot of countriesBattleAxe
- enough already
- TheBlueOne0
"The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory, but to keep the very structure of society intact."
- George Orwell
- ********0
so, did barack won?
- hallelujah0
not sure why strongly preferring one candidate over another implies you lend uncritical support to everything they do
- ukit0
I wonder if a single mind has been changed in 181 pages of posting. Somehow I doubt it:D
- mine has been changed several times especially when confronting the mendacity of the republican fail machine********
- mine has been changed several times especially when confronting the mendacity of the republican fail machine
- dbloc0
Oh Goodness.
- ********0
Barack Obama to Appear on The Daily Show Wednesday watch!
- tommyo0
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008, AND THEREAFTERAffordable Health Care
One of the campaign themes this election cycle is "affordable" health care. Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care? Shouldn't we also ask how things turned out in countries where there is socialized medicine?
The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute's annual publication, "Waiting Your Turn," reports that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks.
According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?
Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008), "What this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government health care.
Government health care can become ghoulish as reported in a Human Events (1/17/08) article "Gordon Brown Wants Your Organs" written by Susan Easton. As in the U.S., many Brits die while on the waiting list for organ donations. The prime minister has a solution called a "Presumed Consent Scheme." Mrs. Easton says, "If you don't specifically carry a card saying 'leave my corpse alone' -- known as the 'opt out option', or unless one's family is on hand to object, one's remains are considered fair game for an organ harvest festival." Supporters of the scheme argue that what is done with people's organs after their death should not be up to the next of kin. Such a vision differs little from one that holds that after one's death he becomes the property of the state.
Of course, if socialized medicine becomes a reality here, Americans can do as many Brits do. Mrs. Easton says, "more than 70,000 Britons -- known as 'health tourists' -- have gone as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa for major operations. This figure is expected to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade."
We have health care problems in the U.S. but it's not because ours is a free market system of health care delivery. Well over 50 percent of all health care expenditures are made by government. Where government spends, government regulates. It's truly amazing that Americans who are dissatisfied with the current level of socialized medicine in the U.S. are asking for more of what created the problem in the first place. Anyone thinking that an American version of socialized health care will differ from that found in Canada, Britain, Sweden, France and elsewhere are whistling Dixie.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- 40 million people have no insurance whatsoever.DrBombay
- And the only answer to you is to have the Government give it to us? I don't think you're really pondering the outcome of it.tommyo
- look at average rates of death dude. america isn't number one.DrBombay
- age of death.DrBombay
- Everything is so black and white with you man. Face it, there will ALWAYS be the 'haves' and the 'havetommyo
- nots' in this world. You can't expect Gov to make the playing field equal for everyone. Especially a gov as wasteful as ours.tommyo
- ours is. It's idealism vs reality. http://www.toby-ng.c…tommyo
- I don't think health care should be a luxury. sorry.DrBombay
- Me either. But I don't think it should be the govs job to give it. They're sure to f it up.tommyo
- robotron3k0
Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!
- DrBombay0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
How could anyone align themselves with people like this?
- BusterBoy0
To those who don't give a fuck about air strikes in Syria and Pakistan, let me pose a hypothetical.
Let's suppose that the Pakistani authorities had knowledge of a group of militants in California that were planning on bombing Karachi. The Pakistani's plead to the US Government, but they do nothing. Pakistan then sends an unmanned drone into US Air Space that destroys the militant camp, just north of San Francisco but in the process kills 5 US civillians...
What would the reaction be in Washington, or Main Street?
- The group of militants wouldn't be in San Fran. They'd be in the Pentagon.TheBlueOne
- everyone in this thread would say 'let the NWO happen' it MUST be for the good and rightbliznutty
- TheBlueOne0
"A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, [Palin] told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/co…
Oh, no but do go on with your little stump speech about socialism like you know what it is dear. Just like you knew what the Bush Doctrine was, or how Putin's head looks like over the Alaskan horizon, you betcha.
