Hillary in 2008!

[n0cmonkey]

I don't want to pay for any more children I did not help create. I do not want to pay for the education or medical needs of someone that cannot follow the immigration laws. I do not want to pay for medical care for someone that could not be bothered enough to put down the crack pipe long enough to learn to read.

Same sex marriages? Marriage is a piece of paper that gives you a tax break. Give it to homosexuals. Why should you care?

Government sponsored day-care? If the parents are actually WORKING, I think it may actually be a good thing.

Partial birth abortion? None of my business. I was not involved in the creation of the child, why should I have a right in telling the mother not to murder it?

The American government is broken.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't want to pay for any more children I did not help create. I do not want to pay for the education or medical needs of someone that cannot follow the immigration laws. I do not want to pay for medical care for someone that could not be bothered enough to put down the crack pipe long enough to learn to read.

Same sex marriages? Marriage is a piece of paper that gives you a tax break. Give it to homosexuals. Why should you care?

Government sponsored day-care? If the parents are actually WORKING, I think it may actually be a good thing.

Partial birth abortion? None of my business. I was not involved in the creation of the child, why should I have a right in telling the mother not to murder it?

The American government is broken.

OK, first, I think it would be a good thing and a bad thing to have Hillary as the President. It would be bad because Muslim Fundamentalists (I call them that for a reason) throughout the world will become more incensed with America because not only are we enough like Satan to be willing to teach our women to read, but we'd be stupid enough to elect one as President. We may not survive 4 years of continuous bombings. However, it's good news because in 4 years, we'd have an overwhelming Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in office as President.

As for your first three points, you're dead-on. Partial-birth abortion... hmmmm, let's see here. Oh, right. I remember that one. That's that three-day procedure where the first two days are spent dilating the cervix with a mechanical device, and on the third day, they grab the fetus' legs with forceps, pull them out until the doctor can reach the head, the head is opened (usually with scissors), and the brain is sucked up with a suction catheter. That last part is done because the head wouldn't fit out of the vagina with the brain still inside. When the brain is gone, the head collapses easily. Still don't buy some of this or don't think it's that bad? Read this page. I'm sure you skeptics will question the source, but after you read it, you'll see that the sources are clear and reputable.

I hope to God (rhetorical since I'm an Atheist) that you're just uninformed. Try to read that without getting sick.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't want to pay for any more children I did not help create. I do not want to pay for the education or medical needs of someone that cannot follow the immigration laws. I do not want to pay for medical care for someone that could not be bothered enough to put down the crack pipe long enough to learn to read.

Same sex marriages? Marriage is a piece of paper that gives you a tax break. Give it to homosexuals. Why should you care?

Government sponsored day-care? If the parents are actually WORKING, I think it may actually be a good thing.

Partial birth abortion? None of my business. I was not involved in the creation of the child, why should I have a right in telling the mother not to murder it?

The American government is broken.

OK, first, I think it would be a good thing and a bad thing to have Hillary as the President. It would be bad because Muslim Fundamentalists (I call them that for a reason) throughout the world will become more incensed with America because not only are we enough like Satan to be willing to teach our women to read, but we'd be stupid enough to elect one as President. We may not survive 4 years of continuous bombings. However, it's good news because in 4 years, we'd have an overwhelming Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in office as President.

And this is a bad thing how? I thought we weren't supposed to let these fundies ruin our way of life. I don't support Hillary in any way shape or form, but I don't think we should not elect a woman on the basis that it will make a bunch of idiots even angrier.

As for your first three points, you're dead-on.

Partial-birth abortion... hmmmm, let's see here. Oh, right. I remember that one. That's that three-day procedure where the first two days are spent dilating the cervix with a mechanical device, and on the third day, they grab the fetus' legs with forceps, pull them out until the doctor can reach the head, the head is opened (usually with scissors), and the brain is sucked up with a suction catheter. That last part is done because the head wouldn't fit out of the vagina with the brain still inside. When the brain is gone, the head collapses easily. Still don't buy some of this or don't think it's that bad? Read this page. I'm sure you skeptics will question the source, but after you read it, you'll see that the sources are clear and reputable.

I hope to God (rhetorical since I'm an Atheist) that you're just uninformed. Try to read that without getting sick.

Again, it is none of my business. If someone wants to murder a child, no matter how grusomely or humanely they wish to do so, it is none of my business until it involves me. I don't support abortion. I think murder is the second worst sin (I can't think of a better word for it, but I don't necessarily mean this in the religious sense) a person can commit. But, if someone is to the point where they think murder can solve all of their problems, so be it. Just don't try to ruin my life.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Medellon
Now do you really think the framers of the Constitution were thinking of same-sex marriages when it was written?

Nope, but they knew religous people can't help but try to force their morals (based on their religous belief) on others, as in this case.

Is this not what is happening, why would you say they should not be legal then?

what do you think law is other than morals codified and enforced by the state?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Nope, but they knew religous people can't help but try to force their morals (based on their religous belief) on others, as in this case.

Force their morals on others? You mean like liberals do? A little more than 35 years ago, Lyndon Johnson and like-minded liberals decided to create the Great Society (or at least liberals' version of it - everyone dumb and dependent), and launched the War on Poverty. Nearly 40 years and 8 trillion dollars later, poverty won, entitlement spending is out of control, and the gov't's way broke. Now I don't disagree that helping the poor is a wonderful thing, but why do liberals feel the need to force the rest of us to contribute to their charity schemes? If you want to feed the hungry, get a $#%& job, get paid, and buy 'em lunch!! Don't send the IRS after the rest of us to compel us under threat of legal penalty to contribute to Dollars for Drunks, Drugs for Dropouts, Incredibly Offensive Art, or whatever liberal program is the latest Great Idea. I've never had a church force me to donate, but every time Ted Kennedy sobers up and gets a bright idea, my paycheck gets smaller.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Of course it is much better when the Republicans spend my tax dollars on things like: vouchers to attend religious schools, teach creation crap in science class, faith based charities, abstinance only sex ed, etc..

 

[JellyBaby]

I've never had a church force me to donate, but every time Ted Kennedy sobers up and gets a bright idea, my paycheck gets smaller.

Is that before or after Teddie votes himself another pay increase?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Of course it is much better when the Republicans spend my tax dollars on things like: vouchers to attend religious schools, teach creation crap in science class, faith based charities, abstinance only sex ed, etc..

If a parent gives money in taxes that go towards education, they should be able to choose where that money goes. A parent shouldn't have to pay taxes for education and then pay for their child to go to the school of their choice.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Of course it is much better when the Republicans spend my tax dollars on things like: vouchers to attend religious schools, teach creation crap in science class, faith based charities, abstinance only sex ed, etc..

My sister and her husband are paying to send their son to a Catholic school because the public school system where they live is pathetic and dangerous. The are having to pay for both out of their pocket. Yes, it is their choice but why should they be forced to pay for both. Don't you think that a choice should be given to parents? Do you think that competition might actually lead to reforms and improvements in public schools? The voucher system is not only to attend "religious" schools but to attend private schools. Please get that straight.

Creation in schools, I agree that it does not really belong in a science class or at least not by itself in isolation. If they present a number of different theories including creationism to show the variance in thought on the subject and that their are differeing opinions than I wouldn't have a problem with it. When kids grow up they are going to have to deal with all of these different ideas and people that hold to them. Being exposed to them and having some knowledge of differing beliefs is not a bad thing. It would depend on how it is presented.

faith based charities have been shown to be the most efficient organizations at taking care of the poor. Your actual problem with this is what?

abstinence based sex ed surprise, abstinence is the most effective method of birth control and for preventing the spread of disease. It most definitely should be taught as an alternative. Other methods should also be taught also of course.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Of course it is much better when the Republicans spend my tax dollars on things like: vouchers to attend religious schools, teach creation crap in science class, faith based charities, abstinance only sex ed, etc..

If a parent gives money in taxes that go towards education, they should be able to choose where that money goes. A parent shouldn't have to pay taxes for education and then pay for their child to go to the school of their choice.

What kind of parent are you?!?!? Don't you know the government knows better how your children should be educated!?!? Just ask the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Gores . . . oh, wait, never mind.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Medellon
If this ever comes to pass I will leave the country. I know the U.S. is the greatest country in the world but if she is elected president it will be the ruin of us all.

I said the exact same thing two years ago when Dubya "won" election 2000. I'm still here after we've been attacked by terrorists, our economy is in the dumps, employment rates highest since god knows when, states in financial crisis, the world hates us more than ever, our federal deficit is larger than ever in history, Ashcroft counting the rights he's stomped on... now G W wants to cut taxes for rich people to "stimulate the economy".

I dont think it can get any worse... but i've said the same thing multiple times in the last 3 years.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Hillary in 2008

Not if I can help it. Federalized, central-authority control over health care is not something I feel the nation can afford, nor do I want bureacrats deciding what health care we receive. They will mess it up grandly just as they have with most federal programs.

Sounds like you have never been under an HMO program. What you describe is the exact fiasco private enterprise has handed out. High cost, buerocrat (board room) control, medicine prescribed by bean counter CPA's instead of doctors.

Ya, keep bitching about a national health plan or minimum level of health care standard guarenteed to all citizens. Other countries have that, and at a minimum, so should the US. If you pay for it a tax premium or a portion of your current tax burden, so be it. The reward far outways the sacrifice. If you want better care than a program like that, and can afford to pay for it---GREAT!

But right now, the highest cost ever is levied for health care and staffed by underpaid, over worked health proffesionals laboring under mountains of red tape and regulation as it is. Much of that wil lgo away when the doors to hospitals are opened to patients without regard to "Who is your insurance carrier?"

Ever notice who is first to lobby against national health care? You got it! The G-Damn insurance companies who reap gobs of revenue from insurance premiums and profit from not paying out.

You need to study up on the alternatives to cuurent healthcare problems before you just blanketly reject an alternative because you don't like the messenger. That attitude takes you right out of the debate. You are looked at as the sheep Rush Limbaugh likes to herd down the republican road.

That image is disgusting.

 

[Corn]

Question for you Tripleshot, how much are you willing to pay to insure someone else?

But I suppose that as long as the "rich" foot the bill, no skin off your neck.........

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Hillary in 2008

Not if I can help it. Federalized, central-authority control over health care is not something I feel the nation can afford, nor do I want bureacrats deciding what health care we receive. They will mess it up grandly just as they have with most federal programs.

Sounds like you have never been under an HMO program. What you describe is the exact fiasco private enterprise has handed out. High cost, buerocrat (board room) control, medicine prescribed by bean counter CPA's instead of doctors.

Ya, keep bitching about a national health plan or minimum level of health care standard guarenteed to all citizens. Other countries have that, and at a minimum, so should the US. If you pay for it a tax premium or a portion of your current tax burden, so be it. The reward far outways the sacrifice. If you want better care than a program like that, and can afford to pay for it---GREAT!

But right now, the highest cost ever is levied for health care and staffed by underpaid, over worked health proffesionals laboring under mountains of red tape and regulation as it is. Much of that wil lgo away when the doors to hospitals are opened to patients without regard to "Who is your insurance carrier?"

Ever notice who is first to lobby against national health care? You got it! The G-Damn insurance companies who reap gobs of revenue from insurance premiums and profit from not paying out.

You need to study up on the alternatives to cuurent healthcare problems before you just blanketly reject an alternative because you don't like the messenger. That attitude takes you right out of the debate. You are looked at as the sheep Rush Limbaugh likes to herd down the republican road.

That image is disgusting.

Have you ever lived, even briefly, in a country with socialized healthcare? I was in France for a year, and my wife was in England for a year. I would not want to have to trust public healthcare with my health for any length of time. Fortunately, I stayed healthy while I was there and so did my wife, more or less.

She did go into the doctor one time and was told that they had to break her leg and re-set it because of some alleged deformity (she had knee pain due to previous surgery, not what those doctors recommended). Needless to say, she declined the leg breaking and waited until she came back to the States.

Any guesses as to why the United States has the best health professionals in the world? Places like the Mayo Clinic and Sloan-Kettering don't exist under socialized medicine. If we could rein in the lawyers and insurance companies, we could vastly improve the system we have here without resorting to "universal healthcare".

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Corn
Question for you Tripleshot, how much are you willing to pay to insure someone else?

But I suppose that as long as the "rich" foot the bill, no skin off your neck.........

Not really ,Corn. I do not want "the rich to have to pay for anymore than the poor do. I want equality in health care at the basic level. I would advocate minimum care standards and you already pay medicare premiums on every paycheck. You also contibute to SS. So what's the problem? I'm sure a fair and equitable payplan can be worked out that will beat out the $400+ /mo it costs now for a cheap plan for a family, or do you know a better way? As I said, if you can pay for better service, that should be an option.What is not acceptable is the millions who cannot afford healthcare, the thousands of small businesses that cannot afford to offer healthcare to thier employees, and the fact healthcare costs rise more than any other industry WITHOUT justification other than absolute greed.


This is on the radar screen tonight. Just an example of what common sense dictates.

Thanks for replying, Corn.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Hillary in 2008

Not if I can help it. Federalized, central-authority control over health care is not something I feel the nation can afford, nor do I want bureacrats deciding what health care we receive. They will mess it up grandly just as they have with most federal programs.

Sounds like you have never been under an HMO program. What you describe is the exact fiasco private enterprise has handed out. High cost, buerocrat (board room) control, medicine prescribed by bean counter CPA's instead of doctors.

Ya, keep bitching about a national health plan or minimum level of health care standard guarenteed to all citizens. Other countries have that, and at a minimum, so should the US. If you pay for it a tax premium or a portion of your current tax burden, so be it. The reward far outways the sacrifice. If you want better care than a program like that, and can afford to pay for it---GREAT!

But right now, the highest cost ever is levied for health care and staffed by underpaid, over worked health proffesionals laboring under mountains of red tape and regulation as it is. Much of that wil lgo away when the doors to hospitals are opened to patients without regard to "Who is your insurance carrier?"

Ever notice who is first to lobby against national health care? You got it! The G-Damn insurance companies who reap gobs of revenue from insurance premiums and profit from not paying out.

You need to study up on the alternatives to cuurent healthcare problems before you just blanketly reject an alternative because you don't like the messenger. That attitude takes you right out of the debate. You are looked at as the sheep Rush Limbaugh likes to herd down the republican road.

That image is disgusting.

Have you ever lived, even briefly, in a country with socialized healthcare? I was in France for a year, and my wife was in England for a year. I would not want to have to trust public healthcare with my health for any length of time. Fortunately, I stayed healthy while I was there and so did my wife, more or less.

She did go into the doctor one time and was told that they had to break her leg and re-set it because of some alleged deformity (she had knee pain due to previous surgery, not what those doctors recommended). Needless to say, she declined the leg breaking and waited until she came back to the States.

Any guesses as to why the United States has the best health professionals in the world? Places like the Mayo Clinic and Sloan-Kettering don't exist under socialized medicine. If we could rein in the lawyers and insurance companies, we could vastly improve the system we have here without resorting to "universal healthcare".

So. because your small anecdotal experience is going to sway otherwise progressive thinking fair minded people from coming up with a viable solution to an out of control spiraling healthcare system, my thinking a solution should be sought and a "status quo" abandoned is not viable? You pay for grandma's medicare every paycheck now. you pay for her social security too. You don't complain too loudly about that because you are used to it, and it is not even thought about anymore. The same will happen if a small percentage of income tax is shifted to stabylize healthcare and insure basic services for everyone. It is not a pyaria like you think. And siting failed systems elsewatre is not the yardstick we should use. We are better than that. We are the best because we are good at what we do. And we are not a people who turn our backs on our brothers, or do think isolationism should filter to the family level now? Take care of your own and screw your neighbor if he has needs and you can help. Its not your problem, right?

Makes me want to reevaluate my principles and standards. How about you? do you feel "Christian" tonight? Does Charity and brotherly love need re-enforcement? Or is that too much to presume of Americans?
:brokenheart:

 

[lowtech1]

Hillary might have learned something during the prosperous Clinton years, if she didn't have any thing to do with the president decision making. She would make a good presidential cantidate; however America is not ready for a woman president....especially with the some of the current hillbilly mentality.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Hillary in 2008

Not if I can help it. Federalized, central-authority control over health care is not something I feel the nation can afford, nor do I want bureacrats deciding what health care we receive. They will mess it up grandly just as they have with most federal programs.

Sounds like you have never been under an HMO program. What you describe is the exact fiasco private enterprise has handed out. High cost, buerocrat (board room) control, medicine prescribed by bean counter CPA's instead of doctors.

Ya, keep bitching about a national health plan or minimum level of health care standard guarenteed to all citizens. Other countries have that, and at a minimum, so should the US. If you pay for it a tax premium or a portion of your current tax burden, so be it. The reward far outways the sacrifice. If you want better care than a program like that, and can afford to pay for it---GREAT!

But right now, the highest cost ever is levied for health care and staffed by underpaid, over worked health proffesionals laboring under mountains of red tape and regulation as it is. Much of that wil lgo away when the doors to hospitals are opened to patients without regard to "Who is your insurance carrier?"

Ever notice who is first to lobby against national health care? You got it! The G-Damn insurance companies who reap gobs of revenue from insurance premiums and profit from not paying out.

You need to study up on the alternatives to cuurent healthcare problems before you just blanketly reject an alternative because you don't like the messenger. That attitude takes you right out of the debate. You are looked at as the sheep Rush Limbaugh likes to herd down the republican road.

That image is disgusting.

Have you ever lived, even briefly, in a country with socialized healthcare? I was in France for a year, and my wife was in England for a year. I would not want to have to trust public healthcare with my health for any length of time. Fortunately, I stayed healthy while I was there and so did my wife, more or less.

She did go into the doctor one time and was told that they had to break her leg and re-set it because of some alleged deformity (she had knee pain due to previous surgery, not what those doctors recommended). Needless to say, she declined the leg breaking and waited until she came back to the States.

Any guesses as to why the United States has the best health professionals in the world? Places like the Mayo Clinic and Sloan-Kettering don't exist under socialized medicine. If we could rein in the lawyers and insurance companies, we could vastly improve the system we have here without resorting to "universal healthcare".

Have you ever lived in Canada? Their socialized healthcare is fantastic not to mention thats one of the primary reasons why the UN named it the best country to live in.

The system in the states is broken by the fact that those lawyers and insurance companies are getting out of control. The rising cost in healthcare not to mention the declining rate of employment has left millions without any form of healthcare.

Have you heard about the doctor's strike in New York against outrageous malpractice insurance premiums? These insurance companies are taking advantage of a broken system and running wild with it. They're also have big lobbyists in congress preventing any kind of real change from happening.

I dont necessarily believe in socialized healthcare, but our privatized system in it's current form is not working. We either have to scrape it or make some very fundamental changes.

 

[Moonbeam]

The economy would go gangbusters if Hillary were elected in 2008. The billions of tons of anal pressure from Republicans would propel it into the stratosphere. Sheer nail biting frustration and fury would drive the wheels of industry. Coronaries would create jobs.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Have you ever lived in Canada? Their socialized healthcare is fantastic not to mention thats one of the primary reasons why the UN named it the best country to live in.

The system in the states is broken by the fact that those lawyers and insurance companies are getting out of control. The rising cost in healthcare not to mention the declining rate of employment has left millions without any form of healthcare.

Have you heard about the doctor's strike in New York against outrageous malpractice insurance premiums? These insurance companies are taking advantage of a broken system and running wild with it. They're also have big lobbyists in congress preventing any kind of real change from happening.

I dont necessarily believe in socialized healthcare, but our privatized system in it's current form is not working. We either have to scrape it or make some very fundamental changes.

its more the malpractice settlements brought by dishonest lawyers looking to make a quick buck than anything else.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: Corn
Question for you Tripleshot, how much are you willing to pay to insure someone else? But I suppose that as long as the "rich" foot the bill, no skin off your neck.........

Not really ,Corn. I do not want "the rich to have to pay for anymore than the poor do. I want equality in health care at the basic level. I would advocate minimum care standards and you already pay medicare premiums on every paycheck. You also contibute to SS. So what's the problem? I'm sure a fair and equitable payplan can be worked out that will beat out the $400+ /mo it costs now for a cheap plan for a family, or do you know a better way? As I said, if you can pay for better service, that should be an option.What is not acceptable is the millions who cannot afford healthcare, the thousands of small businesses that cannot afford to offer healthcare to thier employees, and the fact healthcare costs rise more than any other industry WITHOUT justification other than absolute greed.


This is on the radar screen tonight. Just an example of what common sense dictates.

Thanks for replying, Corn.

the camel's nose theory doesn't make it right

 

[Red Dawn]

Nightmare Scenario. Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush for President. I think if that were to come to pass the Second Ammendment would look like the wisest move our Fore Fathers made.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, the second ammendment will insure that Bush gets it even if Hillary wins. We saw what the second ammendment was worth in 2000.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yeah, the second ammendment will insure that Bush gets it even if Hillary wins. We saw what the second ammendment was worth in 2000.

It is really really sad to see you wallow in your self pity over something that happened over 2 years ago which you can do nothing to "change"

The election of 2000 sure was about the 2nd amendment - Gungrabber-Gore is against it and Cowboy-Bush is for it It'd all become alot clearer for you if you'd take that crying towel off of you eyes



CkG

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: burnedout

will gladly tell what radical changes I saw, the use of GPS guided equipment instwead of laser painting, a dangerous and time consuming older alternative Bush Sr. preffered.

Negative.

Bush Sr. did not prefer "laser painting" and Clinton did not implement GPS. Laser painting and range finding was all that was technologically available within cost considerations at the time. GPS was available with limitations, and actually used with some air-delivered systems back in 1991. We had PLGRs back then; just no practical way to interface with fire control like we do now. Imbedded software was considered ancient at the time compared to nowadays. Therefore, alterations to flight paths on cruise missiles, for example, could not be programmed as rapidly as we can now. Today we utilize many types of systems - laser range-finding, laser "painting" and GPS for target acquisition and fire control, particularly with ground combat systems.

Use of GPS in conjunction with IT systems for ground navigation and situational awareness (namely: lowering incidental fratricide) has been ongoing actively since 1995. Conceptually, the program originated in 1991 by General Sullivan. I know because I was assigned to Force XXI.

I know, that is why I usedthe term preferred, because it was not really a choice. that was my point, it was not an integral part of the mainstream military when Bush Sr was in office, it came after him.

thank you for clearing the differences between then and now, amazing how much Bush did in 2 years after Clinton stalled all those programs for 8 years.

I agree about those damn liberals and their great society, whats wrong with a national depression with no safety net?

Now go get your tax booklets from this year and check to see how much actually goes to social programs, should be second page from the back I think this year, and tell me how they are bleeding this country dry?

Was it not Regan's military buildup and deficit spending in the 80's that quadrupled our debt?
What do we spend in interest on the debt compared to social services?