Lucky...

It's a valid question. You complain about taxes being hiked to pay for HC, I'm asking how. Just because you don't like the question and are unable to answer it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Then explain hyper-inflation under your favorite president. And you can't post anything because it's diarhea: - Open broders for buying policies - Nothing - Nothing - Etc Right, so go post what the party of compassion has in line for the underclass garbage, as they would say it. No, our hypocrisy is showing. This is a 2-way street. The point was: Again, if the R's had a solution, they could have proposed it and we wouldn't be in this so-called mess.

Ah, yes, because your "if you're against the healthcare bill you MUST be a Republican" offers SUCH a wide range of choices. Get over yourself. Or a Libertarian....sorry, same thing. Binary = 1 way or the other; no grey.

There are people who work (working poor) who are above the threshold for welfare, yet can't even come close to HC. The you have people with pre-existing, people like me who haven't had HC ins for years and would probably not be able to get it oe get affordable coverage due to the ins co's knowing people like me have deferred ins and would be a big risk. People like my GF who can't retire after working for 29 years at the same plce, she has pre-existings that prohibit her to retire and still have ins. The list goes on, but I guess you are comfortable to have a corporation decide who get care and how much it will cost. I feelbetter the gov making that decision. I certanly don't feel better having the gov make those choices for me. So corporations who make those decisions and make you believe you are making them is best then? Corps have to answer to the market, their employees and their customers. Our gov is showing that it will (if we let it) answer to no one. So to answer your question? I will take dealing with a corp over the gov any time Corps don't have to answer to shit, this is why they've been able to decline people for a myriad of reasons, exclude people seeking insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, etc. That's ridiculous to say corps have to answer to anyone. Hell, your boys 700B bank bailout had no provisions for control, so AIG partied it up and then gave out billions in bonuses. Corps have to answer......good one. Good, you'll have to find anothe rplace to do it after Obama make steh US Socialist

Well if they're overt, wear em or just keep hiding them. The supporting evidence does. I may have fun with dialogue, but when it comes to hard arguments, the supporting data or evidence carries the weight. OK. Show where I state any of that other than saying I coiuld be an acft structural specialist/expert. You can't. I'm an FAA A&P, IA, FCC GROL, PP. Have 25-30 years experience. I've read that before, maybe you weren't reading then when I wrote that. I can build anything aviation/structural. Fab parts from "O," make forming blocks, etc. So sorry the HC Bill chaps yoru ass.

Who hasn't served and worked? You're beginning to sound like a freeloader. And you sound like a typical, garden variety neo-con. So I guess all of W.E., Canada, Australia and the free world are a bunch of free loaders, right?

So is the Onion veiled conservative in nature? I always thought it was, now it's ambiguous. They don't have an 'about' section, just an opinion section.

It appears you're right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion The Onion taken seriously - Upon occasion, the straight-faced manner in which The Onion reports non-existent happenings has resulted in outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news. I've seen people cite the Onion here before too, their humor is so typical of what radical media would state that it's very well disguised satire. So, in an effort to legitimize the Onion, you cite Wikipedia?? Wikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there. And for accuracy, what othr sources have a comprehensive bib? Your beloved Hannity doesn't. Are they wrong about the Onion?

It appears you're right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion The Onion taken seriously - Upon occasion, the straight-faced manner in which The Onion reports non-existent happenings has resulted in outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news. I've seen people cite the Onion here before too, their humor is so typical of what radical media would state that it's very well disguised satire.

It's a conservative rag expressing their views via satire. As in, we really don't mean it, we're just messing around, however, those little fags are still a problem - but we're jst kidding - wish that 28th Amendment went to a vote and passed - but we're just kidding.

...good grief dude. Even if it weren't the Onion, you should question about 50-60% of what the "legitimate" press tells you... I do, but if this were just a bunch of people screwing around with no political agenda, I wouldn't think twice. This is the Onion's way of saying, "Dirty faggots" behind the guise of humor. The real joke was in the proposition of the 28th/ "dirty faggots" as you termed it, have borne the brunt of comedy all over the western world...so, don't think twice. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this was but together by folks living near Haight and Ashbury... I just think this is the extreme RW's way of making a meant point under the guise of comedy/satire. If teh left do it, as you suggest, it's just comedy, the right do it and use kids, there is an element of, 'sure we mean it.' So, The Onion is now part of the extreme right-wing? They appear to be pretty equal opportunity in my view...in fact, they are mocking the extreme right-wing in this video if you think about it. Yea, conservatives see RW rags as neutral; what else is new?

I made that same point simultaneously in the post above yours, posted 1 minute earlier. This is such a moot point that we shouldn't have to make it, but since we talk to conservatives, that necessitates it. Just like the stimulus wouldn't be neccessary absent Bush's policies and all kinds of things that had gone to hell. I bet the neo-cons think Buhs being ranked the 6th worst pres of all times is just thievery.

I had to run it a time or two, then close a browser. It ran twice tho.

...good grief dude. Even if it weren't the Onion, you should question about 50-60% of what the "legitimate" press tells you... I do, but if this were just a bunch of people screwing around with no political agenda, I wouldn't think twice. This is the Onion's way of saying, "Dirty faggots" behind the guise of humor. The real joke was in the proposition of the 28th/ "dirty faggots" as you termed it, have borne the brunt of comedy all over the western world...so, don't think twice. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this was but together by folks living near Haight and Ashbury... I just think this is the extreme RW's way of making a meant point under the guise of comedy/satire. If teh left do it, as you suggest, it's just comedy, the right do it and use kids, there is an element of, 'sure we mean it.'

But the inherited interest rate issue wasn't Reagan's fault - the inherited GITMO is Obama's fault? Now I get it. Baby steps: since GWB didn't have it figured out, Obama did. And as a liberal I want to apologize to the conservatives for us following the law; I realize that is not your position. And that could have happened under Bush, but he was so far over his head he didn't know how to handle these matters, so he just left it unresolved. Still, under Geneva, since you referenced military rules, these rules were violated, so this matter didn't apply to that either. See, this is what we get when we go from a retard as a president to a Constitutional schoolar.

...good grief dude. Even if it weren't the Onion, you should question about 50-60% of what the "legitimate" press tells you... I do, but if this were just a bunch of people screwing around with no political agenda, I wouldn't think twice. This is the Onion's way of saying, "Dirty faggots" behind the guise of humor. The real joke was in the proposition of the 28th/

I agree

I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. I mean after all, it is teh Onion, the rag of the RW homophobic purveyors of the proposed homophoc 28th Amendment. Of course you a nd yours support the proposed 28th, yet claim this is pure satire. SNL could pull this off as pure humor, when teh Onion does it, it has a solid foundation of it being meant.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/how_to_find_a_masculine_halloween Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it.

Hey, if they're in handcuffs, they're guilty. One has to laugh at conservatives who call the media liberal when most of the time in high-profile cases these guys are tried in the media and then the prosecutor goes to the judge to gag the case before the defense can get to the media. He has decided the D is guilty based upon waterboarding-generated admissions, is it really necc to further this insane line of questioning?

If they get off "using" our system, meaning if they get off due to us not using our system, right? The error is not the defendant's, it's ours. but where is the error? i think the error would be in deciding to try them in criminal court. when they were detained and the evidence was collected, the thought didn't even cross their minds that this should be treated as a criminal case and everything should be handled as such. there was no reason to think that. you and i might disagree where the error occurred, but we do agree that the error is ours. this doesn't mean that these guys should ever walk free. Whether they walk free will be determined by the process. You shouldn't use an ends-justify-the-mean process here, IOW's, don't let em walk regardless of actual guilt or not. We need to folowo the process and quit deiating as with the OJ case. And here is the error: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html Prisoners of war MUST be: - Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour. - Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture. - Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels. - Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects. - Supplied with adequate food and clothing. - Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor's troops. - Given the medical care their state of health demands. - Paid for any work they do. - Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) . - Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease. Prisoners of war must NOT be: -Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number. - Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release). - Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications. - Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons. - Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading. The fourth Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") covers all individuals "who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power". Protected civilians MUST be: - Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity. - Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. - Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7. - Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. - Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict - Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem. Protected civilians must NOT be: - Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information. - Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations. - Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution. For more information see the Red Cross web site. So it depends upon how you view these defendants, either military or civilain, they had not been exteded rights under Geneva, so now we'll take a shot at giving them rights under American domestic law. Of course conservatives, so-called sticklers for legal detail, disagree with this. You guys made your bed, quit bitching cause it sucks to lay in it.

That attitude prevails by conservatives thinking their guy was perfect and they can't understand all the hooplah. Anything Obama does to rectify America's acts to the world are appreciated by the world, considered slanderous to conservative Americans. The world has put the Bush Admin on trial over the last decade, cleaning up yet anothe rof his messes is just that, nothing hidden. this is not the proper avenue to take reguarding bush or the views of the rest of the world. What is not? I posed a few issues there, not clear what you're saying.

If they get off "using" our system, meaning if they get off due to us not using our system, right? The error is not the defendant's, it's ours.

That attitude prevails by conservatives thinking their guy was perfect and they can't understand all the hooplah. Anything Obama does to rectify America's acts to the world are appreciated by the world, considered slanderous to conservative Americans. The world has put the Bush Admin on trial over the last decade, cleaning up yet anothe rof his messes is just that, nothing hidden. If you think the US follows these flowery words, look no further than the OJ trial in Nevada. 5 jurors disagreed with the 95 acquittal. Also, all the blacks were made alternates at the last moment. Yep, if they're guilty, I hope so too. Well, "inhanced interigation techniques" means waterboarding, so it's not. That evidence would never come in under Miranda, but evidence obtained w/o torture and w/o miranda could come in if the defendant testifies.

Obviously Mirandad rights weren't an option in the mid-late 40's, and Germany had their own criminal laws, ironically the ones setin place by the very people who were tried at Nuremberg. The question is, did the Nuremberg defendants receive a fair trial? Were they actually guilty? I don't think anyone here is an expert of those trials, I read for a while about them and the immediate (10 days as I recall) and subsequent executions in the gymnasium, but I think the trials they received were comensurate with what the world was doing then. Remember, not all defendants were executed, a good portion were jailed. The real gory trials followed the primary one, they tracked down the guards, male and female and tried / hung them in real gory ways if they had a part in the selection of Jews to be exterminated.