Lucky...

can you provide a link? Until then, I'll just have to dismiss it We wouldn't want that. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How do you measure that? I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others. /Marg Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go). So you agree that your assertion that the US was the safest place is errant?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/463793/top_5_safest_countries_in_the_world.html The US didn't make the top 5. I saw other lists that didn't seem real reliable, so I didn't post, but the US was no where on them. It never will, so the best policy is to remove motive from terrorists to target you. Or, I dunno, could bethat we stick our big noses in their business per se. The concept will never go away, the actual good this concept does is unproven by the continual attacks on us. Fixed it for ya. Which is why we're in it. I know, and that Clinton guy, the nerve to eliminate the deficit and cut the debt increase to virtually 0. So when you say previous admins, you must mean Reagan and GWB. Yea, the other Socialist, Clinton, had the never to cut spending and raise taxes so I guess we want a revitalization of that and a departure from noe-con economics that got us hre. They've already awoken, did you miss the last 2 elections? Right, the problem is that these protestors are people who voted for Bush.

In reality there is!! The constitution enumerates what the federal government can do. Therefore, if it is not stated as something it can do then that means it can't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notice it says the powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution..... That means that if the constitution doesn't say they can then they can't! Here is a simple example: If your mom told you to go to the store and buy milk and bread and you brought milk, bread, and ice cream then you didn't do what was asked of you! Your mom does not have to say "Buy milk and bread and don't buy ice cream, cake, pie, steak, chicken, chips, soup, candy bars, etc..... She need to only tell you what you can buy and that ultimately excludes everything else. Lets make a simple math equation out of it just like you learned in school when learning to do word problems. Buy milk + buy bread = did what mom said. Therefore buy milk + buy bread + buy ice cream doesn't = did what mom said. Its just like 1+2=3 but 1+2+4 doesn't = 3 or 1+2+5 doesn't = 3 Its that simple! Actually it was the Declaration of Independence that states We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That was my point that these things are guaranteed as inalienable.

By saying: Except cash in regard to the guy had every chance to buy ins, except cash? How is that a figure of speech AND an exaggeration. It's neither. Move along, son. Other than if he couldn't afford insurance, he could afford the doctor bill; make sense? Since I didn't say that he definately didn't have the money, which would have been an assumption, then I didn't exaggerate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exaggerate to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth I didn't claim that he didn't have the money, so no claim, no truth stated, no exaggeration. And your requirement that I verify your source, your data is ridiculous. You post a direcct link, then it is my job, until you have failed to meet your job. Nope, and the general assumption in chat forums/posting boards is that you come in with your citation and make your point. You have once again posted unsubstantiable position. And of course, no citation. Why would it be different? Also, you are citing income, so even if teh numbers are reliable, I posted total worth of top 1% at 34% per my posted citation. You are posting apples/oranges to my data. So I am right, the top 1% hold 34% of ALL WEALTH. Income is a different figure. You're the one getting pissed and ensuring an expletive or 3 for every post, I think it's you who are blowing the fuse. Also, try to stick with the corect data type; worth not income. ***

I don't remember reading that anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Which amendment would that be? Pardon me, Declaration of Indep.

No, there are 5 and they are just the more obvious types. There are also many other reasons for legitimately not being able to aford HC ins. Provide it when, where? And that's the point I've been making, this is a simple scenario of one man's case of not being bale to afford HC and the mess he's now n. If you chose to blame him 100%, if you chose to pick it apart, or whatever you want, go ahead. It is an article of 5 'types' of cases where a person could finf themselves out of HC. It's not a peer-reviewed journal for Ph.D's to pick apart. I'm sure tehre are plenty of those out there, like the one Harvard and UNLV worked together on to determine that > 50% of all bankruptcies were as a result of medical bills. Those are designed to pick apart, not a simple USA today articel detailing 5 typical scenarios of people w/o HC. Would you like me to dig up some peer-reviewed journals on the issue of people w/o HC? Would you really read them? Of course not, so since the best we can do is to get a quick read, take it for what's it's worth. Then describe for us the kind of lowlife deplorable scurge that would go w/o HC ins, in your opinion. Yea, again, McCain's 'whiners' comment comes to mind. Keep minimizing the plight of teh poor in this country, keep watching your representatives fall. Perhaps, this could be the falling of the Republican Party, the problem is that there would have to be an alternate party that made more sense to oppose the Dems and there isn't one.

Explain to me how you would pay for other's HC in any way. Riiiiight, the halls are filled with those words..... oh no, let me die, I'm broke. There is no abbolition against it. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights? I know, kind of obscure as a reference. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Step in it much?

Just that it was verbatim that of the one Bill gave. Not to mention you once again missused it. The point asserted was that the subject in the discussion had no reason not to buy insurance. I replied by saying, "Except cash." Not only is that not an expression, it's not an exaggeration. How did I exaggerate? How is; Except cash and figure of speech? And you don't care about posting factual data with citations. Exactly, as I stated, your piont, your duty to post a direct link. You failed to, you lose, my data stands. The top 1% hold 34% of all wealth, not 22% as your mystery link provides. This was a single case to make a reference as to represent the ills of the US in regard to HC in a trend. It is not an argument to perfect a cure for AIDS. If you chose to dismiss it as it being too vague, good for you. You could demand detail after another and claim some sort of silly victory if 1 detail were unavailable. You could assert that OJ was guilty even tho acquitted. I could claim you are wrong, he was acquitted. Sensibly we have to look at the court of common sense; OJ kille dhis wife and there are millions of scenarios out there where people are legitimately w/o HC. Is it this guy or not? WHo cares, some/all of his issues are repesent in millions of Americans. You're getting mad because your point has been burried. Class disparity is immense, top 1% hold 34% of all wealth, bottom 80% hold ~15%, people are w/o HC for very relevant reasons.

Yea, I know, as McCain said, the economy isn't bad, people are just whining. Do you really wonder why the mass-exodus and the bringing out of new voters to oust the ubber-compassionate Republicans? Please, keep it going. 47M people w/o coverage, not sure what there is to consider past that. Most people have been turned off by the HMO's, so refform to cover all issues is necessary. He says with a 60-seat majoroty in the senate, something that hasn't been seen in 30 years. This denial that people need HC reform, that the Republicans are out of fashion is real. Now, might it change? Sure. Am I saying the Repubs are done for sure? No. I just stated that if peopel get HC and are happy with it, that might create a trend of voting out anyone that might interfere with it. And the level of inhumanity.

Look at the constant continuum of terroristic acts from the ME; Munich Olypics, 911, etc, etc, etc.... and the conservative machine talking up deterrence theory. There has been so much bloodshed with no letting up in sight from the terrorisst, yet the ridiculous clammering of deterrence theory continues. Laughable. I guess they're waiting for a 2000-year sample size before they make a conclusion.

That simple majority has just become the vast majority; watch the last 2 elections? We'll have to wait and see, but people embrace the idea of HC and it could be a forever deal-maker with any politician. Your response was: You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it. By me saying you are playing tug the sausage, I'm not inferring you are grabbing a penis, it's a figure of speech claiming that you are engaging in a debate using meaningless protocol. You know that, quit sensationalizing. Instead of veiling your insults at how you think I'm stupid, I would rather you constructively pick apart my post: Rational actor model The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximization. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes: Goal setting and ranking. Consideration of options. Assessment of consequences. Value-maximization. The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident." Yea, so Al Qaeda falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definitely cannot. Now show your brilliance and address ALL of that.

We can dissect this SOB down to nothing. Eventually we have to MAKE OBSERVATIONS. I don't totally agree with your interpretation of deterrence, but would rather not get lost in that, I want to establish if, after all of our expenditures, this concept off deterrence has been realized. Clearly after the attacks here and the resistance there and killing of our troops and civilians there, deterrence is not working. There is no end in sight even after Russia being there for 10+ years and us for 8. In order to brag and claim deterrence, you have to show some measureable improvement by virtue of our spending. All I see is constant resistance and in some areas escallation of resistance. This is convoluted. As for plots discovered in developed countries, that's an example of improved intellegence, not deterrence. As for less/no terrorist acts in the USA, taht's because we now deliver. Insead of coming here to kill in the WTC we deliver our victims as military soldiers; they've killed 4300+ since 911. IN ORDER TO BRAG THE POWER OF DETERRENCE, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE REDUCTION/ELIMINATION OF KILLINGS/PROPERTY LOSS. All you do is talk about the deaths and loss in Iraq, that isn't an evidence of deterrence, those are examples of the failures of deterrence. Killing US military memebrs there is still killing US citizens, you can distinguish them differently, I don't. In fact, they are some of the finest Americans, so their loss could be measured in a higher light than those killed during 911.

Broke, maybe? You guys are taking 1 case and taking it way too seriously. Even if we could determine that he was totally honest and really broke, he is just 1 person and this could be an aberration. Look, the point is that peopel can fall from grace, as well the other 4 faces had people in minimum wage jobs and other cases where they had no choice about buying insurance due to pre-existings, etc. Don't throw yourself into 1 case, feel like you've disproven it and claim victory. There are 47ish million people w/o HC, some probably can afford it, many cannot; I think that's a fair way to look at it. Another aspect is of cost and regualtion, so aside from providing care for indigent, which I know irks you, providing regulation for everyone's policy.

Right, Bill showed you how that made no sense yesterday, your defintion is the one he gave you verbatim; wonder where you got it? I don't recall using an expression in the post that you accused me of hyperbole, hence you once again make no sense without even measuring for exaggeration. Mike, the only time I seee people refusing to cite their source is when that data or the source is BS. I have dismissed your data and point as BS, would you like to address my citation or provide a source for your data with a DIRECT LINK, not a general website? Dude, provide or you lose, it's a common standard with internet debate that you provide a source with direct link. Not at all, the article was labeled: The 5 faces of the uninsured to show case examples of represented groups of people w/o HC. Take it for what it's worth to you. You want to retend he doesn't represent millions of Americans then good for you. But when you scratch your head to wonder why your party is getting punked, has been for the last 2 elections, don't look further from attitudes like yours; they just turn people off and make em votethe other way - now that is stastical fact.

Great, let's drop the label, as I wrote, many/most voters many consider HC, once they now can have it, a #1 Priority above all others when considering a politician. As well, voters who never turned out will feel compelled to show and vote to defend their newly-gained HC. Shake it, spin my words however you want, this could amount to a major political shift. Something meaningful like.....HC reform? It's no surprise that Republicans like to cut taxes for the rich, kill organized labor, kill any substantive HC reform, etc. If you think of what benefits the rich it is synonymous with the Republican Party. Yea, and then we'll bring in the Libertarians so they could buy a fleet of dump trucks to go around daily to pick up the dead bodies of the ill and elderly. Libertarian compassion: No insurance, no money = fuck you; die in the street you pig. The Republicans make sense when standing next to Libertarians.

I love your sensationalization, even if you have to mischaracterize it. There will be no free HC for everyone, the gov will just limit costs, etc and mandate it for everyone. For the truly indigent there may be "free" HC. Because your side cannot address the issue, you misdirect the issue to illegals when there is language prohibiting that. Now will they get emergency care? Of course, they do now, will then.

Bull - there's nothing preventing him from going to the doc and being a cash patient. Except cash. Prove it. It's a story allegedly based upon a factual situation, these situations are known to be prevalent. I know it's unusual for you to have people post citations, but I did. If you care to impeach it then go for it. It's a USA Today article, if they are a bunch of liberal-pandering agenda-driven media types then go for that angle. Spare me the hyperbole - if it can't be proven he had the money to pay for a checkup, it can't be proven he didn't. You can't have it both ways. Definition hyperbole: Mike's favorite ornate word; missuses it usually, but overuses it constantly It's a USA Today article. USA Today is a respected publication. This scenario is just representative of many others that have found themselves here, it's not necessary to "prove" any individual case, hence, this is a case in point. If I could prove it, you could say it's an aberration. So the point here is that people who seem bulletproof can fall from grace, I'm sure we personally know people in this position.

Than what, social svs? I'd like to see the military steamlined, eliminate duplicity and just cut it in half so we can reduce our spending to 4 times that of #2, China. Deterrence only works against people, organizations or countries that consider consequence. N. Korea, Iran and the insurgents for starters don't really care about that, so they cannot be deterred. Just as a serial killer cannot be deterred, either they think they will never get caught or they don't care if they do. Sound like some Muslim extremist groups? The N Koreans back in teh 50's didn't back down, the Viet Cong didn't back down, AQ tried twice before they took down teh WTC, this deterrence is a joke. Why is it that Sweeden doesn't have to build a massive military? THEY DON'T FUCK WITH PEOPLE, so non-proliferation of war is their deterrence. Non-motivation replaces deterrence.

Bull - there's nothing preventing him from going to the doc and being a cash patient. Except cash. Prove it. It's a story allegedly based upon a factual situation, these situations are known to be prevalent. I know it's unusual for you to have people post citations, but I did. If you care to impeach it then go for it. It's a USA Today article, if they are a bunch of liberal-pandering agenda-driven media types then go for that angle.

You didn't post IRS data, you posted numbers and made the unsubstantiated claim that the data was from them. That's empirical. Right, as you said before, you don't post data, just opinion. Posting so-called data that has nbo source is the same as posting opinion due to the fact that it cannot be impeached, hence it is dismissed as unsupported, irrelevant opinion. And that point is that you don't post data and/or source.

As I stated, I look at your data as meaningless for the rare occassions that you post data as you don't cite your source. If you had just looked it up you could post it via looking thru your history. Let's face it, the data is incorrect. I posted mine, a very objective source, you claimed an objecctive source and failed to cite that source. I would love to see your cite, otherwise I dismiss it as factually irrelevant and unfounded. I've already told you where it's at - if you're too lazy to type www.irs.gov into your browser and hit enter, then too bad. It's your claim, you post 1 citation as I did with 2 or just be dismssed as irrelevant. I really don't give a flying fuck what YOU 'dismiss' or not. If you want the info, go to the website. I don't feel like crawling through all the info and summarizing it again. Now you get angry....that tells a lot of the accuracy of the data. I guess you're not used to posting data so you didn't think to post the url; it's so odd for you to post the citation. Anyway, I posted mine, I call shenanigans on yours, it's your ref, you post or we ignore. If you had a point to make you would.

Bull - there's nothing preventing him from going to the doc and being a cash patient. Except cash.

As I stated, I look at your data as meaningless for the rare occassions that you post data as you don't cite your source. If you had just looked it up you could post it via looking thru your history. Let's face it, the data is incorrect. I posted mine, a very objective source, you claimed an objecctive source and failed to cite that source. I would love to see your cite, otherwise I dismiss it as factually irrelevant and unfounded. I've already told you where it's at - if you're too lazy to type www.irs.gov into your browser and hit enter, then too bad. It's your claim, you post 1 citation as I did with 2 or just be dismssed as irrelevant.

What do you mean we need deterrence? We need to be deterred? Look, the claim made by others is that spending lots on the military creates a deterrence that tworks, I disagree. Make your point , I don't get what you're saying here. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-07/2009-07-31-voa52.cfm?CFID=291692322&CFTOKEN=50544205&jsessionid=8830fc312348c2bf523b1734495b7d5f414d July Worst US Month in Afghanistan, Best in Iraq http://article.wn.com/view/2009/09/09/In_worst_day_in_months_bombs_kill_four_US_soldiers_in_Iraq/ In worst day in months, bombs kill four U.S. soldiers in Iraq Yea, things are looking up. I reitterate: See, in science you conduct an experiment and make observations, the observations I've seen illustrate that these organizations are not deterred by the massive military spending the US does. My observations is that the insurgents are not responding to this so-called deterrence, what do you think based upon some of the worst kiiling in the war?