Lucky...

Oh I see, establishing the Libertarian Party are a bunch of centrists. Of course, they are reguar, normal guys, the Republicans and Democrats are the extremists. I don't think Paul pisses anyone off, I think he is viewed as a joke, he can't win a primary in the Republican Party, and he gets 3% of the populat vote as a Liber; who's pissed? Who's Ron Paul??? Research and explain to me Paul's stance on social svs. Please be comprehensive and detailed, not just, 'he wants all people to be well and happy.'

But enough of Congressman Willson. But enough of the White House "Health care tip line". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803321.html Preventing misinformation is the same as violating HUGE cardinal rule and calling the president a liar in joint session? And then calling a double standard when you get a reprimand as tho it's a witchunt? If it makes ya feel better, the tip line is shut down so misinformation about death sqauds can keep pumping it out....but Wilson's crying foul will keep going.

Really? I've never seen it.

Monologues have already been there, gonna have Serena Williams and the line juddge over, then Kanye West and Taylor over for a lemonaide.

Perhaps and a fair point, but when those deciding whether the rich get to keep their fruit that was won on the backs of the poor are millionaires too, it becomes a greedy classist act. And ignore birth family, genetic/congenital disease, abuses, accidents in life and a myriad of other issues? Isn't that how stereotypes that Repubs / Libertarians are incompassionate are formed and supported?

Him refering to Perot or Paul? They were much the same, cut taxes, bla, bla, jack the national debt and issue rhetoric of "tax-n-spend liberals". Ya didn't miss much, but he was fun to listen to and had neato graphs. Take your pick, do you want the corruptors in a group under the scrutiny of major media, or disseminated in small towns so they smile at you as they fuck you and say, "whatcha gonna do 'bout it, boy?" Or backwards. Since Republicans were here first, Libertarians are an offshoot of them. Libertarians usually start life as Republicans, get sick of their BS but aren't willing to go to teh left, even tho they share their ideals of less government intervention as far as privacy and choice, so they offshoot to what they are. SOme of their ideas are great, but tehy just ignire social svs. A country run by Libertarians would look like Mad MAx, another movie before your time They are, but as with liberals, we'll talk to anyone whether you want it or not. The Republcans are a club that if you are a memeber, none of what non-members have to say is worthwhile and you won't listen to it. This is why liberal logic/media, etc is more empirical and overall more objective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul Paul was the first Republican representative from the area; he also led the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention Back at ya. In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated American Indian activist Russell Means to win the Libertarian Party nomination for president.[6] Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A And then he defected. 1) Feel free to puke, since that was neccessary for you to interject that. 2) Establish my stereotypes and how they're wrong. For example, one stereotype I have is that the Republicans cut taxes for the rich and overspend, the exception being GHWB. Another stereotype is that Libertarian philosophy ignores the poor and all social programs and considers them waste, which would lead to millions of homeless. So please, feel free to puke, but debunk my stereotypes. I don't have a problem with that, just please, don't be a "stereotypical conservative" and make that claim with honest objecctive support. And here inlies the problem with Libertarians: they think they know where the need is. Of course I notice no complaint about the Republicans spending you to death, but taht just supports my assertion/theory that Libertarians are disgruntled Republicans. Don't take it personally, unless you fit the...."stereotype." Sincerely, if you do these, kudos. So when do help at the hospital doing surgeries for peopel with difficult ilnesses? Oh, you can't, we better collect taxes for that then. Exactly, what I said in a previous post about the Republican Party getting mad, not listening, etc...well, it come sout here. The RW and Libertarians don't have to take that shit and they won't, liberals are stupid and you ahve to yell and interupt to getthem to listen. In fact, when they say things you don't like, jump up and shout, "YOU LIE." Then when your get reprimansed dismiss it as a double standard.....that's how you get your point accross to them GD libs; doesn't hurt to slam your hand on the table either. BTW, hope ya got the obviuous sarcasm. Ruffling the hair on the back of your neck won't make me do anything but laugh, I respond to intellectual discourse with issues, I'm one of those silly liberals. That's great, so when they feel like doanting their resource for a noce tax write-off they do, awesome. So let's make the system more objective and available and have this pool of money from which we draw so everyone gets help. Perhaps, just as conservative Teddy Roosevelt was teh same, he was so good it got his face plastered on Mt. Rushmore. But the ugly side of Paul is that he doesn't give two shits about social care. If you want to convice me or to even support your position, why not illustrate Paul's social svs platform. You I'll listen and respond, after all, I'm a GD liberal. Don't assume I skydive that much, it's been months. As for a vacation, been allost 2 years since a quick run to Vegas. But I would rather have everyone's healthcare prearranged in some form, even if we have to participate in its maintenance via mandated participation as long as regulation exists. And the indigent need free care. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. Basic heathcare is more than one needs? I guess I'm greedy because I want that elusive basic healthcare. Next thing you know I'll want running water and electricity. Love the disclaimer

Huckabee, Paul....thank you, you just conformed 8 years of Obama. Again, thank you. And as long as the Republican electorate keeps thinking these guys are neato, that will further affirm Dems win the WH and Congress.

If I work my ass off and become rich as a result, why shouldn't I be allowed to relax a bit and remain that way? You seem to be the classist here. Blues, Dave Or if your lazy friend inherits it, or if some Wall Street thugs steals it...... See, the origin doesn't matter, but pandering to the rich while the nation's people are poor, homeless, sick, etc is classist. Amazing how the people of this nation have no regard for the poor....until they become poor that is. Dave, it's just the structure of our nation to dislike people in lower economic classes than we are in. Don't worry, people in higher classes than you or I also have contempt for us.

Your incidious hate for Obama is clear, I get it tho, that was me last year. I'm not a PA expert, doubt many here are, so I won't pretend to throw out particulars, but there needs to be a federal protection of the nation via some regulation. Isn't teh TSA a product of the PA? When I was in school, we would write papers about the Constitution: Issue, reasoning, Assessment, conclusion in reagrd to SCOTUS cases, but when you talk to professors they kinda roill their eyes about the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues. They have to recognoze it, but just barely. Cops don't care about it, judges don't always underestand it or understand it tehir own way, so to the Constitution I say: what a neat old piece of paper. Actually the US Const was retooled about 5 years ago in regard to the 4th. Before, absent fleeing felon or exigency, the doorway was the threshold, which is why cops have you step outside. Now they can remove the person to get the warrant if they see a pot plant inside. But enough of Congressman Willson. Enough about Cindy Shehan. Like slavery? It was written by slave owners, then revised to exclude slavery under the 13th, later enforced by teh 14th. The US Const is a real neat old piece of Americana, but operationally a joke. EDITED TO ADD: Obama voted against the Iraq War from the time he entered Congress.

Ross Perot wasn't that far from him. And replace it with millions of homeless as he would slash every social program he could and call it compassionate conservatism. Last time some states had sovereignty many performed rogue trials and legalized slavery - decentralized governemtn = corruption. The Republican Party and Libertarian Party aren't that much different; look at the origin of most Libertarians. Hmmm, and people say Fox is whiz-bang, whereas CNN / MSNBC are biased, agenda-driven liberal homo-loving, welfare mongers. Maybe time to rethink that. He's a Reagan protege, cut taxes for the rich, cut social svs, kill laobor unions and do so in the name of freedom and liberty. Another classist elitist doing what he can to keep the rich, rich. When the Republican Party won their first election, they beat the Dems and the Whig Parties. The Republicans represented liberty from oppression that was dealt by the slave-happy Dems and the elitist, rich-loving Whigs. The Republicans were so great they won the presidency for 44 of the next 52 years. But then, as all good things do, they change. After Wilson and WWI brought us the deregulating greedy, elite-loving Repubs. Coolidge and Harding set the stage for Hoover to inherit the Great Depressiona nd he was trained to continue to pander to the elite, until his last year in office when he finally departed his party and raised taxes; you might say he was the MAlcom X who figured it out too late. This was teh changing of the guard when the Republicans became what they defeated: all the compassion of the pre-Civil War Dems and all the elitist greed of the Whig Party. Since then they've had 2 descent representatives: Eisenhower and GWHB. So when everyone says the Republican Party needs a new face, I think you aren't getting it, this last election was about people being sick of elitist-loving Republicans, what that statement of new face means is that the Republicans need to split the difference and become more compassionate, not more greedy. BTW, compassion toward rich people doesn't count. What the Republcian Party needs is not Perot/Paul, they need a Colin Powell type, a reasonable Republican. Either way, run as a Republican and fail to get the nod or run as a Libertarian and get 3% of the popluar vote; all good with me.

As much as I hate Bush, as much as I hated the PA when it came out, some of the provisions in there are neccessary. The arrogance before 911 is what caused 911, we have to do something. With that, the PA goes too far in some areas. I say guard the homeland, fuck this trillion dollar war and maybe retool the PA. The PA isn't our biggest enemy tho.

Status quo seems to be working so well, why fix anything?

Yea, next thing you know they'll be impeaching someone for getting a BJ.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement. We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly. The poor girls get the basic healthcare you are talking about, and part of the "myriad of other things we do poorly": entitlements. You're talking about a sample size of 1 that isn't random, so this isn't an imperical way of looking at this. Didn't follow the rest of your reply, but I listed 7 or 8 items where our healthcare lacks over the rest of the world, let's re-examine the entire list ratherthan using non-scientific methods on one to strike the entire notion the US has shitty HC.

Irony score 1,000,000,000,000,000 Actually the US is less dangerous according to these guys: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009 Check out all 3 years.

OK, so what's your point? They wrote, "health care coverage" not, health "insurance" coverage as you wrote, if yours was an extrapolation of theirs. The idea is that however they do it, and there are many ways from full-blown all-out socialized medicine bought and paid for by the gov at large, to non-profit insureers controlled by the gov. Either way, it's universal, meaning for all. OK, my question was about it being an injustice to you, I did not make the inference that you did not want to take part. In some countries such as Canada you have to enroll in it or go outside the country, so you could make a point there, but what is proposed here is just an avenue for a non-profit source for those who do not have it. I don't see you being forced into it. I could draw analogy after another about the prohibitive speed limit, child custody system / child support (I don't have kids), placement of GOD in teh pledge, rules for unionization of workplaces (closed shop vs RTW), etc. SO I could go on and on and claim I'm being infringed upon because I can't drive 90-110 on the freeway, which I could competently do, it's my right to self-determination and I carry private auto insurance to cover an accident so I should have that right. How far would it go before a judge? But it's injust for me to be held to 65, I can safely drive faster. Why am I being forced into driving 65, that's not my personal choice? I've made remedies in case I hurt someone, I have insurance, I bought the car, the gas, the tires; THIS IS AN ABOMINATION. In a busy and full society such as ours, we have to relinquish freedoms to gain securities, our choices are to go live in the middle of nowhere by ourselves and no one will care. You have no right to be employed. You make a lot of assumptions within that. First thatthe gov will be employers, second that hospoital workers won't like working for them. ALso, think of the work they will have for decades to come if more people can see the doctor. But even if the medical worker objected, should we put one occupation before the rest of the country? Seems like the rights (assuming they didn't want it) of very few would trump the rights of the country here, that's an injustice. These are funny money dollars, just like the military expenditures. As for gov spending, show me one thing you have control over other than voting for bond measures, and even then you don't always have control of that. So with your reasoning here, you are in a constant state of injustice since probably most of what the gov spends is in conflict with what you would do. SO your newfound injustice with the proposed healthcare, this is status quo. Can you find anyone that is ok with much that the gov spends on? I can't. Somewhere in here the welfare of the people need to take precedence. WHo knows what the burden will be, but governmental borrowing, spending, taxing, etc isn't in the name of anyone. This is not a commune of 20 people, it's a massive beaurocracy of over 300 million, it just isn't that personal. Also, I'm sure there is quite a bit more that is bought, borrowed, etc that you disagree with. Your language is like that of which would be found in the Articles, we just aren't that country anymore. Finally, no one is borrowing in your name, this will not cost you a penny. So what you're saying is that if it didn't cost a dime you would still oppose it? That's what you're saying when you say it's about the law not the cost. OK, back to my rhetoric questuion from last post. I inferred that if it cost you and you don't like it, then that is the injustice, am I wrong to infer that? BTW, when you say this, I'm inferring that you thought it would be an injustice strictly because of teh cost, how else would it be an injustice from your perspective? You hate to see all people get healthcare? How is taht an injustice? That would be like me being pissed because my neighbor just bought a new Corvette; where's teh injustice? You're flip-flopping, you just wrote: I find it interesting that you focus on the financial value to prove injustice. Now it is aboutthe money. Is the injustice about the perceived cost or not? Is it somehow both? As for a tax increase, Obama siad he was going to raise taxes on people over 250K DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, did ya miss that? Even if a tax increase is piggybacked, it was planedd loooooong ago. And if Obama has to dump it to get the votes to pass HC, he will and reintroduce it later. Taxes will be raised under Obama HC or no HC. And probably beyond Bush's sunsetting tax cuts. And there won't be a rush of people who haven't had HC for years now rushing the hospitals to get care they've put off? Please. HC will blow up with demand for workers. Actually I'll be glad to argue surgeries had versus surgeries that would have been postponed, see it's more of a humanitarian issue for me than a business decision. Oh a, "DIFFERENT PROPOSAL? Is that cryptic for status quo? I think it will be easy to figure the cost, gain, etc on many levels. All we have to do is look at where we are after uni-care, compare that with where we are now, as the GOP proposal is status quo. They have not proposed anything that ensure all Americans have healthcare, just buying policies accross state lines and other lame non-measures.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement. We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly.

Except when it comes to humanity like ensuring all have some kind of basic healthcare, then we're last or near last. A great country if you have a lot of money, no argument.

As I wrote, I have not been here since the inception, so I don't know, I just have not seen you go it (military spending) at all or with such vehement. BTW, I agree and we should cut it in half for starters and see what it looks like then. GHWB and Clinton did a great job transitioning to that, then idiot came in and fucked it up. I am not making up positions for you, just going with the information I know and I posed it that way. Furthermore, I'm not trying to make this about you or me, it's about the issue of healthcare, morality, costs, etc. I still want to know how uni-care creates an injustice to you. I also want to know how uni-care would cost you a dime.

I did once about 5 posts up, is this 'game, set, match' for me Tom? I'll do it again and please explain how universal care expenditures will cost you a dime or create an injustice in your context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. Health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care, ranging from nationalized health care systems (such as the U.K. and Sweden) to decentralized private or non-profit institutions (as in Germany and France). Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries. The underlined is what Obama is talking about. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] The government directly covers 27.8% of the population[17] through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRICARE. SO if 27% are covered, and 16% are without, then only 57% of the people have healthcare ins on their own, a starkly different way to look at this issue. EDITED TO ADD: POST 56 I PROVIDED A LINK TO THE DEFINITION.

In the short term. Even in the middle to long term, if you happen to be a large, powerful and wealthy nation. But in the end, debts do, actually, have to be repaid. How much you spend on a credit card need not be tied to your income in the short term. But in the long run, the bills will come due. Oversimplification as an analogy is fine, but US fiscal properties are SO MUCH MORE complicated. So a nation's debt get paid back; are there any nations that have ever paid off their national debt? All we do is pay on the interest. Here's an article that says we paid off the debt in 1835 under Jackson: http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm I read elswhere that we alomst did, either way, has any nation paid off its debt, esp a substantial debt? Either way, you and I will never see it and if you have nay real issues with spending, why not look at this monsterous military spending at 600B a year? Never hear ya complaining about that, so is it the spending or the concept of social spending that bothers you? Yea, that was rhetorical.

I understand you - in other words, if uni-care (TM) is not passed, they'll make up something else in order to justify outrageous tax increases...... Sure, blame the debt, blame Iraq, blame whatever. They're politicians, they do what they want and find a backdoor way to justify it. When Clinton and Obama were elected they knew they would be raising taxes and at least Obaam said so. GHWB may not have known he would be rising taxes, altho maybe he did and it was an emptry campaign promise, which I think is likely, but what a great president. Cliton wanted tax increases and soc med, he got the former but not the latter.

I don't see morality playing a factor here. I see it as hypocrisy. Complaining at having to pay for coffee at work as you pour a cup is ridiculous. You could buy coffee elsewhere and not drink work coffee. Remember, you have not established how you will have to pay for uni-care if it passes.

I really wish people would place the quote that I made in the box. All I can assume you are responding to is this: LUCKY: Again, there is no connect between uni-care and taxes; NONE. If uni-care fails, taxes will rise by as much as those who advocate tax increases can. If uni-care passes - read the above statement. If so, I wrote that there is no connection between uni-care and taxes, as in the tax rate. That's different that borring and paying, which is a simplistic and unrealistic way to look at the government or for that matter, all government. Outlay (spending) appropriations and tax rate collecctions are nbot considered together. To say there is would be as hypothetical as me saying that a healthier society has a higher GDP, hence uni-care is a fiscally sound thing to implement. Maybe it would be and reduce the debt increases, maybe it would tack on to the debt, either way whether the HC proposals pass or fail, taxes will be increased at the very least by the sunsetting tax reduction. I would be real strapped to think that Obama won't raise them more. To keep this in context, the debt will never be paid off, 233 years of drastic increase s/b evidence of that. Uni-care has zero to do with possible tax hikes in the comming year or two.

Yes. Which makes it straight up insane that people are trying to pass a law requiring every American to purchase their products, and contribute to their bottom line. And some people even want the government to pay directly into their bottom line with taxpayer dollars. How's that a good idea? Now that I agree with, passing a law to mandate health insurance like auto insurance is pathetic, esp since the limits can be changed by a fine future Repiblican president and the reqquirement be maintained.