Lucky...

>>>>>>>>Russert was definitely on the attack, but I thought Ron Paul's replies were intelligent & had substance. Oh really? Like when Russert posted a quote where Paul called Reagan a traitor and Paul denied it? Like when Russert stated several earmark spending bills proposed by Paul, then Paul kept interrupting and claiming he proposed them but nver voted for them? Like when Russert posted several cites of Paul saying Reagan was a traitor and a failure, GHW Bush was...... I forget, but a derogatory remark, and Bush was a disaster, then said the Republican Party was lost - Russert asked whey he's running as one. How about when Russert asked if Paul would run as an indep if he didn;t get the Repub nod? Paul sidestepped and said he had no plans to do so. Russert asked if the door was open, they went back and forth, and Pual said the door was open a little bit. This is what I've said for a while now, Paul is going to do that, just like Lieberman. There were others too, but I can't recall them all, I am going to get he transcript from MTP and make a few more arguments. So did you agree with Paul when he said that America has become a fascist, corporatist mess; the same thing I've said for years? >>>>>>>>>>>One thing I like about Ron Paul's campaign is that it inspires discussion & challenges ideas about serious issues. Many of the other Republicans seem to be in a contest to show how much religious posturing they can do. So you're comparing garbage to garbage. Paul has some good ideas, but his absolute constitutional stance is idiotic and unrealistic. There is the living constitution that is more realistic. >>>>>>>>>>>>The other candidates seem to be carefully-schooled panderers. Which could be why Ron Paul doesn't sound "presidential." He says exactly what he means & he's not a slick bullshit artist. When he sidestepped the question of running indep if he loses teh Repub primary he sounded just like them.

He's even a bigger nutcase than I thought. He's aginst the 1964 civil rights act, thought Lincoln overstepped his bounds and continually interrputed Russert when Russert cited the earmarks presented by Paul. I see here by the way the Paul fans have posted since his appearance that even they don't really care what he stands for, just vote for him.

>>>>>>>>>>>Oh I thought we were talking about the US... Oh, we are. Simply comparing the US to the ret of the world is drawing a standard and comparing the US to it. Hint: The standard is the use of industrialized nations - often used. We can do this when talk about capital punishment, juvenile justice, taxes, military, etc. Those who wish to contain their arguments to a narrow microcosm usually do so for the purpose of concealing the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>Hello, the US has had socialized meds for decades, Right, so Medicade and Medicare are socialized meds to you - BRILLIANT. Let me see, per your citations, who qualifies? ...covering people who are either age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria....individuals are eligible for Medicare if they (or their spouse) worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and are at least 65 years old and are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America. That's real socialiazed medicine, huh? Yea, we are tooooo socialized, we need to curtail those benefits and let people die, after all, personal repsonsibility, right? >>>>>>>>>>>and it's too expensive to maintain due to cost and demographic changes taking place and forecast to continue. Right, but the fact that we spend 45% of the world's total military expenditure means nothing, right? After all, they are all jealous and out to get us, right? Actually, if we include war funding we spent ~60% of the world's military budget, but socilaized meds are too expensive huh? BRILLIANT. Letme take this argumenbt out of your microcosm and put it ino context..... we are ~4 1/2% of the world's population, yet we are spending 45% of the world's military budget. We also have most millionaires here by a longshot and deprive 1 in 6 of basic healthcare. - just skip over these, hard to address for you - >>>>>>>>>>>>>What we don't have is universal health care coverage. Big difference. BIG SEMANTICS. In order for the Democratic canidates to get the hillbilly garbage to go along with socialized medicine, they call it universal healthcare. Once these rednecks tried soc meds, they would largely be hooked and the rightwing faction knows this so they use whatever language or tactics they can to quash it. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine Socialized medicine or state medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to describe a public health care system that is controlled and financed by the government.[1] It can refer to any system of medical care that is largely both publicly financed and government administered or regulated. [2] [3] The term is narrowly used by some to describe a system where the government funds and manages health care by directly employing health care providers directly [4]. It has also been applied to systems where the government sets rules for private practices to provide treatment for re-imbursement by the state.[5] This extended portion is effectively the same as single payer health insurance, where the government finances health care but is uninvolved in delivery.[6] Examples of socialized medicine include such systems as the United States' Veterans Health Administration, the British National Health Service hospital trusts,[7][8] and the Cuban national health care system. [9][10] Most industrialized countries, and many developing countries, operate some form of socialized medicine, though the term is often used pejoratively in political discourse. [11] [12] See there, it's a term used as a derogatory name for political purpose. UNIVERSAL CARE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Universal health care refers to government programs intended to ensure that all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region have access to most types of health care. Patients may pay for some portion of their care directly, but most care is subsidized by taxpayers and/or by compulsory health insurance. So you can use whatever terminology you want, but the point is that we don't ensure our people are healthy as most/all indust nations do, instead we spend 550+B per year on basic military operations. So let's examine the issue/semantics poer you. You say: - Socialized medicine amounts to Medicare, Medicaide. - Universal care is were the gov ensures all have medicare coverage. Deduction: You then say that we currently have soc meds and it goes too far, too expensive. SO you want us to move away from a plan that so inferior in its coverage to that of the rest of the world that we are pittied by the rest of the indust world? Hmmmm, no mention of curtailing the military spending, must have been an ovesight, or you like that spending. Look, you can attach whatever political label you wish, but socialized meds is a cutting term to define mandatory spending to ensure everyone has healthcare coverage. Do you want to get into an arument about semantic labels or address spending vs healthcare needs of a nation? The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[1] The government directly covers a little over one-quarter of the population[8] through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and the poor.[9] Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[

He reduced my taxes. Now, if we could get the Fair Tax enacted, all of the little guys who suck the system dry, would have to pay their fair share. Illegal aliens and foriegn tourists could balance the books. Do you have a problem with that, or are just a hater of the man who makes $1.00 more than you? He reduced your taxes a tiny amount while at the same time running up enormous debts on your behalf. You don't even realize you have been hoodwinked. They're so lock-stepped that they can't even see around the guy in front of them..... kinda like sheep; nose to asshole.

>>>>>>He reduced my taxes. Right, Clinton raised them, the deficit was balanced and the debt started to get paid down a shade. 1 US Dollar = 1.55 Canadian dollar as Clnto left office, now we're lucky of they're equal, that is the effect of lowering your taxes; are good with that? >>>>>>>>>>Now, if we could get the Fair Tax enacted, all of the little guys who suck the system dry, would have to pay their fair share. Oh, the common person is the problem? Warren Buffet would contradict that, and it doesn't get much bigger than that. We are probably the only industrialized nation that has no socialized meds, as well as other social progs and you still want to chant that BS about the little guy not carrying his load? What a joke. >>>>>>>>>>>>>.Illegal aliens and foriegn tourists could balance the books. Do you have a problem with that, or are just a hater of the man who makes $1.00 more than you? I'm a hater of slime that has no problem with the class disparity that we do and still chants shit abou the little guy getting over.

Utilitarianism? Yea, nice concept, it breeds things like capital punishment. Utilitarianism defies the concept of the Constitution, which allegedly promotes individual liberty. The issue Dems have with the signed bill is that we are extremely sceptical of any bill that is signed by this garbage that is supposedly there to help the little guy, as he really hasn't signed any of those, has he? Can you list any bills directed at helping the little guy and not helping the rich in enormous ways?

I thought you were using convoluted logic but I know believe I am wrong. You are a socialist. And that is OK if that is what you believ but I wonder ..... Are you a US citizen???? Wait a minute, Mr. Personal Responsibility thinks it's ok to shirk a debt and even get a nod from the IRS? Pick a side and build a house. Take it where you will. Wow, what another stretch A stretch? Repug personal responsibility includes paying your billd, taxes, etc.....right? Now, should I attack you for your spelling? You've made it clear that you have no reply for most issues, bt here goes again: A stretch? Repug personal responsibility includes paying your bills, taxes, etc.....right? That's why being a Repug is so difficult; you get stuck with your rigid nature. I feel your pain, but address the assertion, aren't Repugs about personal responsibility? No, as we see they are about shirking these things at the cost of the country, just look at the debt and you will see.

I thought you were using convoluted logic but I know believe I am wrong. You are a socialist. And that is OK if that is what you believ but I wonder ..... Are you a US citizen???? Wait a minute, Mr. Personal Responsibility thinks it's ok to shirk a debt and even get a nod from the IRS? Pick a side and build a house. Take it where you will. Wow, what another stretch A stretch? Repug personal responsibility includes paying your billd, taxes, etc.....right?

I thought you were using convoluted logic but I know believe I am wrong. You are a socialist. And that is OK if that is what you believ but I wonder ..... Are you a US citizen???? Wait a minute, Mr. Personal Responsibility thinks it's ok to shirk a debt and even get a nod from the IRS? Pick a side and build a house.

I'm out there? OK, genius, step away from teh bong and go back and read what I wrote, which was: I am objective and can applaud the loser for that as well as lawsuit immunity for gun makers - the only positive things he's done in 7 years. Applaud; perhaps you are unaware of what that means ... I'll try to stick to 1 syllable words for you .

Yea, good one.....

As Nathaniel wrote, it seems there must be a corporate hook. Altho dirtbag in chief could have written in protection for corps, none for individuals. I am objective and can applaud the loser for that as well as lawsuit immunity for gun makers - the only positive things he's done in 7 years. Nw if we can get him to stop excluding millions from healthcare access and stop immunizing telecom corps for helping his admin illegally tap phones.....

1) Right wing nutjobs who want everyone to love Jebus or get fucked 2) Right wing GOP fiscal trash who wants medical coverage to be exclusive Merry Ferstivus

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work. Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc. We have had several problems with it. Failure may have been a bit of a strong choice of words. We have mismanaged it and in it's current state it will not be sustainable. A culture of entitlement (canadians seem to feel that they are owed a quality of life for some reason) has caused gratuitous abuse of our health care system. Furthermore, special interest pandering has caused misallocation of funds in our health care towards non-essentials at the expense of some life saving treatments. The wait lists are there. My mother in law had severe pain and required surgury and had to eventually go out of the country for it. I did not have a family doctor and was on a waiting list for a year. Regarding the strong dollar, remember that Canada is a heavily commodity export based economy with the bulk of our exports going to the US. A strong dollar hurts that. Also the bulk of our tourism is Americans, so again the strong dollar may not be good. There are arguments both ways for that. I'm still looking for that long line, as I have no line whatsoever. Whining Canucks would cring at no line vs the so-called long line. >>>>>>>>>>Regarding the strong dollar, remember that Canada is a heavily commodity export based economy with the bulk of our exports going to the US. A strong dollar hurts that. Also the bulk of our tourism is Americans, so again the strong dollar may not be good. There are arguments both ways for that. Point is, our economies are heavily tied, so the relevance is that you have soc meds, we don't, yet you're doing better financially than are we by far. See, the average pathetic RedNeckpublican here is so idiotic that he/she spews some shit about soc meds killing our economy, yet they don't have a problem with the US spending 45% of the world's total military bill.

In economic terms the relative performance of one currency to another has approximately zero relationship to health care -- at least until you get to Zimbabwe-like scenarios where the printing presses start rolling to "fund" universal coverage. There's a leading theory that currency fluctuations mean very little beyond fuel for pissing contests between nationalists. But the righty argument is that soc meds will break the bank,that is my point. Point is, that's not true. In fact, the US bank is well beyong hammmered, yet no soc meds...... that's the argument have an answer?

It's festivus god damnit.

That works out because we have far simpler words for the rest of the world. And we;re right becuase we match teh rest of the world doallr for dollar in military, so we just kill those who disagree with us.

>>>>>>>>The only reason citizens of the U.S.A. call themselves Americans is because no other name would sound right. What should we call ourselves, U.S.A.icans? And because we're arrogant and ethnocentric.

Not if you're a self-centered American I agree and have wonderd why we get the marquee name for all of teh Americas, North and South. I guess when you steal a nation, kill its inhabitants, you get to claim the entire continent.

Mist assault weapons are much smaller than hunting rounds, less distance, less impact. The term really is pathetic, coined by ????, perpetuated by anti-gunners.

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work. Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc.

But it doesn't work like that, bill. The other states will say, "This is where California did it wrong" and each will mess it up in their own way. And Cali won't fix it, either. They'll just pump more money into it. No government has ever been in the business of ceding power. Explain how Canada does it and kicks our dollar's ass at the same time.

Seems to me the problem identified is that we HAVEN'T been denying basic healthcare. It's just that the people and organizatins PROVIDING it are going out of business because they are not denying care. So the state wants to take over, and ironically, has no way to pay for it. So the state will be in the business of ensuring more people get denied care. HMO's are going out of business? Is that so? Hospitals are recording huge profits, yet bitch about emergency care not be recompensed. I haven't heard that HC providers are going out of business, and if so, is it due to poor management / 100M salaries for those up top, or what? If the state has no way to pay for it, they will still pay for it and worry about paying for it later, kinda like the military expenditures now. Point is, I don't think it's humane to deny based upon cost, if it is needed we need to pay for it. Explain how Canada and much of Europe does it w/o going broke and having their $$$ kill ours. Oh, I know, they don't match the world in defense spending.

I poked around and asked a couple years ago, I was asking DP opponent groups if they knew of post mortem appeals and they had no idea of any. Then I noticed the SCOTUS did review a case about a year ago, they cherry picked one and affirmed it was the right thing to do to have executed the person - forget the case name. Convictions are based on shaky evidence/testiminy many times, but you want concrete FACT that a person was innocent, convicted and executed? Don't hold ur breath. Just look at all the releases from death row since the reinstatement of the DP in 76 and then you can discern that some undoubtedly slipped thru. Then think of pre DP moratorium in 72 and think of all the ones who were inncoent and executed. The balck woman who was recently post mortem exonerated comes to mind. Funny how the conservative convict and kill with shaky evidence, yet want a notarized note from Jesus that a mistake was made.