A Brit on ObamaCare: ‘Dark Day For Freedom in America’

Even some Euros get it.

The passage last night of Barack Obama’s health care reform bill through the House of Representatives is yet another blow to freedom in America inflicted by the Obama administration. The legislation, which comes at a staggering cost of $940 billion, will hugely add to the already towering national debt, now at over $12 trillion. It is yet another millstone round the necks of the American people, already faced with the highest levels of unemployment in a generation.

It is also a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers. It has also been rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and with not an ounce of bipartisan support.

Above all the health care bill is a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government. The United States has thrived as a nation for over 230 years precisely because of its love for freedom and its belief in free markets.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/ 

“The United States has thrived as a nation for over 230 years precisely because of its love for freedom and its belief in free markets.”

Not anymore.

18 thoughts on “A Brit on ObamaCare: ‘Dark Day For Freedom in America’”

  1. “Condescending Brit snobbery” No, I’m better than you no matter which country I come from. The longer this goes on the more wild your claims become, the more they rely on your own views and less on evidence.
    “You are a socialist, and you don’t even have the balls to admit it.” What?! Well you’re wrong and you don’t have the balls to admit it.
    After the decontextualised and misrepresented account of the companies the state HAD to take over, you ignored your other overblown statements where you said Obama wanted to take over other industries (media etc etc). Hmmm they are suspiciously absent, possibly because you unable explain them.
    “All of the articles you provide are links to leftwing publications, websites, authors, columnists, and “think tanks””.” There is a stark difference between published articles and blogs, which are basically just people guessing. The print media has certain guidelines to meet and therefore cannot make spurious claims, much like the ones found in your choice of postings. I mean “biggovernment.com’ purlease. That propaganda dressed as news is a haven for the deluded, the cynical and the idiotic. They just spread fear and lies to an audience who have had their minds narrowed with years of this shit being pushed down their throats. As I’ve said before, when it comes to blaming all mainstream media bar one, that’s a sign that you are on the fringe of cuckooland.
    “You are obviously “unfamiliar” with the bulk of MSM in this country.” No I’m not. Doing a Masters in Media and Communication and centring my undergrad thesis around such issues kind of means I know more about this than say some conspiracy theorist with a bullhorn. If you just take a look at ANY of the academic literature surrounding US (or UK, as you as ever are glaringly ignorant of that area specifically) media then you would realise that your argument has been rebuked, debunked and exposed as the result of Republican brainwashing.
    “You effetes simply cannot fathom why the “ignorant masses” don’t know “what’s good for them”. It sucks to know that we actually think for ourselves and won’t be misled by the barrage of bullshit and Obama socialist hard sell.” Whilst people can think for themselves, when they are just repeating the Sarah Palin and her dunderheaded cronies mumblings about socialism, it’s obvious they are not in possession of the truth, or any rough approximation of it. People who use ‘socialism’ to refer to anyone left of centre (or in your case, left of centre-right) highlight the fact that their news sources are lying to them, as no respected media outlet would make such bold and unsupported claims. But then their strategy is to present their odd-ball theories as what ‘the average American’ would think, which is hugely insulting to the average American as I would have thought they would be smarter than that. The truth is that to claim some legitimacy your gang has to claim the centre ground, to show that America is crying out with you against Obama, when in fact it isn’t. It’s just you and your chums crying because you’re not in power.
    Because your one brain cell has nothing to rub up against, it is understandable for you to not question anything, I mean surely breathing is about all you can cope with. But if you do manage to muster some extra grey matter then maybe you think about the information you post. Think about where it comes from, the reasons why it is there etc. The only thing you are in firm possession of is your extra strength blinkers with which you view the world. Instead of seeing things in a value neutral manner, you are so pre-possessed with your hatred of all things Democratic that you are letting that overrule your critical mindset. This is an prime example of ‘othering’ where an ‘us’ and ‘them’ is enacted, creating a double movement of bring those who agree with the ‘us’ viewpoint closer together, whilst demonising the other. You are so caught up in your hatred of the Democrats that you cannot see who is spurring this on, why they are doing it (now what could the Republicans have to gain from this?) and what coloured shit they are pouring down your mouth.
    Media agencies have foreign reporters now, they don’t need to guess what is going on in another country, a tactic you seem to love.
    “I’ve even used some of your own Brit media to counter your assertions” – the media you used was a blog from the Telegraph, which has no quality control, or BBC articles which I’ve also bettered, so it’s not their political standpoint, more their continual ‘wrongness’.
    “ead their own words, philosophy, and actions before you spew any more nonsense about what you think constitutes socialism in Obama’s government.” As far as I remember I’m the only one to have read Robert McChesney’s work, so I, above you know best about his “words, philosophies and actions” whilst you are wallowing in the fictitious crap you think is fact. But then your argument is built on your own special definition of ‘socialism’ which does contradict the dictionary definition you posted previously, but without that label you would just be an over-zealous gasbag with no direction to spew propaganda. Oh wait, you are.
    “The BBC??? Impartial??? ROFLMAO!!! Try again” Awwwww. Bless. The Royal Charter of the BBC enshrines impartiality (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf), the Public Service Broadcasting requirement legally forces the BBCs to remain independent and impartial, so basically I think again you are spewing hot air. But next time, try looking these things up for yourself first. It’s starting to get embarrassing.
    “Your own media has leveled a shitload of criticism at your “wonderful” NHS, (which I have provided)”. Yes, we cannot breathe for all the criticisms of the NHS. As you’re American and thus don’t get irony. I was joking. Whilst there are undeniable critiques of the NHS by the media it misses the point that you are trying to make: that the NHS model does not work. A similar analogy would be in my saying that your critiques of the Obama Administration are proof that democracy does not work. It’s simply illogical to make such claims. No one politician or citizen of Britain would deny that the NHS can be made better, but the vast majority would never want to go to the discriminatory system you had over there. So yet again you’ve misunderstood the argument and overegged your omelette.
    “You want a system where everyone is poor….oh scuse me, on “equal footing”. No one is allowed to get wealthy, and if you are, you’re taxed/penalized into economic oblivion.” Whilst that is fundamentally misrepresenting my position, but then you totalitarian critique knows not subtlety, your position would just allow the gap between rich (who do not necessarily work harder to get their money, to think in such a way is simply naive and ignorant of reality) and poor to grow exponentially. That would really make America great, instilling a class based plutocracy. Well done you.
    “You vent your spleen at free market capitalism in favor of centralized government-control on everything from private industry to health care, and you make the ludicrous statement that I don’t understand socialism” But you don’t understand socialism, or at least know how to apply it to reality. I’ve never said that ‘all private industry should be nationalised’ because if I did, then that would be socialist. I’ve never done that. The two are different. And also neither has the Democrats. But then that requires seeing things in perspective and understanding political subtleties, neither of which you have proven yourself capable of.
    “Economics 101 for Dummies” – nothing below that title would be found within the pages of an economic textbook, which just shows you are blind to the realities of economics. According to your interpretation of the financial crisis, the banks were these hopeless entities, who were at the beck and call of the government, that’s not true. Also as far as I remember the banks didn’t have to take the bailout money, over here Barclays for one didn’t receive anything even though they were entitled to, does that make the bank CEOs who took government help, socialists? I think not. Your oversimplified account of the financial crisis, is not one that is supported by anyone with any know how.
    But creating a tax isn’t unconstitutional? That’s why this is being done with the IRS. If it didn’t have these elements in it, the Bill would have just maintained the status quo. To get people into healthcare, and to raise the priority of it amongst the people, it has to be done this way.
    When I used media matters you cried ‘socialist’, yet you have managed to cite a fascist source (obviously it’s not fascist, but with your love of exaggeration, possibly that’s the only way you’ll understand the term ‘right-wing’). CNS, is part of the Media Research Centre, which is run by a conservative, with conservative backers: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center . To paraphrase: a more right-wing website cannot be found on the internet.
    Whilst the Heritage article seemed to be one of the most progressive things I’ve read coming from them, it just spoke in broad strokes, with no specifics on which it could be tested.
    The Fox-News article you cited: “The Reconciliation Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill”, your words: “The Reconciliation Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill.” Sound similar? Either you cannot form a sentence without copying it from somewhere, or you have been brainwashed to the extent that you are spewing Fox talking points. Shameful.
    Why should I be surprised that yet again you fail to see the point of the argument? Firstly, when the Republican’s opposed Medicare/Medicaid it was predominately a moral issue, the perceived removal of freedoms and not the economic argument. So it is you who is the revisionist, as you are attempting to imbue the anti-Medicare/aids with the knowledge of today. But that still doesn’t excuse neither you nor them from the second point. Just because the costs are spiralling it doesn’t negate the benefits of the programme nor the countless lives its saved. Just because you’d rather have a couple of dollars in your pocket whilst watching those ghastly poor and elderly die, doesn’t mean everyone else should be so elitist. 2
    “That’s why we are doing every thing we can to overturn this catastrophe” why not try supporting the Bill, as the Director of the CBO said (helpfully in the blog you provided) that the deficit will be reduced with this enactment of the Bill.
    “Unlike you Brits, we like the freedom to make the choices that impact our lives. That includes health care choices, and the right not to be forced into programs that do not look out for our best interests,” You speak of choice, yet you time and time again miss the point that not everyone has the same ability to choose as you. You are ignoring the people who want healthcare but can’t; the people who have healthcare but had it taken away; the people who cannot afford to get healthcare. All three cases are people who are removed from choice, who are locked out of the system. But then you care more about money than people. As for your timeless jokes about “rationing”, please, grow up and realise that the scaremongering that you’ve been a party to is not representative of reality.
    With this paragraph there are so many factual errors it makes me question your logical abilities: firstly, the US still has and will have private insurance companies, those middlemen who don’t care about your health and only exist to make profit out of injuries. “the government deems what it will pay for.” How is that any different to insurance companies?
    Puurlease – the revolutionary slogan is a bit overdone isn’t it? Blimey you have elections, you are represented, and thus making yourself looking like the original patriots is misguided, misjudged and incredibly dim-witted. So you disagree with the people in charge, welcome to democracy, plenty of people around the world living in democracies have the same problem. Your naively anarchistic views about the role of government put you more left than Stalin. Good going.
    See above about plagiarising, as you actually do seem unable to come up with new phraseology. But your shock at lobbyists is frankly laughable. OH MY GOD, PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE DECISION MAKERS. Yes, you have a neo-pluralistic system, meaning the big groups will be heard, but: http://maplight.org/ . Hmmmm it seems that those invested with the old system wanted it to remain. Why is that? For instance look at Paul Ryan, he received a heck of a lot of money from the insurance groups (http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/445-paul-ryan). Will they like it if he wanted power taken away from them? No.
    “I take your refusal to read the citations I’ve posted as your typical dismissive bullshit. Par for the course” Dismissive, moi? I read the citations, but they do not back up your points, merely make them again in different sentences. Yet your inability to prove the purported ‘rationing’, deficit growing, etc points you continue to make show the falsehood behind them.
    Media Matters: I asked you to prove that they were one of the most left-wing sites on the internet, not simply a left-wing site on the internet. There’s a difference, not that you would be able to grasp the distinction. Here’s some more radical left wing sites just so you can compare: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/Home http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ http://www.cpusa.org/ Thus you haven’t proved anything bar your inability to read. Well done.
    If you bothered to read my argument, I implied that if racists were to go to a party, out of the two it would be the Republicans. That isn’t saying that everyone in it is a racist, as that would be factually incorrect. But denials that have come from the Republican’s about race obfuscates the truth, as time and time again you neither confirm nor deny, you just complain about the racism tag: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html http://www.examiner.com/x-2071-DC-Special-Interests-Examiner~y2009m3d4-Is-the-Republican-Party-racist . Yes those darned Democrats actually giving a damn. Why not let the poor people just suffer as that’s the American way? Your anachronistic view of welfare belongs in another century as does your unwillingness to see the world for what it really is.
    So you find one anti-war poster and all the world’s a racist. That is hardly conclusive. Whilst it is impossible to argue that every Democratic supporter is not racist, you do miss the point about the racism that is quite apparent within some of the Republican supporters, and instead of denying it real change has to be made.
    Whilst that is a good example, the results are basically the same: the rich get richer leaving the poor languishing behind. But she concentrates on the US free-market and how that was rushed through overseas leading to crippling inflation, huge job losses etc. As for your citation: “She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support”. Well that’s a pile of shit. Speak to the average British person and they will have to restrain themselves from spitting when they hear her name. She was a hugely divisive figure, who had seemingly little regard for the average person. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/themargaretthatcheryears/1895880/Margaret-Thatcher-and-the-Falklands.html .
    “The Kyoto Treaty targeted developed nations, blaming them (The U.S. in particular) for all the world’s woes”. Could it be because the developed nations had caused their fair share of pollution. This isn’t really that much of a leap, more just a common sense argument. “It was just another penalty the U.N. wanted to lob at capitalist nations for daring to be successful” The UN wasn’t established by the poor developing nations, only a blithering idiot would hold such a belief, only the leading nations could have to power to compel the smaller nations to join. There would be no benefit in large nations joining something that would penalise them for being as powerful as they are.
    Oh dear. No wonder you are so wrong about everything else, if you see a near scientific consensus as an 50/50 possibility; here’s a list of institutions and organisations who support climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686. In turn here’s a list of sources you can look at: http://livinggreenbarrie.com/LvGnGlblWarmgIPCCRpt.pdf
    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/DG_072879
    http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/climate

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=10&q=climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 (take your pick, any article either reports or presumes that there is man-made climate change)

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#recent (very good website)

    Obviously when you said “science articles” you meant non-scientific, peer reviewed articles. Until you start citing actual scientific journal articles your opinion is ignorant as you are speaking purely from opinion rather than from scientific knowledge, which is yet another area you have proven intellectually redundant. Whilst you glib “we’re all gonna die” jokes was hilarious it is symptomatic of your general lack of evidence/knowledge. You and your bunch of ostriches may eventually get sick of the taste of sand in your mouth and pull your head up out of the ground, because just like every other miserly opinion your trumpet as fact, it is wrong. If it was something so simple as Mother Nature why in god’s name wouldn’t the scientists have thought about that? Why would it be in the best interests for 1000 scientists to have even dreamt up the term ‘climate change’ if it weren’t so conclusive? Scientists have nothing to gain from this. But then you and your fellow bile swallowing ostriches don’t trust anyone with intellect. Nope, as that’s a sign that they’re a Communist out to destroy America. Or you’re an idiot who can’t see the wood for the trees.
    The cold/warm fronts, winds etc are collectively called ‘the weather’, the climate is the long-term average of all that. A fall at the first.
    “So, you ate falafels, bought a cheap prayer rug, got your picture taken on one of Ahmed’s camels, and brought home an “authentic” souvenir that Omar the tentmaker swore was a 2000 year old fertility god” I did none of that. But obviously you and your fellow soldiers don’t actually want to go out and speak to people, to try and understand them as ewwww you might get their germs. But then your narrow minded military complex has stopped you from seeing that.

    “Obama have in mind when he and his Dems concocted legislation that will FORCE the entire country onto government CONTOLLED health care” . Just like Bush FORCED Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into Government CONTROL. Yet neither of us would say he was a socialist would we?

    But then trying to prove his fascistic tendencies is another failure. The first one is partisan politicking, plain and simple. What is wrong with wanting American citizens to be properly informed? Possibly it’s because the more people who are not in possession of the facts, the more supporters you have. Obviously you are unsure of what fascism is, or again how to apply theoretical concepts into reality. It is something that takes time, but I’m sure if you keep practicing you will eventually get it. At the moment you do confuse “democracy” with a “fascist dictatorship”. It’s a mistake I would expect a 6 year old child to make, but I’m sure you’ll improve. So until people start getting hauled off into camps, I think you’re fine on that one.

    ““Now to my second point: your confusion of socialism with social liberalism.”
    The two are barely discernable. “ Much like conservatism and fascism.

    “Health care is NOT a right. It’s a privilege” Ah yes I forgot you didn’t know what morality means. Healthcare is a right; no person should have to forgo treatment that will save their live for sheer lack of finance. Healthcare isn’t something you are born into, it isn’t something awarded to you, it is a human right. Any person who can wilfully stand up and say that people don’t deserve to live is barely human. I’m sure you would sing a different tune if you were caught without healthcare, but you seem unable to imagine yourself in any other situation that your current one. The protests you seem so thrilled to go on are fought with an undercurrent of ignorance but also with an overture of fear. The tiny tax rise on those who frankly can afford it, will not result in those receiving the benefits of the new law having more money than them. That seems to be what it all boils down to, fear and greedy selfish individualism.

    “The American people will not stand for the replacement of our Democratic Republic with a socialist autocracy” And when that happens I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them. But newsflash: that ain’t happening. Dream all you want to, but Obama is helping the people who you Republicans have left to ‘help themselves’. It comes down to, you are bitter that McCain isn’t President, and you watch too much Fox News. Try a new news source that doesn’t use ‘socialist’ at least 10 times a day.

    “I have never seen a more vile, despicable bunch of autocrats in my life.” Bush’s cabinet?

    “I’ve never understood how “progressivism” which is another word for socialism, could be mistaken for a positive thing” You really need to stop watching Fox. Progressivism is what positioned America where it is today. The way your mind works, with every word being a secret synonym of socialism belies a possible problem, possible some kind of overactive paranoia. Don’t worry deary, no one is coming to get you.
    prog•ress (pr g r s , -r s, pr gr s )
    n.
    1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
    2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
    3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
    4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
    Yeah, ain’t progress a bitch. By being against progress, you must therefore be in favour of regression:
    1. To go back; move backward.
    2. To return to a previous, usually worse or less developed state.
    3. To have a tendency to approach or go back to a statistical mean
    Yarp, sounds about right.
    “Gavrilo Princip didn’t assassinate anyone on our soil. We tried to avoid involvement in WWI and WWII, remember” I think you mistook my metaphor for something linking the two together. “Until you actually serve in the armed forces and get at least a rudimentary understanding of our mission, experience, dedication and sacrifice” Awwwwwww, look at you trying the big talk. Failed though. You again fail to see that being in the forces doesn’t mean to automatically understand the big picture. That is not saying that I do, I just understand that I don’t understand the big picture. Whilst your militaristic elitism is simply wonderful, you still suffer from the same mindset that pollutes your foreign policy ‘knowledge’. Being in wartime army, drafted rather than voluntarily recruited are two very different things, as I know that the UK soldiers did and continue to sacrifice a lot.
    “Have you read the Constitution? That’s my reference; and the intent and words of those who actually wrote it. Your “sources” don’t include any of the signers, do they”. So that ultimately pits your reading against that of 4 professors, the publisher and the thousands of people who use the textbook. I know who I’ll side with. Another quote from the book: “Most of the framers desired a strong government but doubted that their ideal system would make it past voters. To help their cause, the framers often included vague language that later Americans could interpret broadly to give the federal government great influence. For example, although the Constitution limited the powers of Congress to a specific list, it also gave Congress the flexibility to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” (pp. 32-33). So by extension I suppose my sources are all of the signers.
    “The taxpayer. The overburdened, working taxpayer” Awww those poor tax payers. Now who do you think will come along once their studies have finished and start paying off their loans/contribute more to the pool. Yes, the students. When education is a matter of money than you are heading down a rocky road towards economic inaction. You should be proud that people want to go to university in America, you should be proud that when they finish they will contribute to society, but also realise that you don’t have to sponsor a graduate, all their tuition fees will not have to come from you. But then that is just the standard defence of a Republican when it comes to education. Who needs it? “apply for a Pell Grant” ahhh the same Pell Grant that was expanded through the Act: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html
    “We don’t produce a fraction of the pollutants as other developed countries” Smells like you don’t know what you’re talking about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews . OH GOD. OH NO. NOT THE CLEAN AIR ACT. My throat is closing because of the…clean….air. Yes that is bloody ridiculous. If you’re not a polluter why do you care if the laws are restrictive? Surely you like to go to the National Parks, or just enjoy scenery that isn’t smoggy or covered in crap. Surely you like drinking clean water?
    “We have hundreds of laws against the abuses of capitalism such as fraud, insider trading, and monopoly.” So how is regulating the insurance industry or tightening the media regulations any different? “No one is “too big to fail”. I’ve seen many major businesses go tits up during my life; Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, Higbees, Woolworths, May Co”. This statement takes your inability to discern context to a whole new and idiotic level. Last time I check Woolworths didn’t have half of the United States’ mortgages sat next to its Pick ‘n’ Mix? Businesses shouldn’t get too big to fail, but in a wholly free-market system that is what happens. Because of the ascent of money, those who control it are central to our economic survival, so if they go down, they take everything down with it, all the mortgages, the assets, the individual accounts of ordinary people. The government has to intervene or face worse problems later on. Whilst your argument reads well it is based on either little knowledge or pop-economics at best.
    “I don’t need to pick up a book” Truer words have ne’er been spoken.
    “The intelligence I was privy to: Elint, Imint, Humint, Sigint, and ASAS. Those kinds of intel sources. Not the leftwing rants of academic intelligentsia with an anti-war/ anti-U.S. ax to grind.” Awwwww look at you with your military contractions trying to sound informed. No. If you can’t see how the military paints a picture using one particular colour then that is your prerogative. Shame, as it’s such a polychromous world out there.
    “I’m betting that both Bush and Blair were embarrassed over the fact that those substantial amounts of WMD materials took so long to be discovered.” Yes so when Blair faced the enquiry he didn’t want to be red-faced. You really are ignorant to the realities of the war. It would have been common knowledge if WMDs were found, the whole Iraq Inquiry and the media reporting of it would have started from a different point; the Labour Party would have trumpeted that in the election campaign currently being waged.
    “I’ll rely on meteorologists, real scientists” Meteorologists like this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/ . But as you’ve already made clear, you don’t believe proper science, it’s too truthful for you.
    And now for the most idiotic thing you’ve said so far: “the 5 feet of “global warming” I shovel out of my driveway every fucking winter”. Bravo. It takes a certain (low) level of understanding to think that global warming will make everything into a tropical paradise. But maybe that’s what Fox News has been telling you, or those various other “credible news sources”.
    “Gee. I must have been “misled” about the 100,000,000 dead beneficiaries of the “debunked” communist oppression” For the umpteenth time, you have failed to understand the difference between a theoretical and a real-world argument. Theoretically there is no link between communism and oppression. In the real world, the quasi-Communism that the USSR et al pushed forth was horrifically oppressive, but it wasn’t true Marxist Communism.
    Ah George Soros the socialist who changed Hungary from Communism to capitalism, the socialist who made billions on the stock exchange. Yes he is a regular Communist. But then that presumes you check your sources, or care for the distinctions between political ideologies.
    To be as uninformed as you are wrong takes a certain skill, yet one you wield with something approaching aplomb. You wave your stick of ignorant exaggeration to all and sundry yet hide behind your pitiful shield of selfish self-interest. Your faux patriotism is merely a disguise for petty partisan politics; whilst your chosen sources of information complete the ‘who’s who’ of spurious news, but such views you trot out with such supreme confidence and pride, without realising that they are all without intellectual merit. Pity as you’re trying so hard.

    1. flamjew,

      “No, I’m better than you no matter which country I come from. The longer this goes on the more wild your claims become, the more they rely on your own views and less on evidence.”

      Oh gawd, your pompous, self-aggrandizing shit is so entertaining. I’ve provided evidence in the form of documentation, common sense, and experience. The only thing I’ve seen from you is the requisite leftie talking points, accompanied by links to websites and commentators with a similar view. Talk about wild claims. I’ve spend a lot of wasted time on your multitude of claims; from “wonderful” Euro socialized medicine to batshit-crazy, Chicken Little, “man-made” global warming apocalypse theories. The evidence contradicts your views. You keep returning with the same hackneyed argument, expecting a different outcome. That’s a good example of insanity.

      “Well you’re wrong and you don’t have the balls to admit it.”

      LOL! You’re wrong because flamjew says so! Know why? Shut up, that’s why! Playground logic. Hilarious!

      “After the decontextualised and misrepresented account of the companies the state HAD to take over, you ignored your other overblown statements where you said Obama wanted to take over other industries (media etc etc). Hmmm they are suspiciously absent, possibly because you unable explain them.’

      The State didn’t HAVE to take over anything. Only a socialist would think that is a good idea. In a free-market capitalist society, the State doesn’t force the submission of private industry to government control. There’s no misrepresentation of the fact that those businesses were going under due to mismanagement and a bad economy. The market determines success and failure, not Big Brother. But again, you’re a socialist. Obama’s “Communications Diversity” czar, Mark Lloyd certainly does want to control free speech, under the guise of ‘reigning in those big, bad corporations’. The only problem with that is the intent to stifle what he (and Obama) deems is too much free speech on the part of conservative opponents and a vast majority of Americans who object to the way Obama is deconstructing this country.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/obamas-communications-diversity-czar/

      ” There is a stark difference between published articles and blogs, which are basically just people guessing. The print media has certain guidelines to meet and therefore cannot make spurious claims, much like the ones found in your choice of postings.”

      The Guardian and The Nation have “certain guidelines”??? Fucking please. Their “guidelines” are on par with rags like the New York Times, Newsweek, Salon, and a collection of other left-leaning print media. You use them to support your views. Publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, The Weekly Standard, are hardly “spurious”. You really have to get a new spiel.

      “Doing a Masters in Media and Communication and centring my undergrad thesis around such issues kind of means I know more about this than say some conspiracy theorist with a bullhorn. If you just take a look at ANY of the academic literature surrounding US (or UK, as you as ever are glaringly ignorant of that area specifically) media then you would realise that your argument has been rebuked, debunked and exposed as the result of Republican brainwashing.”

      You need a Masters in Media and Communication to understand the editorial content, viewpoints, and the slant of media? That’s funny, most people can gauge that simply by reading , watching, and listening. Hell, even the Associated Press, which often has no identified byline, is skewed to the Left. Read some of their ‘news reports’. Anyone with a couple of firing neurons and an 8th grade level of reading comprehension can tell the difference between The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal. Good luck with your degree. And do try posting a source other than Naomi Klein as “academic literature”.

      “Whilst people can think for themselves, when they are just repeating the Sarah Palin and her dunderheaded cronies mumblings about socialism, it’s obvious they are not in possession of the truth, or any rough approximation of it. People who use ‘socialism’ to refer to anyone left of centre (or in your case, left of centre-right) highlight the fact that their news sources are lying to them, as no respected media outlet would make such bold and unsupported claims. But then their strategy is to present their odd-ball theories as what ‘the average American’ would think, which is hugely insulting to the average American as I would have thought they would be smarter than that. The truth is that to claim some legitimacy your gang has to claim the centre ground, to show that America is crying out with you against Obama, when in fact it isn’t.”

      Speaking of dunderheads, regurgitating Naomi Klein, Robert McChesney and their nihilist friends, isn’t exactly an indication of a free market/democracy advocate. You’ve switched from Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin. Whoopie.
      Oh yeah, none of us dunderheaded Yankees can think for ourselves. The 62% of Americans who oppose the socialist autocrats in the White House and the legislature, just don’t know what’s good for us. We should just accept the massive unemployment, deepening debt, monstrous deficit, catastrophic ObamaCare, oppressive, unconstitutional government intrusions, and the impending tax increases like good little bourgeoisie. Everything was just fine until Fox News planted the seeds of discontent in the heretofore obedient masses. Those polls that show Obama’s and the Democrats’ ratings in the toilet? LIES, all LIES! The thousands of Tea Party protests taking place across the United States, including my home State of Ohio, is just vast right wing propaganda! Former Obama supporters who are now fed up with his domestic and foreign policy fuck-ups, must have had a microchip planted in their brains by Roger Ailes, or worse, Karl Rove!
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/guess-whos-joining-the-tea-party/
      How dare we read and understand the bills and the constitutional violations. How dare we question the motives, hubris, and abuse of power. The average Brit is so much smarter than us. After all you have Euro socialism and the upstarts in the former Colonies just don’t know what’s good for them.
      You should have stopped with the effete bullshit a while ago, bud. All it does is make me laugh and open you up for more ridicule.

      “Because your one brain cell has nothing to rub up against, it is understandable for you to not question anything, I mean surely breathing is about all you can cope with. But if you do manage to muster some extra grey matter then maybe you think about the information you post. Think about where it comes from, the reasons why it is there etc…..Instead of seeing things in a value neutral manner, you are so pre-possessed with your hatred of all things Democratic that you are letting that overrule your critical mindset. This is an prime example of ‘othering’ where an ‘us’ and ‘them’ is enacted, creating a double movement of bring those who agree with the ‘us’ viewpoint closer together, whilst demonising the other. You are so caught up in your hatred of the Democrats that you cannot see who is spurring this on, why they are doing it (now what could the Republicans have to gain from this?) and what coloured shit they are pouring down your mouth.”

      Did you down your last brain cell with a pint? Shit, we’ve questioned our elected officials for awhile. The information you post never deviates from your own mindset. Pot, let me re-introduce you to Kettle. When it comes to demonizing, no one holds a candle to the Dems. We speak out against their ham-fisted tactics, and in return we are called ”white supremacists”, “racist”, “evil”, “hate mongers” and “terrorists“. We are demonized for simply exercising our First Amendment rights. http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/the-left-spews-more-hate-at-tea-party-patriots/
      That ‘us against them’ thing started when the Dems threw together this government mandate behind closed doors with no open debate. It continued when they were confronted over the language and items in the bill that impose mandatory participation, oppressive taxation and penalties, and more outlandish spending . They ram-rodded the bill through the Senate and the House and Obama signed it into law against the will of the American people. THAT’S when the “us and them” took on a more urgent meaning than usual. You’re so blinded by your admiration for Obama’s efforts to ‘fundamentally transform’ the United States into a Euro clone, that you fail to understand the opposition of the American people. But that’s what happens when you have a shit factory for a brain. What could the Dems possibly gain from all this? It’s a power grab for Obama’s “legacy”, and nothing less.

      “Media agencies have foreign reporters now, they don’t need to guess what is going on in another country, a tactic you seem to love.”

      We don’t have American correspondents in Europe? We can’t view British media online? Your point is?

      “The media you used was a blog from the Telegraph, which has no quality control, or BBC articles which I’ve also bettered, so it’s not their political standpoint, more their continual ‘wrongness’.”

      The Democratic Underground, The Guardian, The Nation, Media Matters, and Salon, have “quality control”? That’s a subjective viewpoint, given their political slant. ‘Continual wrongness’ included.

      “As far as I remember I’m the only one to have read Robert McChesney’s work, so I, above you know best about his “words, philosophies and actions” whilst you are wallowing in the fictitious crap you think is fact.”

      Gee, I must’ve missed the part where he said:

      “There is no real answer but to remove, brick by brick, the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.
      —Robert McChesney”

      Is that also fictitious crap? Did something get lost in translation? I don’t think you’ve understood McChesney very well.

      “The Royal Charter of the BBC enshrines impartiality”

      ROFLMAO!!! Since when do they practice “impartiality”? This must be a sample of their version: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1548007/Heros-tale-is-too-positive-for-the-BBC.html
      The BBC is known for its bias by your own British countrymen.
      http://www.aim.org/guest-column/media-bias-at-the-bbc/
      Even members of the BBC staff admit its bias.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554749/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html
      Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

      “Yes, we cannot breathe for all the criticisms of the NHS. As you’re American and thus don’t get irony. I was joking. Whilst there are undeniable critiques of the NHS by the media it misses the point that you are trying to make: that the NHS model does not work…..So yet again you’ve misunderstood the argument and overegged your omelette.”

      ObamaCare is no better than the NHS. Did I miss the part about the similarities? I used the right amount of eggs.

      “Whilst that is fundamentally misrepresenting my position, but then you totalitarian critique knows not subtlety, your position would just allow the gap between rich (who do not necessarily work harder to get their money, to think in such a way is simply naive and ignorant of reality) and poor to grow exponentially. That would really make America great, instilling a class based plutocracy. Well done you.”

      My totalitarian critique is spot on. “….do not necessarily work harder to get their money”… There’s that wealth envy again. Must suck to know that there are successful people who did far better than you. They didn’t get there by thinking the world owed them a living. They went out and earned it. Many of those rich folks started out with nothing, and worked their way up. Socialism creates a State-run economy with no chance for anyone to attain more wealth or improve their living standards on their own merit. Yeah, let’s create an oppressive, stagnant, overtaxed failure, where the gap between an authoritarian government and the people is as wide as the space between your ears.

      “I’ve never said that ‘all private industry should be nationalised’ because if I did, then that would be socialist. I’ve never done that. The two are different. And also neither has the Democrats. But then that requires seeing things in perspective and understanding political subtleties, neither of which you have proven yourself capable of.”

      What do you think nationalized healthcare is? When you made the statement that the “state HAD to take over” some companies, you did little to separate your philosophy from socialism. That requires understanding.

      “Also as far as I remember the banks didn’t have to take the bailout money, over here Barclays for one didn’t receive anything even though they were entitled to, does that make the bank CEOs who took government help, socialists? I think not. Your oversimplified account of the financial crisis, is not one that is supported by anyone with any know how.”

      The government had no business even offering AIG, Chrysler, GM, or CitiCorp a bailout with taxpayer money. Some banks were forced by the government to accept funds. Others were forced to lend more, whether they liked it or not. Let me refresh your memory:
      Hank Paulson Threatened Bank Of America CEO into Accepting TARP http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078909572557575.html
      FDIC Forces Bank to Lend More
      http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/16/story3.html?b=1237176000
      And then there’s the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle created by Democrats who refused to reign in the spending. Again: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the programs that forced banks to lend money to people—at a subprime rate—who had no business getting loans. Not only that, but Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac now controls over half the country’s mortgages, whether you signed on or not. That system is broke, too. But that’s not stopping Obama from pumping more taxpayer bailouts into the failed government program. That’s probably more complicated than you can handle.

      “But creating a tax isn’t unconstitutional? That’s why this is being done with the IRS. If it didn’t have these elements in it, the Bill would have just maintained the status quo. To get people into healthcare, and to raise the priority of it amongst the people, it has to be done this way.”

      It’s not just the creation of excessive taxation that has people angry it’s also the violation of the Commerce clause:

      First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

      Now, even though the health insurance mandate itself doesn’t contain ‘tax and spend’, there are items added in the bill which specify tax penalties and fines for those who don’t kowtow. The actual costs of ObamaCare (in the billions) are figured into the budget.
      The 10th Amendment LIMITS the scope of the government.
      Here’s the 10th amendment: “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.” Which means the Constitution prohibits Congress from manufacturing authority it does not have. The powers laid out to the federal government can be found in Article 1, Section 8. Health care is not in there. Anywhere.

      “When I used media matters you cried ‘socialist’, yet you have managed to cite a fascist source (obviously it’s not fascist, but with your love of exaggeration, possibly that’s the only way you’ll understand the term ‘right-wing’). CNS, is part of the Media Research Centre, which is run by a conservative, with conservative backers….To paraphrase: a more right-wing website cannot be found on the internet.”

      And this is worse than your leftwing sources?

      “The Fox-News article you cited: “The Reconciliation Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill”, your words: “The Reconciliation Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill.” Sound similar? Either you cannot form a sentence without copying it from somewhere, or you have been brainwashed to the extent that you are spewing Fox talking points. Shameful.”

      The Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill. Period. The fact remains so regardless of the article title or my reference to it. I have given ample evidence of the effects of Obama’s economic policies; from media reports across the U.S. and from personal experience in my hometown. Your talking points come from The Guardian, The Nation, and the BBC. You can’t think outside the prescribed socialist doctrine. Your repeated accusation of the “brainwashed” tripe tells me you cannot except counterpoints from people who know a hell of a lot more than you about the United States, our laws, and our Constitution. What’s shameful is your blind arrogance.

      “Why should I be surprised that yet again you fail to see the point of the argument? Firstly, when the Republican’s opposed Medicare/Medicaid it was predominately a moral issue, the perceived removal of freedoms and not the economic argument. So it is you who is the revisionist, as you are attempting to imbue the anti-Medicare/aids with the knowledge of today. But that still doesn’t excuse neither you nor them from the second point. Just because the costs are spiralling it doesn’t negate the benefits of the programme nor the countless lives its saved. Just because you’d rather have a couple of dollars in your pocket whilst watching those ghastly poor and elderly die, doesn’t mean everyone else should be so elitist.”

      What’s so “moral” about bankrupting the country? What’s so moral about destroying the economy and impinging freedoms? Again, I don’t know how much simpler I can make this: When a government forces the entire population of a country onto a government-dictated, nationalized health care program, the freedom to choose your own health plan, doctor, and treatment, is taken away. When the population is forced to pay billions more in taxes to pay for this government mandate, and tax penalties and fines are levied against those who refuse to buy into the government mandate, freedoms are squelched. Yeah, just because health care will be rationed and the quality will nosedive, we have no right to the “elitist” notion that the government should keep its hands off our healthcare. Just because the government will have the equivalent of a death panel to decide whether or not it’s worth treating those poor and elderly, doesn’t mean we should get all uppity with the attitude that the government doesn’t know what’s best for us or how to run a business. After all, the Postal Service, Medicare, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have been such a fabulous success. Right.

      “why not try supporting the Bill, as the Director of the CBO said (helpfully in the blog you provided) that the deficit will be reduced with this enactment of the Bill.”

      Not so. You need to read the entire analysis. The CBO has stated unequivocally that ObamaCare will run into the billions.
      CBO’s Letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI ) Confirms ObamaCare Will Add Billions to Deficit:

      …..the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.
      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

      More “good news” about ObamaCare: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142630094747908.html
      The Dems try to obscure the costs with smoke and mirrors. Passing the bills one at a time, knowing that the accumulated damage will catch up later. In the meantime, they can sell a line of bullshit about how they’re “reducing” the deficit and “making health care affordable”.

      “You speak of choice, yet you time and time again miss the point that not everyone has the same ability to choose as you. You are ignoring the people who want healthcare but can’t; the people who have healthcare but had it taken away; the people who cannot afford to get healthcare. “

      Under ObamaCare NO ONE gets a choice. You’re ignoring the fact that there are less and less taxpayers who will be able to afford this mess. What’s going to happen when the government runs out of people to gouge for an over-bloated healthcare system? We already know the answer to that.

      “With this paragraph there are so many factual errors it makes me question your logical abilities: firstly, the US still has and will have private insurance companies, those middlemen who don’t care about your health and only exist to make profit out of injuries.”

      You really don’t know squat about what’s coming, do you? The U.S. won’t have any private insurance companies not under the thumb of the government. They will not be permitted to operate independently, without government oversight. WHY DO YOU THINK THE BILL MANDATES THAT EVERYONE HAVE HEALTHCARE? It’s a government racket. There will be no competition, except for the government. And gawd knows it will be so much better than those eeeeeeeeevil insurance profiteers. Your logical abilities are nonexistent.

      “the revolutionary slogan is a bit overdone isn’t it? Blimey you have elections, you are represented, and thus making yourself looking like the original patriots is misguided, misjudged and incredibly dim-witted. So you disagree with the people in charge, welcome to democracy, plenty of people around the world living in democracies have the same problem. Your naively anarchistic views about the role of government put you more left than Stalin. Good going.”

      Gawd, what a pinhead. Our “representatives” just crammed an unconstitutional socialist healthcare mandate which will control 20% of our economy, down our throats. Your vacuous comment demonstrates your unbelievable stupidity and total ignorance about the American people. We are angry for a damned good reason. Just because you can’t identify with the travesty going on over here, doesn’t mean you get to denigrate us for standing on our principles. Anarchistic? You jackass. We would like our government to follow the Constitution it’s sworn to protect. They work for us, not the other way around. You just proved how little you know about the role of government. You make Lenin look moderate. Congratulations.

      “See above about plagiarising, as you actually do seem unable to come up with new phraseology. But your shock at lobbyists is frankly laughable. “

      See ‘The Act of 2010’ paragraph above, for my reponse to ‘plagiarizing’. I’m not shocked at the influence of SEIU thugs in Obama’s policies. They go back a long way.

      “OH MY GOD, PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE DECISION MAKERS…..”

      Oh dear, forgive us peons for objecting to the influence of union thugs and Marxists who are trying to disintegrate the Democratic Republic we’d like to keep.

      “Par for the course” Dismissive, moi?….”

      Oui. They do support my arguments. Over and over again.

      “Media Matters: I asked you to prove that they were one of the most left-wing sites on the internet, not simply a left-wing site on the internet. There’s a difference, not that you would be able to grasp the distinction. Here’s some more radical left wing sites just so you can compare: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/Home http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ http://www.cpusa.org/ Thus you haven’t proved anything bar your inability to read. Well done.”

      Media Matters’ George Soros, and John Podesta aren’t leftwing enough? Gawd, what semantics. Bravo.

      “If you bothered to read my argument, I implied that if racists were to go to a party, out of the two it would be the Republicans…”

      Your fatuous assumption is matched only by the Left’s hypocrisy.

      …..But denials that have come from the Republican’s about race obfuscates the truth, as time and time again you neither confirm nor deny, you just complain about the racism tag: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html http://www.examiner.com/x-2071-DC-Special-Interests-Examiner~y2009m3d4-Is-the-Republican-Party-racist

      When it comes to race baiting, no one outdoes the Dems. It’s part of their party platform.
      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=42384
      http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/obama-race-baiting/2009/10/13/id/335539
      http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/01/rangel-the-race-baiter/
      And they sure know how to bring on the racism when it suits them.
      http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-protester-shouts-white-boy-at-tea-party-speaker/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/more-racism-from-the-left/
      They suck up to minorities, not because they’re sincere, but because it gets good reviews.
      http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/democratic-racism/2008/02/25/id/323000
      http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/07/why-the-democratic-party-clings-to-racism/?singlepage=true
      Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention: Robert Byrd (D-WV) is a former KKK member. Glass houses, bub. So far I’ve not seen any confirmation that the Republicans have a corner on the “racism” market.

      “Yes those darned Democrats actually giving a damn. Why not let the poor people just suffer as that’s the American way?”

      Oh fucking please. I’m running out of Kleenex.

      “So you find one anti-war poster and all the world’s a racist. That is hardly conclusive. Whilst it is impossible to argue that every Democratic supporter is not racist, you do miss the point about the racism that is quite apparent within some of the Republican supporters, and instead of denying it real change has to be made.”

      Hardly conclusive? The Left is so full of shit when it comes to “tolerance” and “diversity”. It’s quite possible to argue that the “racist” Republican accusation is nothing more than a stereotype perpetuated by the Dems to ensure a minority voting bloc. Most Republicans I know vote substance over pigment. You want to see seething racism? Try listening to a leftwing moonbat going off the handle over black conservatives.

      “She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support”. Well that’s a pile of shit. Speak to the average British person and they will have to restrain themselves from spitting when they hear her name. She was a hugely divisive figure, who had seemingly little regard for the average person.”

      That kinda describes they way we feel about Obama. He’s divisive and has no regard for the American people, except for the ones he can exploit for political gain.

      “Could it be because the developed nations had caused their fair share of pollution. This isn’t really that much of a leap, more just a common sense argument. “

      Could it be that the developed nations already shoulder the burden for cleaning up the planet?

      “Oh dear. No wonder you are so wrong about everything else, if you see a near scientific consensus as an 50/50 possibility; here’s a list of institutions and organisations who support climate change”…”

      Oh my, and to think “Climategate” happened in your very own country:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/hide-the-decline-e-mails-reveal-how-scientists-discussed-climate-change-hoax/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/climategate-scientist-admits-hoax/

      “Obviously when you said “science articles” you meant non-scientific, peer reviewed articles. Until you start citing actual scientific journal articles your opinion is ignorant as you are speaking purely from opinion rather than from scientific knowledge, which is yet another area you have proven intellectually redundant.”

      Obviously, you missed the articles that referenced real scientists…no, not Al Gore’s hired hacks.
      http://junkscience.com/climategate.html
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/dec/19/year-of-global-cooling/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/weather-channel-founder-to-al-gore-youre-a-fraud/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-urges-lawsuit-against-global-warming-bots/
      Even an educated 15 year old is able to pick apart the Global Warming Alarmists.
      http://newsbusters.org/node/13282
      Face it: Al Gore and the “man-made” climate change racket has been debunked, ripped apart, and just plain disproved. You tin foil hats need a new scam. That last one’s been busted.

      “I did none of that. But obviously you and your fellow soldiers don’t actually want to go out and speak to people, to try and understand them as ewwww you might get their germs. But then your narrow minded military complex has stopped you from seeing that.”

      I’m sure you didn’t sweetpea. You probably (eeeeewwwwww!) rubbed elbows with every friendly muslim you could, and gawd knows what else. Keep stroking that fertility god.

      “Just like Bush FORCED Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into Government CONTROL. Yet neither of us would say he was a socialist would we?”

      Actually, Bush called for reform of the two programs:
      http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone-dems-ignored-warnings/

      “What is wrong with wanting American citizens to be properly informed? Possibly it’s because the more people who are not in possession of the facts, the more supporters you have.’

      That’s a pretty snooty comment coming from a Brit who has no real understanding of America. “Properly informed” in your effete little mind, is based on what you perceive to be “facts”: that ObamaCare and the transformation of our free market system to socialism is a wonderful, craptastic idea. American principles and public opinion do not hinge on the rants of a limey stooge 6000 miles removed from reality. Just so you know.

      “At the moment you do confuse “democracy” with a “fascist dictatorship”. It’s a mistake I would expect a 6 year old child to make, but I’m sure you’ll improve. So until people start getting hauled off into camps, I think you’re fine on that one.’

      There is no confusion about the fascist-style tactics of out-of-control autocrats. If your dissertations are any indication, a six year old child has a better intellect than you.

      “The two are barely discernable. “ Much like conservatism and fascism.”

      Much like liberalism and communism.

      ”Ah yes I forgot you didn’t know what morality means. Healthcare is a right; no person should have to forgo treatment that will save their live for sheer lack of finance. Healthcare isn’t something you are born into, it isn’t something awarded to you, it is a human right. Any person who can wilfully stand up and say that people don’t deserve to live is barely human. I’m sure you would sing a different tune if you were caught without healthcare, but you seem unable to imagine yourself in any other situation that your current one. The protests you seem so thrilled to go on are fought with an undercurrent of ignorance but also with an overture of fear. The tiny tax rise on those who frankly can afford it, will not result in those receiving the benefits of the new law having more money than them. That seems to be what it all boils down to, fear and greedy selfish individualism.”

      Oh fer gawd’s sake. NO WHERE is healthcare mentioned in the Constitution. READ it and tell me which amendment covers that. And the Declaration of Independence states that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It says nothing about the pursuit of a Nanny State. Health care is a privilege bestowed by supporting system of employment and private choice. The underprivileged have health care provided either at low or no cost. It’s called Medicare and Medicaid. Employment is not a guaranteed right, either. No one owes you a living. The trouble is, you lefties assign all kinds of imaginary rights, most of which have no basis in fact. That “moral” ground you’re standing on is a big pile of crap.
      Neal Boortz has a good summation:

      Most government-educated Americans would be shocked to hear that there is no “right” to healthcare. Tell me where in our Constitution it is written that you have a right to a portion on someone else’s life .. in this case, it would be the service of providing medical care at the point of a gun. Well, the Democrats are on a fast track to ensuring that Americans can claim healthcare as a “right.” Under the House Democrats proposed plan, the federal government would be responsible for making sure that every person has health insurance. Did you know that if you as an individual choose not to obtain health insurance, the federal government will seize 2.5% of your income? That’s right. At the point of a gun, the federal government will seize your income. Now there is one important fact to keep in mind – this assumes that you have an income. For the poor, poor pitiful poor, the federal government isn’t going to come along and seize their double-wides or rent-to-own furniture. Nope. In fact, they will be getting a government handout to obtain health insurance! The same goes for employers, which will be required by law to offer healthcare benefits to employees or face stiff penalties equal to 8% of workers’ wages.
      Two questions.
      First, why are the Democrats doing this? This is the easiest to answer. The Democrats want to make people more dependent on government. They are going to do this by offering something that more Americans now value above all: stability. Americans think they want freedom. What a crock. Americans will whine about their freedom to choose which sports team to root for or which Hollywood gossip magazine to buy. But when freedom requires any ounce of personal responsibility, people immediately wipe their hands clean and want someone else to do it for them. This is where the Democrats come in .. the Democrats will make sure that the government is there to do the things the people of this country no longer feel is their personal responsibility. The reason why the Democrats are willing to do this is also simple: power. Ensuring votes. Not hard to figure out, is it?
      Second, who is going to pay for this? That’s also easy to answer. The achievers. The filthy, disgusting rich. The small business owners. If you are an individual making over $280,000 you will be shouldering even more of the tax burden in order to pay for this government healthcare/redistribution scheme. Don’t worry, that’s just a starting point. That number will slowly shift downward as Democrats realize they don’t have the enough money to fund their dreams and schemes. But guess what? That includes more than 1 million small businesses in America. Those small businesses that provide jobs and write paychecks .. yep, those are the evil rich people the Democrats want to hit with tax increases. And to really play on the wealth envy of Americans, the Democrats want to increase taxes even more .. 5.4% tax increase .. on people earning more than $1 million a year. I’m sure most Americans are okay with that one. Those people are millionaires because they were lucky! Right?
      By the way, the Democrats also want to ram this thing through the Congress as fast as possible. We are talking within weeks. That move is also not hard to understand .. the longer Americans have to really look into the details of this bill and begin to understand the consequences of this bill, the harder it will be to support it. Then again, that assumes that Americans give a flying Krispy Kreme about the future of this country.
      http://boortz.com/more/newsletter/071609_heathcare.html

      Everything in that essay is right on the money.

      “Obama is helping the people who you Republicans have left to ‘help themselves’. It comes down to, you are bitter that McCain isn’t President, and you watch too much Fox News. Try a new news source that doesn’t use ‘socialist’ at least 10 times a day.”

      “Help themselves”…that’s hilarious. Obama’s turning us into a Banana Republic. Get your nose out of The Guardian and come up for air. Try sourcing a media that doesn’t glorify Obama for a change.

      “I have never seen a more vile, despicable bunch of autocrats in my life.” Bush’s cabinet?

      Like who? Karl Rove? Oooooooooo scary man, that Rove. I bet he still gives you bedwetting nightmares.

      “You really need to stop watching Fox…..”

      You really need to turn off the BBC.
      Progressive=Socialist/Communist. Your comrades even admit to it: Communists Advance the Progressive Idea
      http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/9341/1/388/

      “Awwwwwww, look at you trying the big talk. Failed though. You again fail to see that being in the forces doesn’t mean to automatically understand the big picture. That is not saying that I do, I just understand that I don’t understand the big picture. Whilst your militaristic elitism is simply wonderful, you still suffer from the same mindset that pollutes your foreign policy ‘knowledge’. Being in wartime army, drafted rather than voluntarily recruited are two very different things, as I know that the UK soldiers did and continue to sacrifice a lot.”

      “Militaristic elitism”….Geez, I’m flattered. I was part of the big picture in Iraq and Bosnia. I was part of the big picture throughout my Army career. I was an active participant in the application of foreign policy. That’s about as knowledgeable as one can get.

      “So that ultimately pits your reading against that of 4 professors, the publisher and the thousands of people who use the textbook. I know who I’ll side with. Another quote from the book: “Most of the framers desired a strong government but doubted that their ideal system would make it past voters. To help their cause, the framers often included vague language that later Americans could interpret broadly to give the federal government great influence. For example, although the Constitution limited the powers of Congress to a specific list, it also gave Congress the flexibility to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” (pp. 32-33). So by extension I suppose my sources are all of the signers.”

      I’ll pit the Constitution against your leftwing academic intelligentsia any day. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution outlines in very explicit terms, the Powers of Congress. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html There’s nothing vague about it. Neither is the 10th Amendment, which I’ve cited previously.

      “ Awww those poor tax payers. Now who do you think will come along once their studies have finished and start paying off their loans/contribute more to the pool. Yes, the students.”

      Not according to the Reconciliation Bill. They’ve been bailed out by working taxpayers, thanks to Obama. One more entitlement group. Those “poor taxpayers” will be glad to know they are liable for loans they never incurred.

      “When education is a matter of money than you are heading down a rocky road towards economic inaction. You should be proud that people want to go to university in America, you should be proud that when they finish they will contribute to society, but also realise that you don’t have to sponsor a graduate, all their tuition fees will not have to come from you. But then that is just the standard defence of a Republican when it comes to education. Who needs it? “apply for a Pell Grant” ahhh the same Pell Grant that was expanded through the Act: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html

      When the money runs out and the taxpayers can no longer afford to be fleeced for other people’s education, you’ll really see economic inaction. I have a college degree, thanks to the GI Bill, some financial assistance, and a job. My military service and taxes paid into it. I earned what I have. Newsflash, leftie: nothing is free. Someone always pays for the generosity of government spending discretion. The students expect a free ride; unfortunately, the Pell Grant wasn’t the only expansion. Gee, not only is healthcare a free “right”, but education is a free “right”…just depends if you’re a working taxpayer or a freeloader expecting a handout. Scholarships and financial assistance aside, the Dems have created a new class of dependents.

      OH GOD. OH NO. NOT THE CLEAN AIR ACT. My throat is closing because of the…clean….air. Yes that is bloody ridiculous. If you’re not a polluter why do you care if the laws are restrictive? Surely you like to go to the National Parks, or just enjoy scenery that isn’t smoggy or covered in crap. Surely you like drinking clean water?

      Oh gawd, not the bleedin’ “save the planet” crap again. My point is that our laws are restrictive enough and last I checked, what we have works just fine. We don’t need any lectures from the U.N. or a Brit still kvetching about the Kyoto treaty farce.

      “So how is regulating the insurance industry or tightening the media regulations any different?”

      Is that what you call the government takeover, “regulation”?

      “This statement takes your inability to discern context to a whole new and idiotic level. Last time I check Woolworths didn’t have half of the United States’ mortgages sat next to its Pick ‘n’ Mix? Businesses shouldn’t get too big to fail, but in a wholly free-market system that is what happens.”

      Your inability to understand the point, takes your stupidity to a new level. AIG, Chrysler, and GM are just the latest major corporations to run into trouble. Several big businesses failed. It’s sad, but it happens in a free market economy. The government should not serve as a taxpayer-funded financial parachute for every corporate failure.

      “Because of the ascent of money, those who control it are central to our economic survival, so if they go down, they take everything down with it, all the mortgages, the assets, the individual accounts of ordinary people. The government has to intervene or face worse problems later on.”

      Bullshit. The problems get worse when the government intervenes. When you invest in business, you take a risk. You want the government to prop up every single big business entity that starts to flounder? Shit, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are indelible proof that the government can’t even run a fucking business it created itself. The FDIC has every bank insured to the hilt.
      Give me a fucking break.

      Whilst your argument reads well it is based on either little knowledge or pop-economics at best.
      “I don’t need to pick up a book” Truer words have ne’er been spoken.

      I’d hardly call the expertise of the CBO or the financial experts at the Wall Street Journal or Investors Business Daily, “little knowledge”. I also wouldn’t consider the economic devastation I’ve seen in my home town “pop economics”. Your argument, like socialism, looks real pretty on paper. In real life, not so much.

      “Awwwww look at you with your military contractions trying to sound informed. No. If you can’t see how the military paints a picture using one particular colour then that is your prerogative. Shame, as it’s such a polychromous world out there.

      Awwwwww. Substituting puerile snark for substance again. Tsk.

      “…Yes so when Blair faced the enquiry he didn’t want to be red-faced. You really are ignorant to the realities of the war. It would have been common knowledge if WMDs were found, the whole Iraq Inquiry and the media reporting of it would have started from a different point; the Labour Party would have trumpeted that in the election campaign currently being waged.”

      If WMDs were found??? Denial ain’t a river in Egypt. You read the information. If you can’t grasp the fact that Cyclosarin, enriched uranium, and yellow cake are WMD materials, you ought to be red-faced. When you’ve actually been to war, and humped a ruck and a weapon instead of Obama’s leg, we’ll compare notes. ‘K, sweetpea?

      “But as you’ve already made clear, you don’t believe proper science, it’s too truthful for you.”

      Like Al Gore’s “science”? Uh huh. Read the citations I provided in the Climategate section. Happy reading.

      “It takes a certain (low) level of understanding to think that global warming will make everything into a tropical paradise. But maybe that’s what Fox News has been telling you, or those various other “credible news sources”.

      It takes a pretty sophisticated set of cerebral blinders to believe that “global warming” schtick in the first place. You really need to rely on better sources than Al Gore.

      “For the umpteenth time, you have failed to understand the difference between a theoretical and a real-world argument. Theoretically there is no link between communism and oppression. In the real world, the quasi-Communism that the USSR et al pushed forth was horrifically oppressive, but it wasn’t true Marxist Communism.”

      Theoretically, true Marxist Communism is such a wonderful, utopian crock of shit.

      “Ah George Soros the socialist who changed Hungary from Communism to capitalism, the socialist who made billions on the stock exchange. Yes he is a regular Communist. But then that presumes you check your sources, or care for the distinctions between political ideologies.”

      George Soros, founder of the radical leftwing MoveOn.org. Advocate of a “one-world” government. He gave a substantial donation to the defense fund for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of giving aid to Islamic terrorists. He became a multi-billionaire off of the capitalist system he despises. He thinks that markets shouldn’t be “left to their own devices”. In 1992, he made a 1 billion dollar profit at the same time he helped devalue the British Pound. That George Soros. You’d better re-check your sources, bub.

      To be as uninformed as you are wrong takes a certain skill, yet one you wield with something approaching aplomb. You wave your stick of ignorant exaggeration to all and sundry yet hide behind your pitiful shield of selfish self-interest. Your faux patriotism is merely a disguise for petty partisan politics; whilst your chosen sources of information complete the ‘who’s who’ of spurious news, but such views you trot out with such supreme confidence and pride, without realising that they are all without intellectual merit. Pity as you’re trying so hard.

      Ah yes, closing with another snooty, arrogant, dismissive, haughty Brit diatribe. How impressive. There’s plenty of faux intellect in that. Trouble is, you wouldn’t know the difference between real patriotism and petty partisan politics if it kicked you in the arse.
      Do come back again. I really enjoy the entertainment.

      SFC MAC

  2. I suppose I should feel pity. I mean you are trying to play with the big people but you are somewhat lacking in the ‘be able to construct a coherent argument together’ department. For all the nicely written prose, you are fundamentally contradictory in your approach. And as for your continual reluctance to have any opinion that hasn’t been passed down to you (look at any Tea Party-er and you all have the same talking points, generated by little-to-no knowledge) but then look at everyone else and we all think differently, obviously there are points of overlap, but we all reach different conclusions based on how we interpret information. For instance, some of my friends are more right-wing than myself, but they have the good sense to not call me a socialist, as they know that they don’t have a leg to stand on.
    “Okay let me try one more time” Try is definitely the operative word, as you don’t understand the difference between regulation and control. A plethora of examples: the UK media is regulated but not government owned, it’s in the hands of private industry; the utilities industry is regulated but not publically owned. Same with e-commerce, public transport and the financial services authority. Regulation concerns the provision of a baseline for service; control is the 100% ownership of a business/industry. So lack of regulation of the communications industry refers to the ability for a few large companies to own most if not all the major media outlets in a particular region/country, not state-controlled speech. Read his book, rather than jumping to ill-informed conclusions. Until understand his actual position rather than one you’ve just been told to trot out. But no, you’ll prefer your own ‘evidence’ of who you think he is personally, rather than what he says academically. Though I’m sure in your mind it was “clearly demonstrated”, but you seem to hold the view that you are able to construct a watertight argument.
    No. Most of the ‘articles’ you provide are just links to your fascist newspapers/blogs which doesn’t really provide any evidence other than you are really being mislead by your media choices. Anticipation 1) The use of the term fascist – check the left-right political spectrum but more on that later. 2) Why is it one rule for you and another for me? Fox- not respected, Guardian and BBC internationally regarded.
    “I write about events and issues that directly affect me, my family, my community, and my country. That includes the impact from Obama’s socialist trainwreck” That doesn’t make it either a reasoned consideration of the entire situation, or unbiased. I could write about things that are happening where I am, but that doesn’t mean I have the full possession of the facts.
    “narcissistic Marxist and his Dem cronies , have produced a 12 trillion dollar deficit, a deep recession, 15% unemployment, and a law, if left unrepealed, will rot away at our healthcare system.” You seem to once more display a selective memory to see that the recession did happen on Bush’s watch, I think it might be a stretch for some conspiracy theorists to blame than on Obama. Anticipation: ‘But the Dems controlled the House’ – whilst that is true, they did not have a filibuster proof majority so if they were really trying to destroy the fabric of the American society, the Republicans were complicit. And the result was the will of the American public, who were tired of the cronyistic, greedy bigoted Republicans.
    Saying “try Fox News” is like handing someone a pair of blackout goggles instead of the required prescription. Thankfully, thanks to the wonderful BBC, I can look at impartial news before moving onto other news sites, so to say I get an imbalanced view of the world is entirely incorrect. Plus as a Media and Communications Masters student, I think I am well-aware of news balance. Unfortunately with you being told to choke down what those above you say, looking through the wide-angle lens is not in your repertoire. Ahhhhhhh obviously you would love the WSJ as it it’s another News Corp subsidiary along with dear old Fox. And to say that the Investor’s Business Daily is a paper of good repute is thrown into question when it said that Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless”. A claim that is as false in its characterisation of the NHS as it is repugnant, but also considerably wrong. Why don’t you try BBC News, the Guardian, heck even the more right-wing Times (for a News Corp business) gives a more accurate account than Fox News, the only news channel that manages to avoid news. I’ve asked the average American and they think you lot are a bunch of nutjobs, who are most probably too stupid to realise they are being manipulated. Their words. You’re not the average American, you represent the minority element of a minority Party.
    The more you glibly trot out the term “socialist” makes me think that you actually don’t understand what it is. But schmuckums think they’re free thinking. Bless. But I’ll get to that. “Free thinkers don’t advocate oppressive economic policies.” Much like ones where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? How is that not oppressive?
    “In a free market capitalist system, you do NOT reward failure. Let them file for bankruptcy like any other business entity. Other companies have done so, and the market survived just fine. The problem with the bailouts, which amounted to almost $800 billion in taxpayer money, is that it did absolutely nothing but prop up industries that were failing due to their own mismanagement, and in several cases, government interference. AIG, just one of the beneficiaries of Obama’s tax-funded generosity, has come back to the trough several times. You can only loot the treasury and taxpayers so many times before the money runs out” Wow. I mean, WOW. You did not read ANY news during the financial crisis did you? Firstly on a purely pernickety point: If the Democrats were trying to implement a Communist/Socialist state they would have let the banks fail to either prove that ‘capitalism had failed’ or it would be one or two fewer to take over in the end. Secondly, whilst I agree with not rewarding failure (I personally hate the fact that people who were being paid ridiculous sums of money to take risks with funds they don’t own and failed at it, got help), that is just the nature of the beast. Time for free-market economics 101: you start out with say 10 businesses selling the same goods at the same price, so the demand is spread evenly between them all. Now if one person lowers their price, that increases demand, giving say Business A more money. Over time that company can buy Business B. With this increase in size, Business AB can drive down costs due to economies of scale, and such savings will be in part passed onto the customers to gain a larger market share. So business AB is now powerful enough to acquire Business C and eventually D and E. Say the same thing is happening with Business F being a powerful enough player to own Business G, H, I and J. That leaves two business with say, 50% market share each, and now transposing this into the banking arena if these fail then that deals a critical blow to the whole economy, as that sector is the driving force behind economic growth. As hateful as it is in bailing out people who deserved to go under, to have an America that is still the leading world economy is all prefigured on the buoyancy of the industry. In arguing against the bailout is ignoring the very instincts that define free-market capitalism.
    I’ll see your ‘man guessing’ article with proper journalism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8260447.stm
    “the facts I state are supported by robust proof”. Please. The only thing that is robust is your blinkers with which you view the world. You see anyone who sits on the left of centre as positively Red, which automatically renders your opinion tainted with hyperbole. But obviously due to your blinkers you cannot see that. And after your little blurb about “proof” you continue to make value judgements about what you think “wealth redistribution” and “community organiser” mean. Actually you put it best yourself “buzzwords”.
    “Forcing people, under threat, to submit to a government-run health care system, is SOCIALISM.” After dialling down the extremity of the threat (as you make it sound like they are holding a gun to people’s heads) you may want to rewrite this sentence, as ‘government run’ implies the government provision of healthcare a la NHS, what you are referring to is government regulated healthcare. Plus that isn’t the definition of socialism, you should know as you posted one before…..
    What I was saying, quite clearly, was that throughout recent debates the Republicans have found themselves on the wrong side of history. Medicare/Medicaid was one such argument – the implementation of this was meant to unleash the forces of Hell upon America, or in other words “”you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free” so said by President Reagan. The implementation of these programs was tantamount to socialism. Does this remind you of anything? But times have changed and this seems to have been forgotten when you are selecting your new “socialist” weapon. In fact some are even standing squarely behind it “Get your government hands off my Medicare” etc. Whilst this might not be your position it shows the scaremongering so inherent within the fringes of the Republican Party (or what is known as the mainstream).
    I do certainly get bullshit in return. I think the fact that you think I don’t understand anything is that you lack the ability to understand when you’re wrong. Also because you don’t understand where I’m coming from, due to your inability to see beyond the points you’ve been told to say by your compadres. But one thing you have not understood (amongst a myriad of others) is that I can see you viewpoint, I just think it is self-interested and too balanced towards the economic realm. You on the other hand cannot see how this piece of legislation can benefit others without your own opinions overriding and ruining it. Try looking this from a value neutral perspective for once.
    Well if it is in direct violation to the Constitution, I’m sure your competent judicial system will suspend it.
    Whilst your translation is as useful as Google Translate, you have never answered why it is so wrong for a) everyone to have health insurance b) why is it wrong for governments to tell you to get health insurance? This is one question I really don’t understand, possibly as I come from a country where we don’t view the government as this monolithic institution which only exists to steal your freedoms. “If you think it will lower the premiums as claimed in the bill, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale….cheap.” Yeah, those damned insurance companies, you should get rid of them and get government provided healthcare, and then the premiums shrink down to nothing.
    If it weren’t for the requirement for people to purchase health insurance then the ‘Bill’ would be pretty spineless, as it would have meant the perpetuation of the current system, where people would still be uninsured. Use your head.
    Now why would a Union want universal health care? Why would an organisation that exists to guarantee workers rights want to create a system where income is not taken into account? But after neatly plagiarising some other random people’s words, you’ve failed to really say what the SEIU relevance in this debate, either good or bad, all you have done is explain the nature of a lobbyist.
    I take the inability to refute the arguments made by the article as conclusive proof that you are wrong. Until you can, it seems shows a certain kind of ignorance on your part to keep including such claims in your replies. Maybe without them you’ll just be blowing even more wildly without a particular direction or reason. But then you obviously couldn’t utter a sentence without blowing it out of all proportion, so the winner for this paragraph is: “One of the most left-wing web sites on the planet”. A sentence which shows the inability to distinguish degrees of “left-wingness”, and one which ignored the website so provided, a website which to my recollection didn’t say “raving communists”. But then you are a right-wing fascist sat nicely between Mussolini and Hitler.
    “Since the 1960’s the Dems have sold minorities a rotten bill of goods. They are elitist poufs who manipulate the unionized working class, the poor, and minorities into believing that in spite of the stark contrast between their lifestyles and their constituents, they really care.” Whilst the Republicans hate people who are on or near the breadline, as the party has its nose in the bag of commercial interests who want to keep all their profits for themselves and leave the poor to suffer as that is ‘the American way’. They are the party who wouldn’t have sold minorities any ‘bill of goods’ in the first place, as the Republican Party is notionally the party of racists. And the Republican’s don’t do the same: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm
    Well as you are the supreme holder of all American History, then you will not have ‘corrected’ me as you would have known that the Dixiecrats and the Southern Democrats were splintered from the main Democratic Party. And how would you suggest “getting more classes” relating to US History in the UK, in case you’re not aware, our country spans back a bit more than 240 odd years, so we kind of have a bit more to cover.
    The link you gave me didn’t work, but just by looking at the blog itself seems to me you’ve found one minority who disagrees. That isn’t a consensus, or even rubbishing the propaganda you’ve made up which says that all minorities vote the same way, no, it’s just one person. Well that person and Michael Steele.
    Once people realise that Beelzebub won’t shoot out of their arse with the passage of the legislation and that America will live to see another day, people will slow their roll, and in about 20 years time if more change is wanted the Reps will shout down these new proposals saying “get your hands off my govt regulated healthcare”. But then all statistics are presuming people are aware of the full scope of information, which the average person isn’t. Public opinion isn’t an indicator of whether a Bill is right or not, whether it will fail with time or succeed, it’s just a collection of guesses from people outside the loop.
    “Wrong. From the CBO”………………………………………sorry I was waiting for the point where I was proven wrong. It never came. Neither of the articles said that the healthcare reforms would increase the deficit. The Bloomberg article (if you’d read it to the bottom) acknowledged the Administration’s good work in handling the economy. And there is no right or wrong way with dealing with a deficit, just look at the current debate within the UK, as cutting spending too much could lead to a double dip back into recession. But then least the US economy is slowly getting back on its feet.
    Surely if someone is raising valid points say about business practices, one does not have to subscribe wholly to their particular beliefs in order to understand their argument. You can leave the opinions but concentrate on the facts. So calling her an ardent ‘anti-capitalist’ doesn’t meant that the things she says are any less true. Everything she writes is meticulously researched, thus just because you disagree with her end results doesn’t render the truths any less valid. Try reading her book on the rising DISASTER CAPITALISM (not capitalist disaster), instead of guessing everything she stands for. How can you claim to see the whole picture when your mind shuts down every time something bordering on left-wing crops up? The poor summary of Naomi Klein is a Grade A eejits attempt at critical engagement.
    “Have you read any of our EPA regulations? Do that before you spew crap about the “Kyoto Protocol”” Have you read the Kyoto Protocol? Do that before you spew crap about your EPA regulations.
    “Man-made” climate change is a fucking hoax. The looney theories of the ‘global warming’ cult have been repeatedly debunked” No they haven’t. This obviously comes from no knowledge of scientific research in the area. “Doomsday crap” – not like the Reps over Healthcare?
    The climate deniers form an extreme minority within the scientific community, yet present themselves as an equal portion. Their research is bankrolled by industries where the status quo benefits them, and has fundamental flaws contained within it. How can most world governments, most scientists, most people be wrong about this? Your continued ignorance to the real world just shows how thick the walls are to your bubble. Time to wake up and smell the melting ice caps.
    “Here’s the deal. First, carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. Fact. Think of it as nature’s duvet, keeping us all tucked up and cosy. Without it the average global temperature would be about minus 20C; very bad news if, like me, you look rubbish in a woolly hat. Second, burning fossil fuels has increased the levels of carbon dioxide in the air. Also a fact. And third, the average temperature of the planet has gone up by a small but significant amount — about 0.75C in the past 100 years. Trust me, we’ve measured it. Wonder whether these facts are true and you also need to start wondering whether there are tiny people in the TV, or if aircraft are held up by string. The squillion-dollar question is, of course, did the extra carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels cause the warming? Our best answer is not “yes”. Our best answer is that it is very likely — 90 per cent likely, in fact. Now if you knew that there was a 90 per cent likelihood that there was a hungry man-eating tiger in the next room, would you go in it? You might if you were a tiger-sceptic, and then, of course, there would be a 10 per cent chance you’d make it out again. So, again, I’d suggest that it’s probably worth putting our hands up and admitting that the fossil fuels we burn are increasing the average temperature of the planet” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7075419.ece)
    Yeah with you spending your time with other soldiers, protected from the ‘terrorist cooties’ you would have contracted if you strayed too close to them doesn’t quite qualify as ‘understanding’. The military mindset is a perspective, a set of frames with which to view the world. But with your inability to see that, means you can’t see what impact that has on every other conclusion you derive.
    With friends who studied out in Syria for a year not coming back jihadists or seeing anything close to a major cauldron of the world’s scum its difficult to see how your totalitarian critique really applies. Yes the STATE is oppressive, but the people who live under it cannot be judged to that standard, otherwise by that standard you are a communist.
    So after helpfully adding the definition of socialism for your own benefit, it’s time to analyse your own argument: where does it say anything about force? Let me spell it out for you really simply, as you won’t get it otherwise: socialism (the definition you posted in case you’re lost already) is centred around the collective ownership of the means of production, nothing about forcing a submissive population to bend to the parties will, just community ownership. Now let’s look at fascism:
    “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism” So in this definition the control of all and sundry is centred under a dictator.
    First, in a theoretical world, the two are different. One is community owned, one is authoritarian, owned by one. These two co-exist as separate entities. Yes, socialism in theory doesn’t work, but that breeds communism (http://www.answers.com/topic/communism) not fascism (http://library.oakland.edu/tutorials/PoliticalSpectrum/common_images/spectrum.jpg). Fascist and COMMUNIST theories are not that dissimilar, as some say the spectrum is more like a ring with the two overlapping.
    “centred around power” did apply to the Nazis, that is the point I was making. There was never any attempt to give the means of production to the people, instead it was all centralised under Hitler, who used ‘socialism’ to gain the support he needed to put his plans into action.
    Now to my second point: your confusion of socialism with social liberalism. By now you’re aware of what socialism is, so here’s liberalism: “such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class”. Wanting to smooth out inequalities isn’t a pre-condition of the societal control of all industry. Obama is socially and economically liberal (economically liberal being the belief in free-markets), but that doesn’t mean he will soon be asking for the keys from all small business owners. This is the belief of only those who are fundamentally confused with the semantics of the words involved.
    “How about “keep your hands off my healthcare””, whilst that’s alright for you, how about people who don’t have any to steal?
    “You denigrate Americans for protesting the evisceration of freedoms and Constitutional violations on the part of power-hungry politicians, yet you think you understand my country?” You criticise Americans who want change in their lives; look around you! People are not happy with living without healthcare, yet you are so incensed because big bad Obama wants to help people. And you hate that. How can you say you want to be in a democracy when you hate the other half, when you want to deny the right to live of over a 10th of the population? Your arguments to this point have no credence, have no reason and have no rhyme. They are all based on suppositions, on guesswork and petty bickering. You are happy to have the right of freedom of speech but Goddamn if anyone disagrees with you. How dare they?! “I’ll go down and say something about the Constitution”. I’ve never understood how “progressive” was a pejorative phrase. When was progress wrong?
    “I was an S2 and a G2 NCOIC. Not that you know what that is. I was part of the planning, intel efforts, and combat/counter terrorism operations in Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I took part in strategic and tactical intelligence operations around the world.” Well done. You get a Gold Star.
    “Last I checked, the Islamofascists started this war”. Just like the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand started WW1.
    Until you can see that simply by serving in the forces only gives you knowledge of the armed forces you will be nothing more than a gushing nonce.
    “‘Vague document’?? …holy crap, you are really a piece of work.” Did you not see the referencing? That was taken from a book from 4 different Professors, a regarded publishing house, and the implicit recommendations of every school, college and university that uses it. But no, as you disagree, that’s all that counts. Until you author a book that is as respected as that, your contradictions are moot. Actually when I read the Constitution (its handily in the back of the book), it makes the situation quite clear. I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you have just imprecisely spoke about rights and their derivatives, not which rights have supposedly been transgressed by Obama.
    I agree with your view on pork barrel earmarks, but surely that is just the nature of representative democracy. People will always want what is best for them and their region. As for student loans, the very fact that they were in private hands is awful, to leave students who are wanting to further their education which will benefit the entire economy, in the hands of greedy companies with extortionate interest rates. What were the students when they were in the hands of private business? Entrepreneurs? As for bailouts, proof?
    Wow. Either you cannot read (“SOME business can do ill”, not ALL) or are just a drama queen and thus cannot stop exaggerations. I don’t really see where you got “everyone, according to your “thinking” is a polluter” from. Little Mom and Pop industries aren’t polluters in the real sense, yet GE or Dow Chemicals are. How about we pump millions of tonnes of Carbon Monoxide into your house and see if you start questioning those polluters. Why is it so wrong for you to see ill with capitalism? That isn’t asking for a full recanting on your part, just to see that it isn’t all rainbows and bunny rabbits. Take democracy, its brilliant but there are undeniably problems within it.
    How can you call your practical bumming of free-market capitalism unvarnished? Every time where there is an opportunity for you to see how the world really is, your inbuilt left-o-meter kicks in and stops you from seeing things objectively. Yet you see any attempt at engagement with reality as a push towards socialism which means you are denying the world as it is. Read any political science/sociology book first to understand the human condition, then move onto just one book contrary to your belief. Go on. I dare you.
    “As a Soldier and Intelligence Analyst, I was anything but detached” And its detachment that is needed to see the big picture, you know reasons you were not otherwise told. Again, read some academic papers on the subject better than anything you call intelligence. I could scrape more intelligent things off the bottom of the toilet.
    But then that does contradict with: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3718150.stm
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8409526.stm
    And basically the whole tenor of the Iraq Enquiry in Britain was to the point that Iraq’s weapon capabilities had decreased not increased. Surely Tony Blair would have been the first one to say that the weapons existed if they had been found, as he staked his reputation on that fact?
    So the Bible is just a massive love in then? Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? The Old Testament was pretty righteous, and most certainly did not pull many punches. But here’s a few things for you: The use of Kafir (infidel) refers to polytheists or atheists, not Jews or Christians (granted that’s not much better but it’s a start). All three faiths descend from the same branch, in fact Muslims believe in Jesus, and that come Judgement day he will appear above a minaret on the Umayyed Mosque in Damascus.
    “”Kafir” has also come to be regarded as offensive, thus Muslim scholars discourage its use due to the Quran’s command to use kind words. It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law. Muslim extremists today however use the term in reference to all non-Muslims”
    http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/does-the-quran-say-to-kill-the-infidel/
    http://www.omeriqbal.com/a/21
    “People are “blowing themselves to bits” all around the world. U.N. “role” notwithstanding.” But they, for the most part, are non-state entities, the like of which are not taken into consideration in the supra-national level of the UN. It’s impossible to say how many lives have been saved by the creation of the UN and the prevention of needless wars.
    “It’s not man-made, regardless of what Al Gore tells you.”ha………….please.
    ““Distorted perception”? That’s funny as hell. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable in your delusion.” You just said above that you were not detached, so that shows you were part of a particular mindset: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/05/12_mindset.html
    “The linkage between Communism and oppression is well established.” Then subsequently debunked as bunkum.
    “You’re not asking for a reasonable tax system, either” It’s called proportional for a reason
    “How moral is it for a government to ration and degrade the quality of health care, and tax the hell out of people to do it? Media Matters….LOL! Your sense of morality is bat-shit crazy.” There’s no rationing, nothing will be degraded, can’t you read or do your blinkers extend over your eyes. Possibly they’re hardwired into your brain, as you don’t seem to understand that your arguments are redundant, have no basis in truth, have been dreamt up in the War Room of the Republican Party who needed to get people angry about an issue, any issue no matter how fictitious.
    Look up morality. It’ll be a lot quicker than trying to explain it to you. You only seem to think something is an issue if it affects you and your cronies, no, the world is a bigger place, and your bubble doesn’t even encompass a tiny fraction of it. To claim the moral high ground is a lie, it is as much so as claiming victory. Time and time again you and your progress-averse chums have been proven wrong, this will just be another occasion. The fear mongering by Fox News is just playing on the fears of modern America, and you’ve been caught in it’s sticky trap. Rupert Murdoch thanks you for your service.

    1. flamjew,

      “I suppose I should feel pity….”

      Oh, good gawd. Give it up. Condescending Brit snobbery is a poor substitute for a substantive argument. It just shows what an ass you are. You are a socialist, and you don’t even have the balls to admit it. That’s pitiful.

      “Okay let me try one more time” Try is definitely the operative word, as you don’t understand the difference between regulation and control….

      Obama’s regime took control the nation’s largest insurance company, two of the three American auto manufacturing industries, the two entities that hold a majority of our mortgages, the entire student loan industry, wide swaths of the banking industry and now a major portion of the American health care delivery system. Your inability to understand the difference between that kind of control and what constitutes regulation is unbelievably stunning. You have a distinct, overbearing, wealth envy. Like Obama. He and the Dems are destroying economic growth in this country in order to “spread the wealth”. Oh, and lookie here. Our IRS Commissioner just came out with a brand new approach to revenue shake-downs. He wants to go global! http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63761

      “Most of the ‘articles’ you provide are just links to your fascist newspapers/blogs which doesn’t really provide any evidence other than you are really being mislead by your media choices…..”

      All of the articles you provide are links to leftwing publications, websites, authors, columnists, and “think tanks”. Pot, meet Kettle. Your choices: The Guardian and BBC, which are renowned for their blatant leftwing slant. It’s funny how anything that directly contradicts your “sources” is labeled “misleading”, blah….blah…blah…. Newsflash: We are quite familiar with the Guardian, The Nation, and the BBC. That’s why they are not respected. We have our own leftwing media; The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, MSNBC, NBC…. When the Fourth Estate morphed into the Fifth Column, they lost respect. You are obviously “unfamiliar” with the bulk of MSM in this country. Fox News gets more credibility and respect because it actually reflects the pulse of Middle America. The Washington Times, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily; respected. The aforementioned leftie Brit media; scoffed at. You effetes simply cannot fathom why the “ignorant masses” don’t know “what’s good for them”. It sucks to know that we actually think for ourselves and won’t be misled by the barrage of bullshit and Obama socialist hard sell. “Misled”…you couldn’t find your way down a fucking one-way street. Try again.

      “That doesn’t make it either a reasoned consideration of the entire situation, or unbiased. I could write about things that are happening where I am, but that doesn’t mean I have the full possession of the facts.”

      I see, up close, what’s happening across my country. I am in firm possession of the facts; as are the millions of other Americans fed up with the way our country is being destroyed. With the multi-trillion-dollar Obamacare entitlement enacted into law by the Democrats, it will get much, much worse. Using your logic: you are 6000 miles away, and your main source of American political and economic analysis is the Guardian. I’ve even used some of your own Brit media to counter your assertions, but since they don’t occupy the left side of the political spectrum, they aren’t “respected”. Again, Pot, meet Kettle.

      “You seem to once more display a selective memory to see that the recession did happen on Bush’s watch, I think it might be a stretch for some conspiracy theorists to blame than on Obama….”

      Our recession has deepened considerably. The debt and deficit have grown to over twice that of the Bush administration. At some point, Obama will have to stop blaming Bush for all of his own fuck-ups. The “yeah, but look what I inherited” spiel loses it’s credibility after you’ve screwed up beyond repair and all you do is blame your predecessor. Having said that, after Obama gets done ‘fundamentally transforming’ the United States into a Banana Republic, it will take decades to unfuck the damage. If there’s a conspiracy, look no further than Obama’s politburo. It’s chock full of Marxists. Care for me to name some of them again? Andy Stern, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Robert McChesney, Mark Lloyd, Kevin Jennings, Jeff Jones, Valerie Jarrett….the list goes on. Read their own words, philosophy, and actions before you spew any more nonsense about what you think constitutes socialism in Obama’s government.
      Ron Bloom: Obama’s “Manufacturing Czar”, speaking at an Investing Forum in February 2008 about the union’s role in bankruptcy and restructuring:

      “Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense, we know that the whole point is to game the system…we know this is largely about power; that it’s an adults only no-limit game. We kinda agree with Mao, that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun, and we get it, that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.”

      Here’s the link to my post (again) that covers Obama’s Marxist associates and appointees.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/obama-and-the-company-he-keeps/
      Prove me wrong.

      “Saying “try Fox News” is like handing someone a pair of blackout goggles instead of the required prescription. Thankfully, thanks to the wonderful BBC, I can look at impartial news before moving onto other news sites, so to say I get an imbalanced view of the world is entirely incorrect.”

      The BBC??? Impartial??? ROFLMAO!!! Try again.

      “A claim that is as false in its characterisation of the NHS as it is repugnant, but also considerably wrong…..”

      A columnist here made this point about the Brits and your NHS: (you’ll notice I put it in blockquotes so you won’t mistake it for “plagarism”)

      “The worst thing you can do to the British media is repeat their own horror stories about the NHS, the socialist medical system. It’s like a stranger criticizing your crazy uncle. The family can do it all day long, but don’t let outsiders say a word. The family defends its own.
      The trouble with this sudden British love for the much-abused NHS is that Americans are now trying to understand the truth about socialized health care — and the standard horror stories in the British media make the NHS sound pretty unattractive. Americans still have the possibility of opting out. The Brits are stuck with their awful uncle.
      I once angered an acquaintance over there when I made the mistake of asking about a heroic statue of Oliver Cromwell that towers next to the Houses of Parliament. Didn’t Cromwell carry on a reign of terror? Wasn’t he the Puritan version of Stalin? Why would Parliament be graced with a statue of the Witch-finder General? (I said it more politely).
      But I wasn’t prepared for the explosion. Apparently I had stepped on some very painful toes. Cromwell was a god-awful villain, but he was British, and I had criticized Crazy Uncle.”
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/brits_defend_their_muchcritici.html

      That’s why you’re so touchy, isn’t it mate? Your own media has leveled a shitload of criticism at your “wonderful” NHS, (which I have provided) and it strikes a nerve. Americans have seen your “wonderful” Euro socialism. We don’t want it. That’s enough to send the average (socialist) Brit into convulsions.

      “The more you glibly trot out the term “socialist” makes me think that you actually don’t understand what it is. …”

      You want a system where everyone is poor….oh scuse me, on “equal footing”. No one is allowed to get wealthy, and if you are, you’re taxed/penalized into economic oblivion. That’s “freethinking”?? You’re totally void of any common sense. You vent your spleen at free market capitalism in favor of centralized government-control on everything from private industry to health care, and you make the ludicrous statement that I don’t understand socialism. Uh huh.

      “WOW. You did not read ANY news during the financial crisis did you?…..”

      Apparently, much more than you.
      Economics 101 for Dummies: (Again) Regarding the bailouts: You do NOT reward failure, especially when it’s government-generated failure. Politicians mandated that banks make loans to people least likely to repay them, and used OUR money to bail them out. To top it off, the government took control of corporations that got into trouble by making bad business decisions, and bailed them out, too. I’m a capitalist. If you profit through hard work, risk, perseverance, and smart business decisions, more power to you. Capitalism is supposed to reward SUCCESS. If you fail, don’t dig into my pocket for rescue. The socialists in power have wealth envy and want to take even more from those who have and give to those who do not. They’re inflicting massive government control and interference in the economy, instead of allowing free enterprise to take its course. Even banks that were operating in the black, were forced to knuckle under and comply, under threat. Obama doesn’t want to rescue these industries even for the good of the country; he wants to control them as part of his legacy.

      “Please. The only thing that is robust is your blinkers with which you view the world. You see anyone who sits on the left of centre as positively Red….

      The trouble is, those “buzzwords” got made into policy. ‘Fundamentally transform’ is now a socialist mandate. You’re not just left of center, you make Vladimir Lenin look like a moderate. You’ve got company in D.C.

      “….dialling down the extremity of the threat (as you make it sound like they are holding a gun to people’s heads) you may want to rewrite this sentence, as ‘government run’ implies the government provision of healthcare a la NHS, what you are referring to is government regulated healthcare. Plus that isn’t the definition of socialism, you should know as you posted one before…..

      The extremity of the threat is outlined in the ObamaCare bill, (H.R. 4872) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4872, which you did not bother to read.
      Well, after all, Nancy Pelosi said they’d “have to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it”. Americans will be required to carry health insurance; otherwise they will have to pay penalties to the IRS.
      It greatly expands the collection powers of the IRS for those who do not want ObamaCare:

      “Page 322 of the Senate bill (the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) says that “any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under Chapter 1 [of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)] for the taxable year which includes such month.” The procedure to collect the tax on page 336 of the bill references Chapter 68 of the IRC. On page 337 of the bill, a new Chapter 48 is added to Subtitle D of the Code (Miscellaneous Excise Taxes) in order to create the uninsurance tax. Page 341 of the bill continues to reference various parts of the Code that need to be amended in order to cover this new tax. Anyone reading this precise legislative language can see how this tax would be collected. An uninsured individual would add the excise tax to their regular income tax burden on the 1040 Form every April. It is much like other excise taxes collected on the 1040 (early IRA withdrawal tax, for example).”
      SOURCE: http://www.atr.org/obamacares-individual-mandatebr-penalty-tax-a4563

      That is un-Constitutional. The Federal government is forbidden to create commerce and force people into it. This health care policy will cost Americans $938 billion over the next decade. And the other bad piece of legislation, The Reconciliation Act of 2010 is a disastrous, anti-growth tax hike bill. This oppressive socialist edict is an affront to personal freedom and fiscal sanity.
      More analysis from credible, knowledgeable sources:
      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63255
      http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/a-private-health-insurance-death-spiral-will-begin-on-september-23/
      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Five-things-we-learned-about-Obamacare-after-it-passed-90029262.html
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/24/phil-kerpen-obama-health-care-reconciliation-senate-nebraska/
      http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=546
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/now-obamacare-law
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare%E2%80%99s-consequence
      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35922
      The right way to reform the health care system:
      http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/02/The-Health-Care-Summit-A-Chance-to-Start-Over-and-Get-It-Right

      What I was saying, quite clearly, was that throughout recent debates the Republicans have found themselves on the wrong side of history…..

      The wrong side of history??? With every passing comment you sink further into that revisionist bullshit. Well, as Ron White says: “You can’t fix stupid”. Medicare is BROKE. In 1966 the Democrats told us that Medicare would cost us $9 billion a year by 1990. What was the actual tab? Try $110 billion a year. Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.
      Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient: READ: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067
      As with the rest of his socialist trainwreck, The Community Organizer will cost our economy more in revenue than it earns. You want scary? The effects of this disaster are just beginning to be felt. Wait until about 4 years from now, when the real avalanche of economic depression sets in. That’s why we are doing every thing we can to overturn this catastrophe.

      Well if it is in direct violation to the Constitution, I’m sure your competent judicial system will suspend it.

      How about “repeal”. That’s a more accurate term.

      “Whilst your translation is as useful as Google Translate, you have never answered why it is so wrong for a) everyone to have health insurance b) why is it wrong for governments to tell you to get health insurance? This is one question I really don’t understand, possibly as I come from a country where we don’t view the government as this monolithic institution which only exists to steal your freedoms….Yeah, those damned insurance companies, you should get rid of them and get government provided healthcare, and then the premiums shrink down to nothing… If it weren’t for the requirement for people to purchase health insurance then the ‘Bill’ would be pretty spineless, as it would have meant the perpetuation of the current system, where people would still be uninsured. Use your head.”

      Whilst you’re totally immersed in the Euro-socialist Nanny State, you cannot differentiate between government dictatorship and free will. Maybe it’s because you’ve been under the thumb so long, you have nothing with which to compare your socialism. Unlike you Brits, we like the freedom to make the choices that impact our lives. That includes health care choices, and the right not to be forced into programs that do not look out for our best interests, or force us to pay for another bloated, overwhelmed system. Our premiums will rise and care will be rationed because of the massive influx of millions of patients, and as with all socialized medicine, the government deems what it will pay for. This is better than private insurance companies? I know you’ve forgotten this bit of history, but we rebelled against our British rulers for much the same reasons we’re raising hell now. Taxation without representation. Illegal seizure of property; both public and private. Oppressive laws that strangled the population. People expend a real portion of their life to produce wealth. The government produces no wealth, it only seizes wealth. Again, the very principles written into the Constitution were designed to keep the Federal government from seizing too much power. The ObamaCare bill is far, far worse than the status quo. Compare the bill with the alternatives I’ve cited. Use your reading and cognitive skills.

      “….you’ve failed to really say what the SEIU relevance in this debate, either good or bad, all you have done is explain the nature of a lobbyist.”

      A lobbyist who had a big hand in ObamaCare. If you read the information I provided, you’d have figured that out. “….plagiarising”??? I am quite able to articulate viewpoints in my own words, thank you. Whenever you see quotation marks, you know those things that look like this: “ “, that means I’m quoting someone and the link is usually attached. As for the SEIU, you need to read a bit more about Andy Stern’s influence in Obama’s government before you go off half-cocked with more denials.

      “I take the inability to refute the arguments made by the article as conclusive proof that you are wrong. Until you can, it seems shows a certain kind of ignorance on your part to keep including such claims in your replies.”

      I take your refusal to read the citations I’ve posted as your typical dismissive bullshit. Par for the course.

      “Maybe without them you’ll just be blowing even more wildly without a particular direction or reason. But then you obviously couldn’t utter a sentence without blowing it out of all proportion, so the winner for this paragraph is: “One of the most left-wing web sites on the planet”.
      Prove me wrong.

      Here ya go:

      Media Matters: Founders and supporters include: David Brock, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta.
      Staff members are Democratic operatives.
      A notable figure at Media Matters is senior fellow Eric Boehlert, who was among the most passionate defenders of University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian after the latter was accused of having been the North American leader of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In an article titled “The Prime-time Smearing of Sami Al-Arian,” Boehlert charged that: “In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, all four media giants, eagerly tapping into the country’s mood of vengeance and fear, latched onto the Al-Arian story, fudging the facts and ignoring the most rudimentary tenets of journalism in their haste to better tell a sinister story about lurking Middle Eastern dangers here at home.”
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

      Wrong. Proved.

      “Whilst the Republicans hate people who are on or near the breadline, as the party has its nose in the bag of commercial interests who want to keep all their profits for themselves and leave the poor to suffer as that is ‘the American way’. They are the party who wouldn’t have sold minorities any ‘bill of goods’ in the first place, as the Republican Party is notionally the party of racists. And the Republican’s don’t do the same.

      Another BBC article? Fucking please. That’s what passes for credibility in your country. Okay.
      When all else fails, and you’ve lost the argument, resort to the “racist!” label. BRAVO, limey! You really scored some points there. The Dems sell minorities a rotten bill of goods, exploit them as useful idiots, and inflict bad economic policies (like the welfare trap) that keeps the poor in a state of perpetual poverty. Those eeeeeeeeeevil capitalist Republicans want a prosperous America where everyone has the opportunity to excel, make money, and make their lives better.
      “…keep all their profits for themselves and leave the poor to suffer…”. Right out of the Communist Manifesto. Ignoring the blatant racist hypocrisy of leftwing Dems doesn’t help. Liberals, especially the guilt-ridden wealthy type, are so condescending. They love minorities as long as they don’t have to live in the same neighborhood or send their kids to the same schools. Harry Reid is quoted as saying that people supported Obama because he was “light skinned,” and because he exhibited no “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Jesse Jackson gets away with calling New York City “Hymie Town”. Al Sharpton loves nothing more than a race-baiting fest. Sonya Sotomayor got a pass with her statement that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That’s what they do. Base everything on pigment, not substance.

      “Well as you are the supreme holder of all American History, then you will not have ‘corrected’ me as you would have known that the Dixiecrats and the Southern Democrats were splintered from the main Democratic Party.”

      The Dem Party, overall, has a very select memory to match their indignation. None of them, including the northern Dems were very enthusiastic about civil rights. Period.
      Wanna see more craptastic vileness on the part of our Democratic politicians and their leftwingnut supporters? You’ll love this:
      This is an anti-war poster:

      moonbat-pic-of-powell-and-ape.jpg

      This is a cartoon from leftwing moonbat Ted Rall, who as you can see in the “artwork”, called Condi Rice a “house nigga”.

      More articles about double standards here:
      http://biggovernment.com/kenandken/2010/03/26/demonizing-everyday-americans/
      http://biggovernment.com/ldoan/2010/01/11/the-democratic-double-standard-on-race-ive-lived-it/
      The Dems showed how much they love minorities by sending SEIU thugs into townhall meetings to beat them up. But oh, that’s right, Kenneth Gladney doesn’t count because he’s opposed to ObamaCare.
      Of course, there’s no wailing or gnashing of teeth over the fact that Obama’s policies hurt minorities, especially.
      http://biggovernment.com/ldoan/2010/04/06/jobless-numbers-show-minorities-crushed-by-team-obama-policies/

      And how would you suggest “getting more classes” relating to US History in the UK, in case you’re not aware, our country spans back a bit more than 240 odd years, so we kind of have a bit more to cover.

      I was speaking of U.S. history. Not yours. Well hell, since you only have 240 odd U.S. years to cover, it should take you no time at all.

      “The link you gave me didn’t work, but just by looking at the blog itself seems to me you’ve found one minority who disagrees. That isn’t a consensus, or even rubbishing the propaganda you’ve made up which says that all minorities vote the same way, no, it’s just one person. Well that person and Michael Steele.”

      Just one?? How do you know? Aren’t you being stereotypical? I’ve seen the Tea Party gatherings, and they have a hell of a lot more diversity than the Dems care to admit. Oh, speaking of black Republicans, this is another sampling of how they are treated by Dems:
      http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1
      Of course, leftwing assclowns tend to label the entire tea Party and Republicans as “rascist”, because, like every other argument they lose, that’s the standard fall back and regroup line. You liberals are so fucking predictable.

      “Once people realise that Beelzebub won’t shoot out of their arse…..Public opinion isn’t an indicator of whether a Bill is right or not, whether it will fail with time or succeed, it’s just a collection of guesses from people outside the loop.”

      Oh yeah, we’ve only read and understand what’s in the ObamaCare mandate, seen the effects of over-taxation and joblessness, and we also know what’s coming in the next few years. “Beelzebub” is in the details. Hmmmm. Slamming public opinion against ObamaCare, in true selective liberal fashion. “Guesses” aside, I’ll take our public opinion of the Constitution and the megalomaniacs in Dem party over a system like your wonderful NHS. If the reports from Britain are any indicator, it’s not as swell as you insist.

      “….sorry I was waiting for the point where I was proven wrong. It never came.”

      It came, it just flew over the point on your head. Oh, I’m sorry. Since words are too difficult for you, read the numbers at http://www.usdebtclock.org
      Again, you are wrong. I see a definite pattern there.

      “So calling her an ardent ‘anti-capitalist’ doesn’t meant that the things she says are any less true. Everything she writes is meticulously researched, thus just because you disagree with her end results doesn’t render the truths any less valid.”

      So when she insists capitalism was “pushed through while the citizens of …countries were in shock from disasters or upheaval”, while ignoring the upheaval in the Soviet Union that resulted in 70+ years of communist atrocities, I’m supposed to take that as “meticulous’. Here’s another viewpoint on Naomi’s “meticulous” research: The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384
      I simply cannot take you seriously anymore. You try to sugar-coating socialist ideology in an attempt to make it palatable. You really are that dense.

      ”Have you read the Kyoto Protocol? Do that before you spew crap about your EPA regulations”…

      Sheeeeeit. I’ve read it. Even Bubba Clinton knew the Kyoto Treaty was a very bad idea:
      From the Senate Resolution:

      Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that–
      (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would–
      (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
      (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
      (2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
      http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

      Bottom line: It has nothing to do with “greenhouse gasses”. The Kyoto Treaty targeted developed nations, blaming them (The U.S. in particular) for all the world’s woes, especially the “man-made climate change” hoax. It was just another penalty the U.N. wanted to lob at capitalist nations for daring to be successful. Ya know those eeeeeeeeeeevil capitalist business people. The resolution passed without a single Democrat objecting.

      “Man made climate change”..No they haven’t. This obviously comes from no knowledge of scientific research in the area. “Doomsday crap” – not like the Reps over Healthcare?

      Yes they have.
      All links provide additional links to science articles.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/more-incovenient-truth-on-climategate/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/hide-the-decline-e-mails-reveal-how-scientists-discussed-climate-change-hoax/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/climategate-scientist-admits-hoax/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/a-few-facts-to-ponder-while-youre-freezing-your-ass-off/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/hey-al-the-inconvienient-truth-is-youre-stupid/
      OH MY GAWD!! We’re all gonna die because the polar ice caps are gonna melt and we’ll all drown! LOL!!! Here’s the bottom line: If debunking the manufactured “man-made” climate change crap isn’t enough to convince even the biggest doomsday idiot, Mother Nature usually schools ‘em. Stuff we learned in grade school: The earth’s orbit, rotation, and tilt are just part of what cycles the weather. The surface of the planet goes through a multitude of changes with cold/warm fronts, the flow, speed, and direction of wind, and humidity; a number of variables we cannot control. There are still idiots who insist, in spite of all the geological evidence and natural cycle of our planet, that any perceived “climate change” is all our “fault”. Hell, if all it took was a little “man-made” manipulation, then bring on the warming trend. I’m sick to death of freezing temperatures and snow up to my ass in the winter time.
      Keep ‘hiding the decline’. LOL!

      “Yeah with you spending your time with other soldiers, protected from the ‘terrorist cooties’ you would have contracted if you strayed too close to them doesn’t quite qualify as ‘understanding’. The military mindset is a perspective, a set of frames with which to view the world. But with your inability to see that, means you can’t see what impact that has on every other conclusion you derive.”

      Oh yeah, doing the tourist thing trumps everything I and my fellow Soldiers have experienced. So, you ate falafels, bought a cheap prayer rug, got your picture taken on one of Ahmed’s camels, and brought home an “authentic” souvenir that Omar the tentmaker swore was a 2000 year old fertility god. Good for you.

      “So after helpfully adding the definition of socialism for your own benefit, it’s time to analyse your own argument: where does it say anything about force? Let me spell it out for you really simply, as you won’t get it otherwise: socialism (the definition you posted in case you’re lost already) is centred around the collective ownership of the means of production, nothing about forcing a submissive population to bend to the parties will, just community ownership.”

      Really, then just what the fuck did Obama have in mind when he and his Dems concocted legislation that will FORCE the entire country onto government CONTROLLED health care, or face steep penalties? At one point, one of their bills actually threatened jail time. It’s NOT “community owned”. It’s owned by the government. And we’re not submissive, as you can tell.

      Now let’s look at fascism:
      “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism” So in this definition the control of all and sundry is centred under a dictator.”

      Let’s see, there are several instances of fascist-style behavior by Obama and the Dems:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/obama-dems-declare-war-on-grassroots-america/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/government-computers-used-to-dig-for-joe-plumbers-information/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/republicans-slam-obama-over-threats/
      http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/29/a-whiff-of-fascism-from-obamas
      http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/831

      “Now to my second point: your confusion of socialism with social liberalism.”

      The two are barely discernable.

      “How about “keep your hands off my healthcare””, whilst that’s alright for you, how about people who don’t have any to steal?

      How about not stealing mine, just so they can have some? Health care is NOT a right. It’s a privilege.

      “You criticise Americans who want change in their lives; look around you! People are not happy with living without healthcare, yet you are so incensed because big bad Obama wants to help people.”

      Change their lives? To what? Serfdom? “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”—Ronald Reagan. If Obama really wants to help: stop destroying our country. Unemployment through the roof, a burgeoning debt and deficit, an eviscerated foreign policy and now he wants to create a socialist health care State. He wants to “help” people, my ass.
      The American people will not stand for the replacement of our Democratic Republic with a socialist autocracy. That must really hit your last Marxist nerve.

      “….Goddamn if anyone disagrees with you. How dare they?! “I’ll go down and say something about the Constitution”. I’ve never understood how “progressive” was a pejorative phrase. When was progress wrong?”

      Goddamn me? That’s exactly the tack being used by the ruling Dem party and the frothing MSM moonbats. Tune in to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow. Read what is being said about us by the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Steny Hoyer, Jim McDermott, and Obama himself. Ordinary Americans are being smeared by a group of arrogant, dismissive, malevolent politicians and their MSM lackeys. No sooner had we dared to question their motives, the bad legislation, and their abuse of the Constitution, they lashed out with the “racist, bigot, homophobe, and domestic terrorist” bullshit. I have never seen a more vile, despicable bunch of autocrats in my life. We pose a threat to their abuse of power and they don’t like it. I’ve never understood how “progressivism” which is another word for socialism, could be mistaken for a positive thing.

      “Just like the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand started WW1. Until you can see that simply by serving in the forces only gives you knowledge of the armed forces you will be nothing more than a gushing nonce.”

      Gavrilo Princip didn’t assassinate anyone on our soil. We tried to avoid involvement in WWI and WWII, remember? We had adopted an isolationist policy. Both times, before we entered into the fray, you Brits put on a big propaganda campaign. We finally entered WWI after the Alfred Zimmerman note was decoded by the Brits and passed to us, and due to the increasing German submarine warfare. Our entry into WWII was thanks to the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. Until you actually serve in the armed forces and get at least a rudimentary understanding of our mission, experience, dedication and sacrifice, you’ll be nothing more than you are now; a La-Z-Boy critic with an opinion. But that’s okay, not every one can handle being a Soldier. Some folks just can’t hack it. You’re living a decent life in England because of the sacrifice of millions of U.S. Soldiers. You’re welcome.

      “Did you not see the referencing?”

      Have you read the Constitution? That’s my reference; and the intent and words of those who actually wrote it. Your “sources” don’t include any of the signers, do they?

      “….in the hands of greedy companies with extortionate interest rates. As for bailouts, proof?”

      Oh gawd, the “greedy capitalist” crap again. WHO DO YOU THINK WILL FOOT THE BILL FOR THE STUDENT LOANS???? The taxpayer. The overburdened, working taxpayer. READ THE BILL. What more proof do you need? As for student loans at the hands of private industry, that is a debt they incurred ON THEIR OWN. No one forced them into it. They knew the interest rate and the principle of the loan when they signed the contract. That is their responsibility. It’s not the responsibility of taxpayers to give student debt a free ride. Welcome to the real world, graduate. For those in need of financial assistance, there are scholarships for those who qualify. The rest either earn assistance through the GI Bill, or apply for a Pell Grant. There are a multitude of financial assistance programs available, but massive taxpayer bailout should not be one of them.

      “….How about we pump millions of tonnes of Carbon Monoxide into your house and see if you start questioning those polluters. Why is it so wrong for you to see ill with capitalism?”

      WOW. Talk about exaggerations. Those big, bad, evil monsters at GE and Dow Chemical. That’s all they ever do is pollute and kill puppies, and kittens, and little bunny rabbits. READ OUR EPA LAWS. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html They’re some of the most restrictive in the world. We don’t produce a fraction of the pollutants as other developed countries. Ya know what would be really good for the environment? It’s a clean, efficient, safe method of energy: nuclear. But whenever the subject comes up, the eco-freaks get their panties in a huge wad.

      “How can you call your practical bumming of free-market capitalism unvarnished? Every time where there is an opportunity for you to see how the world really is, your inbuilt left-o-meter kicks in and stops you from seeing things objectively.”

      The answer to flaws in the free-market capitalist system is not to create a socialist replacement. We have hundreds of laws against the abuses of capitalism such as fraud, insider trading, and monopoly. We already have regulation; tons of it. But you cannot expect an economy to improve and flourish if you centralize it through government force. The foundation of a good economy is the ability of entrepreneurs, corporations, and companies to make and invest money. They hire people. They expand, branch out, grow, and hire more people. A free market determines the success or failure of an industry. No one is “too big to fail”. I’ve seen many major businesses go tits up during my life; Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, Higbees, Woolworths, May Co, to name a few. But the market place will always take up the slack with another company to fill the gap. That’s how the market works. The economy fluctuates, as it has throughout history. When a government steps in and assumes (forces) control over major industry and corporate business, that is not free enterprise, that is Socialism. The “public” ownership claim is bullshit. The public does not own GM or Chrysler, the government and the unions are now co-owners. They’re still flailing. Ford Motor Company, who refused the bailout, and depended on quality, competition, and customer satisfaction, is doing fine. That’s another thing: competition. It’s healthy for an economy and consumer choice. With Obama’s trainwreck, government is the only “competition”.

      “Yet you see any attempt at engagement with reality as a push towards socialism…”

      The reality is, Obama’s regime is pushing our economy towards socialism. I don’t need to pick up a book, when the proof is the damage it’s already done. Go ahead; say 15% unemployment, a 2 trillion dollar deficit, an unsustainable debt, and government deconstruction of our economy is a real boon for the human condition. I dare ya.

      “And its detachment that is needed to see the big picture, you know reasons you were not otherwise told.”

      Oh for gawds sake, don’t tell me. The Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, and the Skull and Bones know the “reasons”, and you have to be a member to find out. You’re so detached from reality, it’s unfuckingbelievable. The intelligence I was privy to: Elint, Imint, Humint, Sigint, and ASAS. Those kinds of intel sources. Not the leftwing rants of academic intelligentsia with an anti-war/ anti-U.S. ax to grind. The unclassified open sources which I cited, simply affirms information contained in classified material.

      “I could scrape more intelligent things off the bottom of the toilet.’

      So, that’s where you got your ‘intelligent’ ideas.

      “And basically the whole tenor of the Iraq Enquiry in Britain was to the point that Iraq’s weapon capabilities had decreased not increased. Surely Tony Blair would have been the first one to say that the weapons existed if they had been found, as he staked his reputation on that fact?”

      Anyone with a couple of firing neurons who read and understood what we discovered, could figure out that “decreased” was tantamount to ‘temporarily interrupted’. I’m betting that both Bush and Blair were embarrassed over the fact that those substantial amounts of WMD materials took so long to be discovered. Well, that’s what you get when you send U.N. inspectors to do a grown-ups job.

      “So the Bible is just a massive love in then? Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? The Old Testament was pretty righteous, and most certainly did not pull many punches. But here’s a few things for you: The use of Kafir (infidel) refers to polytheists or atheists, not Jews or Christians (granted that’s not much better but it’s a start). All three faiths descend from the same branch, in fact Muslims believe in Jesus, and that come Judgement day he will appear above a minaret on the Umayyed Mosque in Damascus.
      “”Kafir” has also come to be regarded as offensive, thus Muslim scholars discourage its use due to the Quran’s command to use kind words. It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law. Muslim extremists today however use the term in reference to all non-Muslims”

      First of all, let me inform you that I am agnostic. I don’t care for any religion, especially one that incorporates terrorism and violence against other religions as part of its doctrine. I’m very well aware of the similarities of the religions, and the stark differences. The Bible, as much fire and brimstone as there is in the Old Testament, doesn’t hold a candle to the out and out religious bigotry in the Koran. No where in the Bible does Christ say: “Kill the muslims, kill the unbelievers”, or anything that remotely compares to Mohammad’s declarations against the Jews and Christians, which he mentions outright. If you find any passages like that, let me know.

      “It’s impossible to say how many lives have been saved by the creation of the UN and the prevention of needless wars.”

      Oh gawd, don’t make me laugh.

      “regardless of what Al Gore tells you.”ha………….please.”

      Yeah, you just keep listening to Al’s weather forecasts. I’ll rely on meteorologists, real scientists, and the 5 feet of “global warming” I shovel out of my driveway every fucking winter. Your tin foil hat needs adjusting.
      The Democratic Underground? Fucking please. When it comes to leftwingnut sites, you sure picked a doozy. Your mindset is somewhere on Mars.

      “Then subsequently debunked as bunkum.”

      Gee. I must have been “misled” about the 100,000,000 dead beneficiaries of the “debunked” communist oppression. Apparently, I’m not the only one. A lot of other people seem to think the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Vietnam, took the communist theory a bit too far.

      There’s no rationing, nothing will be degraded, can’t you read or do your blinkers extend over your eyes. Possibly they’re hardwired into your brain, as you don’t seem to understand that your arguments are redundant, have no basis in truth, have been dreamt up in the War Room of the Republican Party who needed to get people angry about an issue, any issue no matter how fictitious”

      Yeah, everyone who sees the major flaws, the impending health care collapse, and economic destruction in ObamaCare is all part of an eeeeeevil Republican cabal. Uh huh. That’s why there are a lot of democratic party voters who now agree with the Tea Party and want ObamaCare overturned as much as we do. The only War Room tactic was used by Pelosi, Reid, and a select group of Dems who negotiated this travesty behind closed doors, and refused Republican input or public debate. The entire health care takeover was done by a small group of Dem autocrats. Not very “free thinking” of them. Don’t believe me? Here:
      http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_health_care_overhaul/2009/10/15/272483.html
      http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=320943&start=1

      “Look up morality…..To claim the moral high ground is a lie, it is as much so as claiming victory….The fear mongering by Fox News is just playing on the fears of modern America, and you’ve been caught in it’s sticky trap. Rupert Murdoch thanks you for your service.”

      I know the meaning of morality; it’s certainly doesn’t come from a Brit inculcated with socialist buffoonery. George Soros thanks you, as well.

  3. Awww bless. Don’t get your knickers in a twist just because you are having your ass handed to you by someone who doesn’t even live in your country. You misread my statement, as I said you do not respond with enough relevant detail; instead of tackling the issues/questions I bring up, you prefer instead to use the process of: read -> ignore -> spout. So if I make a point on for instance McChesney, you don’t deal with that, you instead argue a vaguely formulated point with no evidence, and no clue on what you are actually saying. So before you try and comment on my “attention span” (which frankly doesn’t make sense), try thinking about your own ability to construct an argument as it is severely weak. I’m trying to construct a debate on the issues, but it is quite difficult to do that if you just resort to petty statements.
    NB – The links you provide do not count if they are links to your own blog. Your own writing does not qualify as evidence.
    “The childishness is all on you, my dear. I have considerable knowledge about foreign policy”. Sigh. Whilst I’ll leave the rather self-inflated claim to one side (somehow I doubt whether your knowledge of foreign policy is as nuanced or reasoned as you’d like to think, having knowledge is one thing, understanding it is a different matter), you have once again failed to respond to my claims with anything but a “no YOU’RE childish” retort.
    It leaves me speechless how in a two party system, you are unable to see the other party just as the opposition without thinking that they are the devil incarnate. In Britain whilst there is opposition between Labour and Conservatives, it remains on the issues, not overblown statements based on little to no evidence. My “inability to understand the seriousness” comes from the value of detachment, and the free-thinking mind not warped by Fox News. The ability to check more than one news source without thinking them the devil, does wonders for getting some perspective on things.
    If Obama hadn’t done bailed out the banks, what would have happened? Go.
    Here’s something about the housing market: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2008/pi2008084_564875.htm
    With Bush it wasn’t so much what he did, but what he didn’t do. There was no critique of the Saudi regime even though they were amongst if not the most oppressive state regarding women’s rights. Some of the things that go on in that country really rankles (a woman being stoned after being raped). The selective blindness has gone on long enough and no one really wants to stand up to it because they are the US’s friend.
    The facts you state are “he is turning the country into a socialist state” which screams normative to anyone. And picking a few decontextualised examples hardly is a robust defence.
    Saying that it Reps didn’t oppose Medicare/Medicaid are we? You’ll need better evidence than saying “wrong”: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/30/opinion/oe-mcmanus30 http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/08/25/arguments-against-medicare-in-1960s-the-same-as-those-against-health-care-reform/ http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003220058
    You’re very good at trading insults (“to compensate for your lack of intelligent discourse”), yet you don’t back it up with anything boarding on cogent on your part. Rather than simply decrying something as false, at least find something that backs up your claim. Seriously. It’s like trying to teach a 9 year old how to write an essay. Plus the points I were makings can’t be found in the Bill. Somehow I don’t think the legislation doesn’t cover a complete history of the Republican Party and their ability to be on the wrong side of history of time and time again.
    It’s weird how most of the links you send have presumptive evidence; “will”, “feel that” are not concrete. Do you need someone to sit down and explain this to you? You do seem to struggle. How about reading this to counter many of your kooky claims: http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002
    Wow. Thanks for giving me that history lesson. I’ll forever hold dear that nothing ever changes in history. What happens once will continue to happen ad infinitum. If you had been taught anything during your time, you would have realised that the Republican Party then and the Republican party now share only a name in common, same applies for the Democrats. For one thing, the Republican Party used to attract the African American vote until around the mid part of the 20th Century before it switched to the Democrats. And what’s more it was the southern Democrats who opposed Lincoln not the unified Democratic Party. So in your own words “Learn about American History before you attempt to re-write it”.
    “Again, because you’re a slow learner: Those who are against the ObamaCare takeover (62% of America) are against government expansion and complete control over American citizens’ choice of health care options” Let’s not misquote statistics now, because a Gallup poll found that more people were in favour of the passing of the Bill, whilst the figure you’re quoting pertains to people who believe that the Republicans should still continue to fight. As I said in my last post, these two cancel each other out. Because the lessons you are attempting so valiantly to teach, are wrong (once again you over egg the statement, when will you learn), as there is no “complete control”.
    The only place I lose is in opposite land, where you are the Chairperson of Rationality.
    If you’re so worried about the debt, you should really support the Bill, as I’ve said many a time, the non-partisan, independent body, the CBO have found that it cuts the debt. Not that you’ll care because that’s evidence, which you seem to have a particular distaste for.
    Actually, Naomi Klein is held in high regard globally. I’m sure she’ll be crying into her pillow tonight because some ignoramus doesn’t quite grasp her not too difficult position. Perhaps you should try reading her book rather than regurgitating what some other garbled brained moron thinks. Obviously the thought that businesses, with their profit centric focus may not be working in the national interest (just look at outsourcing), hasn’t crosses your mind. But then in your mind, anyone who even briefly thinks about criticising a business must be a raving socialist.
    Obviously you didn’t read what Klein said: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein/haiti-small-victory-for-s_b_430614.html , so that’s not quite what you said right?
    Whilst I agree that China is a worse polluter, that doesn’t give licence for the USAs to abrogate its duty to not poison the atmosphere too. No nation should look at another and say ‘well if they’re not doing it, I’m not either”, that is a recipe for disaster, neither can you continue to make a more than sizeable contribution to pollution levels and hide behind the global leader. It’s shameful. How can you say that the US has some of the “most restrictive regulations anywhere” when you didn’t sign up to the Kyoto Protocol?
    “But then, you’ve never been to the Middle East.” Ah you’re right……..oh wait, no, I HAVE been to the Middle East (Syria and Lebanon) so do know from personal experience, that not everyone there is a potential jihadist waiting to blow infidels up. In fact people were charming, lovely, and accepting. Try reading any books on terrorism and its causes then we’ll compare notes ok sweetpea?
    “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You’re such a jackass. You never bothered to read about the National Socialist Workers Party or Hitler’s own words, so once again, you’re showing your ignorance” What books have you read? Are they analytical books, or simply WW2 For Dummies? I learnt years ago, when I was still in school about the use of socialism label for attracting voters. Much in the same way that the ‘People’s Republic of China’ isn’t really for and of the people. Really being in the counter-terrorist business, you should know not to take things at face value, though time and time again you have proved me wrong, as your naivety and inability to look beyond the obvious undermines the smartarse comments. So once again, The Nazis used the moniker “socialist” to appeal to the average German worker, as they relied on the grassroots support, and anger directed towards the ruling classes for their signing of the Treaty of Versailles to gain power. Fascism and socialism are two different theories, which may coincide, or may not. One is not a prerequisite of the other. Socialism is an economic theory, whilst fascism is one solely centred around power, each has different motives: socialism for the collective good, fascism for the good of one, thus are different.
    I just assume that everyone who spouts shit watches Glenn Beck. My mistake. You’re a loon independently.
    “Social justice” is a hackneyed catch phrase for “workers of the world unite” communist/socialist/Bolshevik crap. And Wikipedia as a source? Good gawd” So that’s a ‘no’, you don’t know what social justice is, as you are just regurgitating the Fox lines. Do you get paid by them? And as for Wiki, I had to keep it simple for you. I thought the Oxford Philosophical Dictionary might confuse your fragile cognitive processes.
    “You’ve done nothing but spout nihilist bullshit since you first posted. The trouble is you believe everything The Nation tells you.” How can I be nihilistic if I do have beliefs? Or is that a word that you were told to use, and don’t quite know what it means? And I’ve never read the Nation so don’t really toe the line I can’t see.
    You really do argue against yourself. How can 3 million be ‘the majority of Americans’?
    “You assume that we do not have a perfect knowledge of what the Dems are doing to this country.” Obviously you are unaware of the concept perfect knowledge, it isn’t merely an adjective. And how can you have ‘perfect knowledge’ when people are espousing all kinds of incorrect statements: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”.
    “Perceived legitimacy?” Gees, I wasn’t talking about the legitimacy of the Constitution, I was instead referring to the sense of righteousness you and your motley crew have by standing under the banner of the Constitution. You use that as an external reference point: “In call to arms texts, the orator typically appeals to a source (or sources) of power external to them in order to legitimate their exhortations. The external power source, in every case, is the ultimate moral force within the societal order of discourse of the day.” For more read “A Call to Arms” by Phil Graham.

    For someone who lives thousands of miles away, I think I understand your country much better than you do. In any case, much better than you understand any other country on the planet. And by ‘people’ I think you mean ‘understanding me’ as there are millions of well-intentioned Americans out there, shame they are kept in a neutral balance by you lot.

    “So I’m guessing that as outrageous as the growing tax burden is in our country, you’d rather we wait until it gets to the level of your wonderful Euro socialist utopia” So by your own admission they aren’t high, they are just high for you. How is it a Euro disaster? Just wait…..no, no….Europe is still here.

    “Try reading? Your self-important flatulence is absurd. Try experiencing, first hand, the result of foreign policy in a place like the Middle East or Korea or Bosnia. Try being a part of military combat operations. Try being involved in contingency plans or counter-terrorism. Your arm-chair expertise doesn’t quite measure up” I
    ’m beginning to think that everything you have *ahem* knowledge of, is from your time serving. Just because you had experience in the military doesn’t mean you were in the driving seat creating it, or are sufficiently knowledgeable to claim to be the sole receptacle of truth in regards to political motivations. Just because you were serving doesn’t mean you can view the full picture, it gives you a very narrow view of the world, especially through the military complex, where mite=right.

    “You mean ObamaCare and the government takeover of business and financial institutions isn’t socialism? You mean all this time I’ve been mistaken about Obama’s vesting of the ownership and control of the private industries he seized?” Yes. So very wrong. See above for more details.
    “the elimination of consumer health care choice and free market competition” I’ll post this again here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002

    “Jumped to socialist/communist” Actually, I was referring to the differences between socialism and communism. Quite different entities. (though maybe with your intelligence the differences are non-existent). So basically the Michelle Malkin article is pretending that the threatening behaviour never happened, at least on the Republican side anyway. The claims have been debunked by you, but no, they mustn’t have happened as all your supporters are as good as gold.

    OK, as stated in America’s New Democracy (Fiorina et al), in the section Federalism it so says: “The Constitution was a vague document open to numerous interpretations” and Table 3.1 on p45 clearly shows the powers granted to national and state. Spoiler alert: National wins, what with the Supremacy Clause. But I have noticed you have only claimed to understand it (a claim I can’t help but suspend belief on) but not given any evidence toward. Now it is your time to step up and show your mettle.

    Student Loans: Is the healthcare debate the first time you’ve looked at a bill? Are you not aware of the pork-barrel add-ons that get tagged along with a Bill. Rightly or wrongly, it happens. Somehow regulating the amount that students (they were there before this was created, in case you weren’t aware of that) have to pay on interest isn’t ‘creating another entitlement group’, and it is pretty impossible with the normal paths logic follows to get to that conclusion.

    It’s odd how you seem to have this rose-tinted view of business yet when it comes to the media it is a different matter. Yet it smacks of jealousy: why aren’t they calling him a socialist because iiiiiiiiiiiiiimmm calling him a socialist. I’m not sure if “Sarah Plain” was a typo or not but it made me chuckle. Possibly because she is loony and wholly under qualified to be in any position of power.

    You must be shitting me? “WAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA those bad polluters”. This just plumbs the depths of your ignorance. Scraping the barrel of your stupidity. Reaching rock bottom of banality. To not be able to see past your rose-tinted blinkers and realise that SOME business can do ill (you only seem to have a problem if pollution occurs in other countries). To be critical of business doesn’t equate you automatically to a wholehearted belief in socialism, it just means you think that businesses should act with the same kind of morality that the humans they comprise of do (well some anyway).

    Whilst I commend you on making something of your life, you have simultaneously supported two of my previous points: 1) that I fully support getting people back into work, no one argues against that. No one disagrees with that. The people who hang around the dole queue week after week thinking that they can live off the state are spongers, but they need to be shown the right path. 2) In one of my first replies I said that most of the measures form a supportive base rather than a reason to side-step work which fits in with your ‘helping hand not a handout’.
    You cannot say that you “understand society” when you just understand your own wherewithal and no one else’s. How many times: “because I said so” doesn’t work. You seem so contented sitting in your ivory tower, looking down on us mere mortals, that you missed the memo that everybody has different motivations, beliefs, environments etc. You operate a top down kind of logic that is wrong in this kind of situation, a kind of template that can be applied onto all and sundry. So please dismount from your high horse, and stop acting like you are the Grand Sage of America, it gets tiring.

    “Realism” = pessimism. Obviously I must be mistaken and you’ve undertaken an extensive analysis of society, and the economic system and come to the reasoned conclusion that “the opportunities are there” and evenly accessible. Or you just fart out any crap you see is fit, because if you’ve got to the top then everyone must be able to.

    I fail to see how working in counter-terrorism gives you a detachment everyone else is lacking? Oh wait, it doesn’t, you just like to think it does as you have nothing else to use as evidence so instead resort to vague language about your life. Bravo.

    “Have you ever bothered to get information from a source other than a leftwing Hollywood propaganda film? Did “Rendition” fulfill all of your wet dreams about the big, bad, awful United States’ war on the ‘peaceful’ practitioners of violent Islamic jihad”. Obviously you missed the point of Rendition (psst, he was innocent all along), even though it wasn’t that difficult to get. And also last time I checked, Binyamin Muhammad wasn’t in the film, unless he had a cameo somewhere…..
    “You have NO credibility” – you must have been really bad at your job, as you seem to not understand evidence when it is presented to you. Were you the one who made the 45 min Iraqi deployment claim? Wouldn’t surprise me….

    “WMD wielding megalomania”, you said you worked in intel right? News flash: THERE WERE NO WMDS. Does news take a while to filter through your brain? Do you think people are fighting against Medicare/Medicaid?

    “How far down the barrel did they have to scrape to come up with those three stooges?” Who would you have preferred to have seen get the award then?

    If you knew anything about the Islamic faith it would be that the Islamist extremists misrepresent a warped theology. Their world view is based on a completely incorrect interpretation on the Qur’an, but then that takes a breadth of thinking you have time and time again shown you are incapable of. Nowhere in the Qur’an does it say that Infidels must die, you have been brainwashed into thinking that. Similarly that they wanted to attack the West anyway: where is your proof? It’s nowhere, it’s none existant, because you think that you don’t need any as long as you say ‘no, that’s wrong’. Please, I am beginning to feel sorry for how warped your mindset is that you keep trotting out this regurgitated nonsense without thinking where it has come from and why.

    “If it’s so uncomfortable, they need to use some of those other government programs, like the Pell Grant, get a better education, and get off of welfare. They need to teach their children that making a living off of public assistance isn’t a very productive life. They need to stop having kids they can’t afford.” I agree with you. Wholeheartedly so. But you don’t agree with you. You seem to think that Government intervention is OK if you like it. You can’t pick and chose when it is acceptable. Why is the Pell Grant anything less than a market distortion, or a government intrusion into the education industry?

    The UN serves a role for promoting continued co-operating, so countries talk instead of blowing themselves to bits. Surely that’s reason to exist in itself.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe in climate change. Obviously if there’s evidence you’ll be against it.

    “You’ve never made an unbiased, realistic, assessment in your life. All of your moonbat theories and comments prove that. I’ve actually seen the results of power and diplomacy; strategically and tactically” First part – childish. Second part – so self-aggrandising it hurts. Yet so painfully false. Yes, you’ve been on the ground, but you’ve also been deeply embedded within a particular groupthink, which distorts your perception. And this is abstract power I was talking about not the version you’re thinking of.

    “Theoretically?? If only the genocide of 100,000,000 people world wide, and the subjugation of people in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba, were as theoretical as your lame-brained statement.” Why do you continue to miss the point? It is your will or your nature? By proving the linkage between Communism and oppression, it can then be applied to the real world. For instance: if someone said capitalism breeds brutality and used the examples of Argentina and Chile, then you have to strip the claim from the real world and examine the principles of capitalism and see if it wills oppression. I doubt whether you will understand this is it requires a deeper thinking than you’re used to.

    “keep most of what they earn is immoral.” No one is asking for “most”. Exaggerating again.

    “For someone who spouts about morality, you sure don’t have a clue as to what it is.” In one paragraph you have a) exaggerated b) regurgitated false claims (rationed health-care etc etc) and c) not answered the point again. How moral is it for a death company (you have death panels, I’ll start death companies) to take away insurance when people get sick? How moral is it for a death company to use the term chronic to cover most illnesses? How moral is it to not want your fellow citizens to have some standard of healthcare for having to fork over a tiny percentage of your income (or nothing if you don’t earn enough – read the Media Matters article again).

    Evidence seems to be one thing you and your Rightards are incapable of. You’re like little chicks who regurgitate the same drivel that Mama Bird, Fox News hands to you, and because they say it, it MUST be fact.

    1. flamjew,

      Honey, it ain’t my ass that’s getting handed.
      Okay let me try one more time: You made the first reference to McChesney (who is a socialist) and his complaint about the “lack of regulation in the communications industry”. The kind of control he wants is State-regulated speech. Like Mark Lloyd. You and McChesney share the same socialist views. I posted a response that clearly demonstrated McChesney’s ideology, and it’s similarity to yours. Good gawd, you are addlebrained.
      Refuting your “points” one step at a time is too confusing for you to handle?
      The links I provide to my blog contain links to articles which support my arguments. IF YOU ACTUALLY GO to the blog link, you’ll see for yourself. Is that too difficult?
      I write about events and issues that directly affect me, my family, my community, and my country. That includes the impact from Obama’s socialist trainwreck. When I write about foreign policy, I refer to my experiences as a Soldier, war veteran, and intel analyst. The cited articles report the dissent and growing anger of a disenfranchised public. Just because you don’t like the reality of all that, you dismiss it as “lack of evidence”. I’ve yet to see any evidence that the socialism you hold so dear, actually works. Anywhere.

      “…you have once again failed to respond to my claims with anything but a “no YOU’RE childish” retort”

      If you don’t like the “childish” accusation flung back at you don’t use it as a substitute for lack of a cogent argument.

      “It leaves me speechless how in a two party system, you are unable to see the other party just as the opposition without thinking that they are the devil incarnate.”….

      I could cite hundreds of examples of vile, despicable behavior on the part of the Dems toward the American citizenry. They used to be known as the loyal opposition. Not anymore. They are doing their level damndest to bring this country to its knees economically, politically, and militarily. Either their intent is to tear apart the fabric of this country and destroy it, or they’re incredibly stupid.

      “In Britain whilst there is opposition between Labour and Conservatives, it remains on the issues, not overblown statements based on little to no evidence. My “inability to understand the seriousness” comes from the value of detachment, and the free-thinking mind not warped by Fox News. The ability to check more than one news source without thinking them the devil, does wonders for getting some perspective on things.”

      “Overblown statements”? Like the fact that a feckless, narcissistic Marxist and his Dem cronies , have produced a 12 trillion dollar deficit, a deep recession, 15% unemployment, and a law, if left unrepealed, will rot away at our healthcare system. Facts, not exaggerations. Try Fox News for a change, instead of The Nation, The Guardian, and the Worker’s World Daily. Read the Wall Street Journal, Moody’s, and Investors Business Daily. Hell, try listening to the average American instead of your British comrades. We are directly affected by Obamanomics. “Detached” isn’t an adjective that applies. Your demand for “evidence” is astounding. The evidence is all around us over here, but you’re too “detached” from it. “Free thinking”??? LOL!!! “Free thinking” is not a socialist concept, and your comments and ideology damned sure don’t reflect the mind of a “free thinker”. How amusing. Free thinkers don’t advocate oppressive economic policies.
      But you’re right, because you say so.

      “If Obama hadn’t done bailed out the banks, what would have happened? Go.”

      In a free market capitalist system, you do NOT reward failure. Let them file for bankruptcy like any other business entity. Other companies have done so, and the market survived just fine. The problem with the bailouts, which amounted to almost $800 billion in taxpayer money, is that it did absolutely nothing but prop up industries that were failing due to their own mismanagement, and in several cases, government interference. AIG, just one of the beneficiaries of Obama’s tax-funded generosity, has come back to the trough several times. You can only loot the treasury and taxpayers so many times before the money runs out.
      Here’s something about the reasons why the housing industry collapsed: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/09/24/what_happened_to_market_discipline?page=1
      Your turn.

      “There was no critique of the Saudi regime even though they were amongst if not the most oppressive state regarding women’s rights. Some of the things that go on in that country really rankles (a woman being stoned after being raped). The selective blindness has gone on long enough and no one really wants to stand up to it because they are the US’s friend.”

      Hell, I’ve NEVER made the claim that they were our friends, as a matter of fact, I’ve said the exact opposite: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/the-saudis-are-not-our-friends/ (includes a link to news article)
      NO Islamic Middle Eastern country should be considered “a friend”.

      “The facts you state are “he is turning the country into a socialist state” which screams normative to anyone. And picking a few decontextualised examples hardly is a robust defence.”

      No, the facts I state are supported by robust proof. Every economic policy he ran on during the campaign, and every policy he’s inflicted screams socialism. These are his words and philosophy: “single payer system”, “wealth redistribution”, “community organizer”. All socialist buzzwords. He’s applying the socialist concept of vesting control over private industry and dictation of production and profit. That is socialism. By the way: Compare what he’s done with (now government owned) GM, Chrysler, AIG, and CitiCorp, with the Ford Motor Company. Ford told Obama to shove his bailouts. Unlike the government-owned businesses, it’s thriving. Forcing people, under threat, to submit to a government-run health care system, is SOCIALISM. Period.

      “Saying that it Reps didn’t oppose Medicare/Medicaid are we? You’ll need better evidence than saying “wrong”…

      THIS is what I said: “Before you comment any further about the wide-spread American opposition to ObamaCare, READ THE BILL. Otherwise, you’re just pulling nonsense out of your ass to compensate for lack of intelligent discourse.”
      Our issue is not with Medicare, but the forced enrollment of the entire country onto a government-controlled system. Those who aren’t even on Medicare, or who have their own individual plan will be FORCED, under penalty, to do it or else. More people are dead set against ObamaCare, then there ever were against Medicare. Even so, between the abuse, fraud, waste, and government mismanagement, Medicare hasn’t turned out real well.
      ObamaCare is so wonderful that senior government officials and unions will be exempt. Obama, Pelosi ,and Reid will never subject themselves to the same substandard care they want to foist on others.

      “You’re very good at trading insults (“to compensate for your lack of intelligent discourse”), yet you don’t back it up with anything boarding on cogent on your part. Rather than simply decrying something as false, at least find something that backs up your claim. Seriously. It’s like trying to teach a 9 year old how to write an essay. Plus the points I were makings can’t be found in the Bill. Somehow I don’t think the legislation doesn’t cover a complete history of the Republican Party and their ability to be on the wrong side of history of time and time again.”

      If you post ad hominem attacks and bullshit, you get it in return. I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence or intelligent discourse on your part, that indicates you understand anything, let alone what’s going on in my country or why people are so up in arms. HAVE YOU READ THE BILL? I have. Have you read the Constitution? I have. You have no idea how the Dems’ actions and ram-rodded, abusive legislation is in direct violation of the Constitution. You have read neither. Your vapid “arguments” are the evidence. I can cite the parts of the bill which include the student loan bailouts, the expanded IRS thuggery, the astronomical costs, the penalties for not kowtowing to ObamaCare.

      Since you haven’t and will never read the bill….for your edification:
      Specifics from H.R. 3590:
      Forced purchase of government health care.
      Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
      PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
      SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
      21 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
      23 (1) IN GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).
      (2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
      INTERSTATE COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
      (A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.
      ……C) The requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply of, and demand for, health care services. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the requirement will increase the number and share of Americans who are insured.
      ……(G) Under sections 2704 and 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section 1201 of this Act), if there were no requirement, many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will minimize this adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums. The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.

      Translation: This government-run program is being forced on you. It will add millions of dependents to the health care system without a choice of when, where, or from whom to purchase a plan. It’s gonna be a boon for the government, a bust for the American taxpaying consumer. If you think it will lower the premiums as claimed in the bill, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale….cheap.
      And ta daaaaa! Here’s the part that tells you about the punishment for non-compliance to Big Brother.

      CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE
      Sec. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
      (a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each
      24 month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
      (b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
      (1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
      (2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
      (3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
      (A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty,
      (B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
      (c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—
      (1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1⁄12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.
      And how do they plan on paying for all this? Why, with our taxes of course. To the tune of billions, starting with excise taxes and annual fees.

      TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
      Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
      SEC. 9001. EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.
      Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
      Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
      Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
      Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
      Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D
      Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
      Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.
      Source for information: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
      The new bill will have an initial cost of $849 billion, which doesn’t include all of the tax increases they have is store.
      The Budget Committee estimates a $2.5 trillion cost over 10 years. The CBO says taxes will go up $493.6 billion, while Medicare will be cut $464.6 billion.
      All revenue figures are revenues raised over the ten-year period 2010-2019:

      1. 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% – begins in 2013 – $149 B tax increase
      2. Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) – begins in 2013 – $54 B tax increase
      3. Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs – begins in 2010 – $22 B tax increase
      4. Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $19 B tax increase
      5. Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $60 B tax increase
      6. Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive’s compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes – begins in 2013 – $600 million tax increase
      7. Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures – begins for surgery in 2010 – $6 B tax increase!
      In total the bill would raise taxes by $370 billion over ten years.
      http://keithhennessey.com/2009/11/18/reid-tax-increases/

      More sources: http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3635
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/reids_2074page_health_care_bil_1.asp

      And we have to give credit to Obama’s Flying Monkeys; the SEIU, for their role in this:

      From 2000 to current, SEIU has spent at least $187,500,000 through combined lobbying, PAC and 527s group donations and expenses on candidates and policy issues – nearly 100% of which went to Democrats and to liberal policy initiatives. Much has been focused on influencing universal health care, as well as other indirectly related health legislation, such as public nutrition, food safety, research, and environmental health – all part of SEIU’s supposed plan for Building a New American Health Care System. Because, in their words, they “will not stop until every man, woman and child has quality, affordable care they can count on.”
      So really…why is SEIU so invested in health care?

      Because health care is the lifeblood of SEIU. In January of 2007, SEIU announced it would combine over 30 of its local unions to form a National Health Care Division. Years of organizing independent workers, such as home child care and foster care providers, home health aides, and nutritionists had led SEIU to discover untapped potential in what it deemed “health care workers”. With three divisions – Health Care, Public Services and Property Services – SEIU’s members are nurses, dieticians, lab techs, nursing home & home care workers, and child care providers. Others are janitors, cafeteria workers, and other service workers in state/public facilities like hospitals, schools and stadiums. SEIU has made health a key driver to creating these jobs. And they know the best way to protect their lifeblood is to entrench themselves into the legislative / policy-making process on a more permanent level. While two million members in SEIU is impressive, apparently they don’t feel it’s enough to build an empire.
      http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/16/seiu-building-a-new-american-health-care-empire/

      This bill also negatively affects other eeeeeevil capitalists: small business owners: http://www.smallbusinesshealthcarecoalition.com/Portals/2/KeyVote-Senate-%20H.R.%203590%20-%2012-2.pdf

      There’s no mistaking the intent of the far-left dingbats in the Dem Party:
      http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people
      This is all under the guise of that utopian “health care for all the people”. Uh huh.
      Their words and deeds. Evidence.

      It’s weird how most of the links you send have presumptive evidence; “will”, “feel that” are not concrete. Do you need someone to sit down and explain this to you? You do seem to struggle. How about reading this to counter many of your kooky claims: http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002

      Media Matters??? Talk about kooky. One of the most left-wing web sites on the planet: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150 Fucking. Please. And you have the chutzpah to call yourself a “free thinker?? Try again.

      Wow. Thanks for giving me that history lesson. I’ll forever hold dear that nothing ever changes in history. What happens once will continue to happen ad infinitum. If you had been taught anything during your time, you would have realised that the Republican Party then and the Republican party now share only a name in common, same applies for the Democrats. For one thing, the Republican Party used to attract the African American vote until around the mid part of the 20th Century before it switched to the Democrats. And what’s more it was the southern Democrats who opposed Lincoln not the unified Democratic Party. So in your own words “Learn about American History before you attempt to re-write it”.

      Wow. You’re welcome. Since the 1960’s the Dems have sold minorities a rotten bill of goods. They are elitist poufs who manipulate the unionized working class, the poor, and minorities into believing that in spite of the stark contrast between their lifestyles and their constituents, they really care. (wink,wink) The Dems have a long history of hypocrisy and exploitation of minorities. They need those “victims” as a voting bloc. Who will vote for them if they run out of uneducated, poor, downtrodden, perpetual welfare recipients? If you RE-READ the comment I posted, you’ll note the term “Dixiecrat”. That specifically refers to the South. Not that you’re familiar with American history. I hate to break this to you, but they carried a lot of authority and weight across the Senate and Congress, hence the Jim Crow laws. You need to take a few extra classes. Again, learn about our history before you re-write it. Otherwise, it’s just a lot of tripe from a limey snob.
      And, contrary to liberal propaganda, not all minorities are in lockstep with Dem liberals. http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/04/racist-garofalo-to-rescue

      “Let’s not misquote statistics now, because a Gallup poll found that more people were in favour of the passing of the Bill, whilst the figure you’re quoting pertains to people who believe that the Republicans should still continue to fight. As I said in my last post, these two cancel each other out. Because the lessons you are attempting so valiantly to teach, are wrong (once again you over egg the statement, when will you learn), as there is no “complete control”.

      Once people actually read and understood what was in the bill, they quickly changed their minds. AGAIN: We are in favor of health care reform; NOT government control. Why do you think they want the Republicans to continue the fight? They do not like what’s in the bill. Here’s another poll: Congressional approval rate is at an all time low, 18%. Obama’s rate is at 44%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
      And you come up with a candy-assed excuse that the two polls somehow “cancel each other out”.
      Try again. I know you will.

      “The only place I lose is in opposite land, where you are the Chairperson of Rationality.
      If you’re so worried about the debt, you should really support the Bill, as I’ve said many a time, the non-partisan, independent body, the CBO have found that it cuts the debt. Not that you’ll care because that’s evidence, which you seem to have a particular distaste for.”

      Wrong. From the CBO: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNaqecavD9ek
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html
      The CBO, unlike people in “opposite land”, understands that you cannot spend your way out of a deficit. How’s that taste?

      “Actually, Naomi Klein is held in high regard globally. I’m sure she’ll be crying into her pillow tonight because some ignoramus doesn’t quite grasp her not too difficult position. Perhaps you should try reading her book rather than regurgitating what some other garbled brained moron thinks. Obviously the thought that businesses, with their profit centric focus may not be working in the national interest (just look at outsourcing), hasn’t crosses your mind. But then in your mind, anyone who even briefly thinks about criticising a business must be a raving socialist.

      Oh, no doubt she’s respected….among the leftwing crowd. Obviously, you forgot about Klein’s raving socialist viewpoints. She doesn’t just “criticize business”, she’s an ardent anti-capitalist and rants against the “rising capitalist disaster” every chance she gets. She’s not exactly a fan of Milton Friedman. She writes for The Nation on a regular basis. Her parents were one-time members of the communist party. She rails against “globalization”. In other words, she’s a raving socialist. It’s not a stretch: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2131

      Whilst I agree that China is a worse polluter, that doesn’t give licence for the USAs to abrogate its duty to not poison the atmosphere too. No nation should look at another and say ‘well if they’re not doing it, I’m not either”, that is a recipe for disaster, neither can you continue to make a more than sizeable contribution to pollution levels and hide behind the global leader. It’s shameful. How can you say that the US has some of the “most restrictive regulations anywhere” when you didn’t sign up to the Kyoto Protocol?

      “A license to pollute”?? Tell you what, when you turn some of that righteous eco-indignation toward the rest of the world, then you might have a little credence. Have you read any of our EPA regulations? Do that before you spew crap about the “Kyoto Protocol”. “Man-made” climate change is a fucking hoax. The looney theories of the ‘global warming’ cult have been repeatedly debunked, yet they persist with the doomsday crap. Dissent is usually squelched.
      FYI:

      CHICAGO, Illinois – December 3, 2007) — As the first goals of the Kyoto Protocol are about to expire, the United Nations is preparing a “Conference of the Parties,” the highest decision-making authority. The meeting will take place in Bali, Indonesia from December 3 to December 5.
      But the event lost any claim of impartiality when organizers rejected attempts by representatives of Environment & Climate News to receive press accreditation for the conference.
      UN press office coordinator Carrie Assheuer said the newspaper’s representatives “do not meet the criteria for press accreditation.” Environment & Climate News has been in continual publication for 10 years; is sent to more than 75,000 elected officials, opinion leaders, and environmental professionals in the United States; and is one of five newspapers published the by 23-year-old Heartland Institute.
      James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, stated, “Ms. Assheuer’s decision is stunningly totalitarian. Environment & Climate News is an excellent newspaper sent to educate elected officials on the latest developments in climate science for over a decade. We have had dozens of reporters over the years and this is the first time we have had press credentials denied.”
      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been criticized in the past for censoring dissenting voices in favor of a pre-determined political outcome. Even strong cautions were widely ignored, as in the Second Order Draft Comments (Chapter 6; section 6-42), when Eric Steig cautioned, “In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter.”
      A dissenting group of distinguished scientists from the International Climate Science Coalition, representing Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, will be available for advice and counsel in Bali, but they expect to be ignored at the conference as European liberal politicians monopolize the agenda and allow for no dissent.
      Link: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22385

      Ah you’re right……..oh wait, no, I HAVE been to the Middle East (Syria and Lebanon) so do know from personal experience, that not everyone there is a potential jihadist waiting to blow infidels up. In fact people were charming, lovely, and accepting. Try reading any books on terrorism and its causes then we’ll compare notes ok sweetpea?

      Lovely, charming and accepting…uh huh. Sure, they are sweetpea. Every Islamic nation state is just bursting with peace, love, and kumbaya: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
      Syria and Lebanon are two major contributors to terrorism. I saw up close the results of all that “charm”. “Lovely” doesn’t come to mind. I was part of the counter-terrorism and war effort. You were a tourist. How quaint.

      “What books have you read? Are they analytical books, or simply WW2 For Dummies? I learnt years ago, when I was still in school about the use of socialism label for attracting voters.”

      The attraction to socialism usually works on people under the age of 30, who have no brain.

      “So once again, The Nazis used the moniker “socialist” to appeal to the average German worker, as they relied on the grassroots support, and anger directed towards the ruling classes for their signing of the Treaty of Versailles to gain power. Fascism and socialism are two different theories, which may coincide, or may not. One is not a prerequisite of the other. Socialism is an economic theory, whilst fascism is one solely centred around power, each has different motives: socialism for the collective good, fascism for the good of one, thus are different.”

      The “centered around power” theory didn’t apply to the Nazis? They initially gained influence over the exploitation of the aftermath of WWI; the severe economic depression, and the harsh conditions brought by the Treaty of Versailles. How in the hell do you think they maintained control? The SS and the Gestapo.
      Socialist theory, when applied, takes over private industry BY FORCE.
      Here’s the definition for Dummies:
      so•cial•ism [soh-shuh-liz-uh m]
      –noun
      1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
      2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
      3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

      The Nazi State took total control of everything, like the Soviets.
      Wages and prices were controlled–under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet planning) were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories, etc.

      Again, fascist and socialist systems aren’t that dissimilar.

      I just assume that everyone who spouts shit watches Glenn Beck. My mistake. You’re a loon independently….
      “You really do argue against yourself. How can 3 million be ‘the majority of Americans’?”

      3 million is just the viewership. The issues Beck discusses are representative of the 62% of Americans who for instance, disagree with ObamaCare. Even to a leftwing clod, that should be obvious.

      Obviously you are unaware of the concept perfect knowledge, it isn’t merely an adjective. And how can you have ‘perfect knowledge’ when people are espousing all kinds of incorrect statements: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”.

      How about “keep your hands off my healthcare”. That’s a more accurate statement.

      Gees, I wasn’t talking about the legitimacy of the Constitution, I was instead referring to the sense of righteousness you and your motley crew have by standing under the banner of the Constitution.

      You betcha. Especially when the motley crew of Dem politicians trample all over it. How dare we have a sense of righteousness and demand they actually follow the Constitution they are sworn to protect? That concept is lost on you.

      “For someone who lives thousands of miles away, I think I understand your country much better than you do. In any case, much better than you understand any other country on the planet. And by ‘people’ I think you mean ‘understanding me’ as there are millions of well-intentioned Americans out there, shame they are kept in a neutral balance by you lot.”

      You denigrate Americans for protesting the evisceration of freedoms and Constitutional violations on the part of power-hungry politicians, yet you think you understand my country? You’re so full of shit, your eyes are brown. One could wade into your ‘intellect’ and not even get their feet damp. You understand nothing. The incessant claims of “misguided”, “brainwashed” and it’s ‘all Glenn Beck’s fault’ is just plain stupid. On the 11th of this month, I’ll be attending a Tea Party protest in town. I’ll be sure to inform all of those folks that some limey assclown thinks that he understands the country better than us. They’ll get a kick out of that.

      “So by your own admission they aren’t high, they are just high for you. How is it a Euro disaster? Just wait…..no, no….Europe is still here.

      They aren’t high enough? Oh yeah, let’s wait until it gets as bad as yours. Sure thing, bud.

      “I’m beginning to think that everything you have *ahem* knowledge of, is from your time serving. Just because you had experience in the military doesn’t mean you were in the driving seat creating it, or are sufficiently knowledgeable to claim to be the sole receptacle of truth in regards to political motivations. Just because you were serving doesn’t mean you can view the full picture, it gives you a very narrow view of the world, especially through the military complex, where mite=right.”

      I was an S2 and a G2 NCOIC. Not that you know what that is. I was part of the planning, intel efforts, and combat/counter terrorism operations in Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I took part in strategic and tactical intelligence operations around the world. Last I checked, the Islamofascists started this war. If you don’t want the “mite=right” shit, don’t pick a fight with us. If you do, we’ll have to come to where you live and kick your ass.
      When you have something to contribute to this conversation besides the idiotic claim that my experience and knowledge aren’t sufficient enough, then I might grant you an iota of consideration. Until then, you’re just so much hot air.

      “Actually, I was referring to the differences between socialism and communism.”

      Not a whole lot of difference. Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism is just one step removed from communism.

      “OK, as stated in America’s New Democracy (Fiorina et al), in the section Federalism it so says: “The Constitution was a vague document open to numerous interpretations” and Table 3.1 on p45 clearly shows the powers granted to national and state. Spoiler alert: National wins, what with the Supremacy Clause. But I have noticed you have only claimed to understand it (a claim I can’t help but suspend belief on) but not given any evidence toward. Now it is your time to step up and show your mettle.”

      ‘Vague document’?? …holy crap, you are really a piece of work. There’s no vagueness about the limitations placed to the Federal government in the Constitution. Again, if you actually read it, you’d know. Not that you have the capacity to understand: The tenth amendment declares that “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.” The Federalists maintained that the Framers at Philadelphia had meant from the first that all powers not specifically assigned to the Federal government were reserved to the States or the people of the States.
      The Federal government has whittled away at that amendment for years. That’s just one of the issues at stake with ObamaCare. The power given to the Federal government comes from the STATES, not the other way around. Spoiler for you: It’s pretty specific about those rights.
      Mettle demonstrated.

      “Student Loans: Is the healthcare debate the first time you’ve looked at a bill? Are you not aware of the pork-barrel add-ons that get tagged along with a Bill. Rightly or wrongly, it happens. Somehow regulating the amount that students (they were there before this was created, in case you weren’t aware of that) have to pay on interest isn’t ‘creating another entitlement group’, and it is pretty impossible with the normal paths logic follows to get to that conclusion.”

      That’s not the point. Americans are sick to death of the riders and other items being snuck into major legislation. If the title of the bill says “health care”, then every item in it should relate to that. That’s been a problem with our Congress and Senate for years. They attach all kinds of bullshit like pork barrel earmarks to bills on a regular basis. If you allow the government to assume the responsibility of student loans, you have created another entitlement group. They’ll end up getting bailed out with taxpayer money. How is that not government-created “entitlement”?

      “This just plumbs the depths of your ignorance. Scraping the barrel of your stupidity. Reaching rock bottom of banality. To not be able to see past your rose-tinted blinkers and realise that SOME business can do ill (you only seem to have a problem if pollution occurs in other countries). To be critical of business doesn’t equate you automatically to a wholehearted belief in socialism, it just means you think that businesses should act with the same kind of morality that the humans they comprise of do (well some anyway).”

      Oh fucking waaaaaaaaaah!!! My gawd, you cannot get past the “eeeeeeevil capitalist” mantra. Everyone, according to your “thinking” (and that’s being generous) is a “polluter”. Your criticism of business comes from a socialist perspective, so it’s impossible to take you seriously. Your complaints about industry are based (mostly) on economic theory. Hint: It’s not free market enterprise.

      Whilst I commend you on making something of your life, you have simultaneously supported two of my previous points: 1) that I fully support getting people back into work, no one argues against that. No one disagrees with that. The people who hang around the dole queue week after week thinking that they can live off the state are spongers, but they need to be shown the right path. 2) In one of my first replies I said that most of the measures form a supportive base rather than a reason to side-step work which fits in with your ‘helping hand not a handout’.

      “Shown the right path”…How do you intend to do that, when the public dole is not only easy to sponge off of, but perpetuates the welfare class? Three points: 1. Motivation starts at home. It’s not the responsibility of the government to replace the parent. If you have children you cannot afford, you are a burden to society and you place an unfair burden on your children. 2. The expansion of government taxpayer funded entitlements is enormous. They’re going about it the wrong way. The right angle would be to encourage job creation with tax incentives and laissez faire. You cannot have government interference to the extent it is now, and expect the economy to flourish. 3. On the educational level, our public schools have become an absolute mess. The NEA has fits anytime there’s a demand for performance and merit-based education. Kids aren’t learning even the rudimentary skills needed to function in everyday life.

      “You cannot say that you “understand society” when you just understand your own wherewithal and no one else’s. How many times: “because I said so” doesn’t work. You seem so contented sitting in your ivory tower, looking down on us mere mortals, that you missed the memo that everybody has different motivations, beliefs, environments etc. You operate a top down kind of logic that is wrong in this kind of situation, a kind of template that can be applied onto all and sundry. So please dismount from your high horse, and stop acting like you are the Grand Sage of America, it gets tiring.”

      The way you pontificate, one gets the distinct impression you own the Ivory Tower. It’s amusing to see you mistake an unvarnished view of politics and society as “high horse”. LOL! You have no idea how funny that is. You wonder why Americans view Brits as snobby little twits. Thank you for proving my point. We haven’t been part of the British Colonies for over 200 years. It must really piss you off. Damned Yankees! LOL!

      “Realism” = pessimism. Obviously I must be mistaken and you’ve undertaken an extensive analysis of society, and the economic system and come to the reasoned conclusion that “the opportunities are there” and evenly accessible. Or you just fart out any crap you see is fit, because if you’ve got to the top then everyone must be able to.

      Dude, is that what comes out of that shit factory you call a brain? The “land of opportunity” concept may have taken a hit in recent years, but the possibilities are still there. As I’ve said: The world doesn’t owe you a living. That’s an idea best left in the trash can of socialist ideology.

      “I fail to see how working in counter-terrorism gives you a detachment everyone else is lacking? Oh wait, it doesn’t, you just like to think it does as you have nothing else to use as evidence so instead resort to vague language about your life. Bravo.”

      “You fail to see”…that’s the first truthful statement you’ve made. As a Soldier and Intelligence Analyst, I was anything but detached. Vague? Are you drunk?

      “Obviously you missed the point of Rendition (psst, he was innocent all along), even though it wasn’t that difficult to get…..”

      Rendition: a bad Hollywood leftwing version of how horrible it is to torture those poor innocent misunderstood terrorists. http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/rendition.htm

      “…you must have been really bad at your job, as you seem to not understand evidence when it is presented to you. Were you the one who made the 45 min Iraqi deployment claim? Wouldn’t surprise me….”

      Let’s see….I was part of an intel team who helped send many, many terrorists and enemy combatants to allah. I’d say I was pretty good at my job. 45 minutes? Nah, an hour, tops.

      “WMD wielding megalomania”, you said you worked in intel right? News flash: THERE WERE NO WMDS. Does news take a while to filter through your brain? Do you think people are fighting against Medicare/Medicaid?

      You have reading skills, right?
      Saddam Hussein had WMDs, a WMD program, and terrorist connections. There’s plenty of open source material to substantiate Hussein’s violations and intent:
      1) Declassified NGIC report:
      http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
      http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
      2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
      3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
      4) Looting of WMD facilities:
      In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=1
      The UN admitted that Iraq had over six tons of anthrax, most of it weaponized, right up until the invasion.
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879
      Those weapons were previously unknown to U.N. inspectors; they were concealed. Those are weapons and materials Hussein was not supposed to possess, yet he did.
      5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
      Oh yeah, and his terrorist connections:
      He gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers and in addition, Iraqi intelligence met with al Qadea operatives and provided with training camps in Northern Iraq:
      The Mother of All Connections
      July 18, 2005: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
      by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
      07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41
      Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1
      By the way, Saddam Hussein’s duplicitous behavior clearly indicated his intent to continue with his WMD program. That is a fact.
      Saddam himself stated that unequivocally:
      “The factories are present,” an Iraqi aide tells Saddam on one of the tapes, made by the dictator in the mid-1990s while U.N. weapons inspectors were searching for Baghdad’s remaining stocks of weapons of mass destruction.
      “The factories remain, in the mind they remain. Our spirit is with us, based solely on the time period,” the aide says, according to the documents. “And [inspectors] take note of the time period, they can’t account for our will.”
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm
      Those materials could have easily been adapted to warheads and other methods of dispersal. Weapons of mass destruction are defined as weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material.
      I imagine all we should have done is simply wait for him to pull another Halabja…only on a much larger scale.

      “How far down the barrel did they have to scrape to come up with those three stooges?” Who would you have preferred to have seen get the award then?

      How about someone besides an abject failure, a “climate change “ huckster, and a socialist empty suit? Surely they can do better.

      “If you knew anything about the Islamic faith it would be that the Islamist extremists misrepresent a warped theology. Their world view is based on a completely incorrect interpretation on the Qur’an, but then that takes a breadth of thinking you have time and time again shown you are incapable of. Nowhere in the Qur’an does it say that Infidels must die, you have been brainwashed into thinking that. Similarly that they wanted to attack the West anyway: where is your proof? It’s nowhere, it’s none existant, because you think that you don’t need any as long as you say ‘no, that’s wrong’. Please, I am beginning to feel sorry for how warped your mindset is that you keep trotting out this regurgitated nonsense without thinking where it has come from and why”

      There’s that idiotic “brainwashed” retort. Is that all you’ve got? Infidels=”unbelievers”. Keep that in mind as you read the following:
      XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) we too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
      II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all.
      IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
      IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward. (Must be those 72 virgins)
      VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.
      4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
      5.51: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
      Oh yeah, Islam is chock full of peace, love, and granola. I’ve seen the results of that “peaceful religion”. I want no part of it.

      I agree with you. Wholeheartedly so. But you don’t agree with you. You seem to think that Government intervention is OK if you like it. You can’t pick and chose when it is acceptable. Why is the Pell Grant anything less than a market distortion, or a government intrusion into the education industry?

      Say again, over? I have NEVER said that I like government intervention, at all. The less, the better. The Pell Grant is optional, not a forced mandate like ObamaCare and the direct takeover of all student loans. Apples and Oranges.

      The UN serves a role for promoting continued co-operating, so countries talk instead of blowing themselves to bits. Surely that’s reason to exist in itself.

      It’s got a lot of catching up to do. People are “blowing themselves to bits” all around the world. U.N. “role” notwithstanding.

      It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe in climate change. Obviously if there’s evidence you’ll be against it.

      It’s not man-made, regardless of what Al Gore tells you.

      “Yes, you’ve been on the ground, but you’ve also been deeply embedded within a particular groupthink, which distorts your perception. And this is abstract power I was talking about not the version you’re thinking of.”

      “Distorted perception”? That’s funny as hell. You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable in your delusion.

      “Why do you continue to miss the point? It is your will or your nature? By proving the linkage between Communism and oppression, it can then be applied to the real world.”

      The linkage between Communism and oppression is well established.

      …“keep most of what they earn is immoral.” No one is asking for “most”. Exaggerating again.

      You’re not asking for a reasonable tax system, either.

      “….How moral is it for a death company (you have death panels, I’ll start death companies) to take away insurance when people get sick? How moral is it for a death company to use the term chronic to cover most illnesses? How moral is it to not want your fellow citizens to have some standard of healthcare for having to fork over a tiny percentage of your income (or nothing if you don’t earn enough – read the Media Matters article again).

      How moral is it for a government to ration and degrade the quality of health care, and tax the hell out of people to do it?
      Media Matters….LOL!
      Your sense of morality is bat-shit crazy.

      “Evidence seems to be one thing you and your Rightards are incapable of. You’re like little chicks who regurgitate the same drivel that Mama Bird, Fox News hands to you, and because they say it, it MUST be fact.”

      Yeah, I see hoards of people flocking to Britain and Canada because of the wonderful state of health care. Uh huh.
      Keep reading The Guardian. It’s so predictable.

      SFC MAC

  4. I don’t know who you’re arguing against but it sure ain’t me. Though one thing I’ve notice about your replies is the inability to answer any of the charges I’ve level, any of the points I’ve raised. You either link it to something unrelated (your reply to what Robert McChesney says about the media) or showing your own lack of analytical reasoning. Sometimes it is like arguing with a child; no matter what you say, whatever reasoning you employ it’s in the end, frustrating with their inability to: a) see beyond their own narrow world view b) resorting to blowing the whole thing out of proportion as that’s the only way their argument makes sense.
    But that’s the truth, it is only by stretching your argument to the extreme that is holds any weight. Only if Obama wants to take over the whole private sector does that represent a bullet in the chest for freedom Yet argue as you may, this is not true. Bush hung round with Saudi princes, yet I don’t see you claiming that he was going to subjugate women and install in your words Islamofascism into the US. The very idea that that could happen is impossible within the US. You have to examine your own logic trail and see where you are making huge leaps of faith.
    “We take care of our needy. Why in the hell do you think we have welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid”
    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but those who are against the Healthcare Bill were against Medicare and Medicaid. It seems that every time change for the good is on the cards, the Republican’s roll out the “Armageddon” bandwagon, and as yet the country hasn’t gone tits up. You guys change the goalposts, then when nothing bad happens forget that you were ever against it to begin with. End of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, the civil rights movement, Medicare and Medicaid have all been decried by the Republican’s, but as far as I know, that hasn’t led to a complete overhaul of the way America is run. If you argue for Medicare/Medicaid which is a bigger plan, I really can’t see why you are opposed to an extension of it. Ah that’s why: you lost and you’re bitter.
    Just a good article to read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8589399.stm
    “More of that will happen thanks to Obama. The ObamaCare bill will cull billions from Medicare to shove into feckless spending”. A lot of baseless claims there. Evidence deary.
    You are the most philanthropic entity on the planet in terms of sheer numbers, but that is also because you are the richest country. The true measure of philanthropy is through proportion of GDP, in that you fail miserably:
    http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2005/01/sh0501a.html
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#RichNationsAgreedatUNto07ofGNPToAid

    Again your knowledge of political systems is left wanting, as it takes a long long while to modernise a country, it cannot be done on a whim. Read Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine for more on this and your own false logic.
    “they’ve yet to develop into civilized nations” – you sound very much like a colonialist who wanted to “civilise the uncivilised”. By which I think you mean, gun toting, polluting, credit accumulating hyper consumerist.
    The cause of terrorists, shows your lack of knowledge on the cause of terrorists. Congratulations.

    “First of all the Nazis were SOCIALIST.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh dear. You honestly think they’re socialist don’t you? No deary, they were fascists who used the label ‘socialist’ to appeal to the German workers. So fact check, not regurgitate Beck-isms next time you make a claim. I mean it will stop you looking even more like a narrow-minded Rightard than you do at the moment.
    http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/

    Have you looked up what social justice means? I didn’t think so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
    Again you’re just regurgitating Beck-isms. You need to learn to think for yourself. I mean you lot complain about how ‘oppressive’ Obama is, yet Fox, Beck, Rush have got millions of people brainwashed into believing what they want you to. Obviously you don’t realise that as you’re under the spell.

    Biggest compliment ever. Thank you for comparing me to McChesney. It’s an honour.

    “You and you ilk in Britain have a lot in common with idiots like them” Once more, evidence?
    “That’s exactly what you sound like” Trite comments like that make you out to appear more ignorant than you really are. There is a layer of intelligence underneath your brainwashed espousals.

    Majority of American’s? His show gets around 3 million viewers, so that’s less than 1% of the population. Yes you’ll trot out the ‘cross-section of population’ and the stat about people wanting the Reps to keep on fighting, but that a) assumes people have perfect knowledge of the situation, which they don’t and b) a majority of people support the Bill, which cancels out the other pro-Rep stat.
    God, seriously. How can you believe that you love the Constitution more than anyone else? It’s your external source of perceived legitimacy, not down to your extreme love for a 200 odd year document.
    You’re “nutjobs” because you fall for the extreme conspiracy theories, supported by spurious/no evidence other than “because I said so”. These people aren’t having their feelings “reflected” by Beck they are having them created by him. It’s scary just how much power he holds within his sweaty grip.

    You fundamentally do NOT pay high taxes on everything. You have no idea about high taxes. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of how the governance process works to question the role of taxation. This debate has been raging over here in the UK too regarding the best way to reduce the deficit: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Economists-Write-To-Financial-Times-To-Back-Alistair-Darling-Over-Plan-To-Delay-Spending-Cuts/Article/201002315552728?f=rss
    There is no right or wrong answer at the moment, so to try and proclaim one particular method is false.

    Yet one thing there is a general consensus on is the failed monetarism paradigm you seem to be an advocate of. You have a very rose tinted view of businesses, thinking that they are community centred, and any extra money they get will be ploughed into helping people find employment. No. They keep it as(funny this) businesses raison d’être is to make money. This was brought into the UK by Thatcher and failed miserably.

    “As an American who has voted all of her life, and studied and commented on our political system, I know far more about our electoral system than a snooty little limey effete”
    Awwwwww. Bitter much? Try reading some Political Science books then get back to me on how wrong you are. Somehow I don’t think that voting is a sufficient qualification to understand the motiviations behind politicians. Neither is “commenting”, eg does someone who says ‘Hitler was an egg’ over and over again make it any more right? No matter what cheap epithets you can throw, it doesn’t remove the lack of evidence (your logic above was to say “I write therefore I’m right”) or logic you have throughout your narrow minded ramblings.

    You’re one of those true patriots. You know the ones who stood up for the right to own slaves and subsequently got their ass handed to them.

    “Taxation without representation and forcing the entire country onto shoddy government-controlled socialist health care, are not the kind of principles on which this country was founded. It’s you that haven’t given much thought to this whole disaster.” 1) You have representation. Last time I checked there is the little thing of the mid-terms coming up soon. 2) It’s not socialist. Obviously you read the wrong Bill/don’t understand socialism.

    “Also, if you can’t argue your point without resorting to leftwing hyperbole of “racist” and teabagger”, then the douchebag adjective I use to describe you and your comrades, certainly fits”

    As far as I know you were the one who jumped to “socialist/communist” and “Leftard” first. Hypocritical much? And as for racist: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/27blow.html?src=me&ref=general

    What concepts within the Constitution are you wanting to debate dear? How can you say “understand it”? Like any document it can be interpreted in many different ways, from the extremist: you, to the broad: everyone else. Let’s not try and elevate you to the level of Constitutional academic, as somehow I think you’re lacking.

    How can you be so outraged about this happening when it also happens the other way round, yet a bit more explicit. Though obviously your darling little Beckettes couldn’t be in the wrong, for to say ill of the ‘true patriots’ is unjust. To break your little victimised spell: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/bullet-fired-at-cantors-window-random/?scp=3&sq=cantor&st=cse http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/26/eric-cantor-gun-attack-republicans-healthcare

    Now for the student loans: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/mar/26/usa-education-student-loan-reform Obviously you won’t agree with the govt regulating student loans, which can stop the practice of leaving many students with crippling interest payments.

    “The type of “regulation” McChesney wants is to stifle anything that dissects and criticizes socialism; a real impinging on our democratic system” You missed the point entirely didn’t you?

    You have to realise that when it gets to the point of saying that 5 of the top 6 news agencies are spouting lies, you’re on the fast track to cuckooville. What makes you think that they didn’t look at the character/issues for the candidates? Obviously as the majority of American’s didn’t agree with you, they got suckered in by the razzle-dazzle, rather than supporting one of the Republican stooges.

    The final part of the Guardian article put it perfectly: the left-wing governments would love to remove regulation but “Polluters dump crap into rivers and the air. Employers in dangerous workplaces cut corners, resulting in death and injury. Car companies knowingly put gasoline tanks in dangerous places. Lenders rip people off”. Obviously you’ll counter saying that “waaaa waaa waaaaa they won’t do that they will take over the WHOLE COUNTRY waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaa”. This cannot be countered, not due to the convincing nature of the argument but because of the facile way you go about it.

    “Income fluctuates due to the individual skills, education, and motivation of each citizen”. In some parts you are arguing my point. It does come through those things, but not everyone starts with the same foundations to leap from; someone living in the inner-city will not have the same contacts, the same prosperous environment, the same level of income to pursue a better form of education as someone from a well off family. You said it yourself “people accomplish that though opportunity and hard work”, whilst hard-work can be the same (I note you didn’t respond to my claims of a mother working 2 jobs), the opportunities are mostly dependent on income and the environment you were brought up in. It’s not a case of dragging the top down, but giving a helping hand to the ones at the bottom. How can you deny people their ability to pursue the American Dream if they are caught within poverty, barely making enough to make ends meet? Your viewpoint is so stuffily elitist it is slightly suffocating. It’s not OK to simply deride the poor as not working hard enough, until you understand society you cannot make an informed comment. Merely stating that people should just “work harder” places on a billboard your holier than thou attitude.

    “Newflash, sweetpea: Life isn’t fair. To penalize those who excel is indicative of a mediocre person obsessed with keeping others down to their level. I don’t envy the rich or pity the poor. You talk about “human rights”, yet you think the abolition of the basic right to work and keep most of what you earn is “selfish”. You’re an ass” Firstly, why be so defeatist about life? Yeah, it isn’t fair but instead of standing there commenting on it, do something to help. The people who excel aren’t always the cleverest, the smartest, the ones who work the hardest, it’s the ones whose parents have the money to give them better opportunities. But for those who do work hard then once again (as you don’t seem to heed the message) taxation isn’t so much to reduce a prosperer into a pauper. Obviously in your mind it is, because not exaggerating a claim isn’t in your prevue, but to ordinary rational humans the rate of taxation is based on their ability to pay.

    “captured on the battlefield during firefights, and as part of counter-terrorism ops in Al Qaeda and Taliban safehavens” ever seen the film rendition? Or read about the case of Binyamin Muhammed?

    Good. So then why was the version of the “Mission Accomplished” where it extended to Iraq as a whole, get pushed to the fore? It was so he was perceived as being a hero in Iraq.

    Again, you’re bitter because the rest of the world can see painfully clearly the things that you are too blindfolded by partisan hatred to realise. As much as I can see, with the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded for Peace, it really should honour those who have made steps in that direction, just because you disagree with them domestically doesn’t mean you can’t see the positive contribution they’ve made internationally.

    “Do you care that at least 2 million people in Germany, and 70,000 in Italy were killed?” So you’re telling me that all 2 million Germans who died deserved to? That all of them wholeheartedly believed in the Nazi regime? Or could it be that, as you said, they were caught up in oppressive regimes and therefore thought that just keeping their heads down would be a better course of action for an easier life? Granted it’s not the best plan morally, but when you’re scared for your life it is understandable that people said nothing.

    Could it be because of the actions and beliefs of your Rightards that the Islamists want to attack us? You have to understand how the actions of America (bases in the Middle East, support of Israel) angers, rightly or wrongly, some of those who live there.

    People on benefits cannot live comfortable. I said it in the last post, maybe you missed it what with your blinkered warblings.

    Only someone with no knowledge of the UN would call it anti-democratic. Just look at what it does.

    Actually, with academia encompassing pretty much all aspects of human life, and removed from any decision making biases, it is better than the armed forces to assessing how power really works.

    “brutality, genocide, and damage caused by communsim all out of “reasonable proportion”” Explain to me, theoretically, how communism leads to ‘brutality, genocide and damage’? In practice it is a failed economic system, there is no two ways about it, but theoretically communism does not lead to harming its citizens. For further enlightenment read Utopia by Thomas More. Further to that, by implicating China et al as symptomatic of the brutality of Communism you are linking the theoretical to the real-world in a way that mis-represents the connection. Just as the Nazis used ‘socialist’ to gain support, the same has been done by the Soviets, China, to gain support from the working class.

    It’s like saying that the Democratic Republic of Congo shows that all democracies are corrupt. It just doesn’t work.

    It seems unbelievable to me that you are unaware of what morality is. To deny someone the means of extending their life is immoral, especially if it is just money that stands in the way. Money is the root of evil.

    But of course Glenn Beck doesn’t want you to think that. No. You must march to the tune the Pied Piper wants.

    1. flamjew,

      Your attention span and ability to concentrate is virtually non-existent. Pay very close attention. Since you don’t think I responded in enough detail, I will post your “points” one at a time, and respond to them one at a time, to simplify things and help bring some lucidity to your confused mental state. The links I provide are references to information that reinforce my arguments with historical, economic and political facts.

      I don’t know who you’re arguing against but it sure ain’t me. Though one thing I’ve notice about your replies is the inability to answer any of the charges I’ve level, any of the points I’ve raised. You either link it to something unrelated (your reply to what Robert McChesney says about the media) or showing your own lack of analytical reasoning.

      You brought McChesney into the conversation first. The McChesney quote was used to establish the similarity between his socialist ideology and yours; a point you missed. Re-read the intro: “The more you vent, the more you resemble”…
      Dude, your cognitive skills are lacking.

      Sometimes it is like arguing with a child; no matter what you say, whatever reasoning you employ it’s in the end, frustrating with their inability to: a) see beyond their own narrow world view b) resorting to blowing the whole thing out of proportion as that’s the only way their argument makes sense.

      The childishness is all on you, my dear. I have considerable knowledge about foreign policy. As a Soldier, I actually applied the knowledge and training I received in foreign countries; in peace and war. On the domestic front, I am very aware of my country’s political and economic issues, elected officials, and legislative process. Your inability to understand the seriousness of what is currently happening in America, speaks volumes about your maturity and intellect; what there is of it.

      Only if Obama wants to take over the whole private sector does that represent a bullet in the chest for freedom Yet argue as you may, this is not true. Bush hung round with Saudi princes, yet I don’t see you claiming that he was going to subjugate women and install in your words Islamofascism into the US. The very idea that that could happen is impossible within the US. You have to examine your own logic trail and see where you are making huge leaps of faith.

      Oh, but it is unfortunately, all too true. GM, CitiCorp, Chrysler, AIG, all seized and controlled by the government. He purchased Chrysler and GM with our tax money and made the UAW and the government co-owners. The government has also seized banks and threatened others with punitive actions if they did not kowtow to the new Obama regime. Dare I provide a link for your perusal?: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078909572557575.html
      All of which is an abuse of government power coupled with a socialist agenda.
      As for the Saudi princes, I don’t recall Bush ever exhibiting behavior that sympathized with Islamic terrorists. He actually fought muslim extremists. Obama thinks “negotiating without preconditions”, referring to terrorist attacks as “man-caused disasters”, and treating enemy combatants like ordinary criminals is good for national security and foreign policy. We now have Islamic extremists in the Obama cabinet. Stating facts about Obama’s socialist domestic agenda and foreign policy disasters, is far from “blowing things out of proportion”.

      Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but those who are against the Healthcare Bill were against Medicare and Medicaid. It seems that every time change for the good is on the cards, the Republican’s roll out the “Armageddon” bandwagon, and as yet the country hasn’t gone tits up. You guys change the goalposts, then when nothing bad happens forget that you were ever against it to begin with. End of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, the civil rights movement, Medicare and Medicaid have all been decried by the Republican’s, but as far as I know, that hasn’t led to a complete overhaul of the way America is run. If you argue for Medicare/Medicaid which is a bigger plan, I really can’t see why you are opposed to an extension of it. Ah that’s why: you lost and you’re bitter.

      Wrong. Before you comment any further about the wide-spread American opposition to ObamaCare, READ THE BILL. Otherwise, you’re just pulling nonsense out of your ass to compensate for lack of intelligent discourse.
      “Tits up”: The effects of ObamaCare are already being felt, economically and with respect to the health care industry. Uh oh, another link: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/obamacare-already-having-bad-side-effects/
      We have unemployment approaching 15% and a deficit that just topped $12 trillion. Thanks to Obama’s socialist spend/bailout/takeover orgy, that is expected to reach at least $23.7 trillion.
      So you want to dredge up old “racist” stereotypes? Lawdy, lawdy. Since you’re so ignorant about American history, here are a few facts for your digestion: Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK’s origins were part and parcel of the DEMOCRATIC Party (Dixiecrats). They consistently voted against civil rights and were responsible for passing the Jim Crow laws. Nothing erodes credibility like fatuous comments, or in your case, intellectual bankruptcy. Learn about American history before you attempt to re-write it.
      Again, because you’re a slow learner: Those who are against the ObamaCare takeover (62% of America) are against government expansion and control over citizens’ choice of health care options. We do not want the government telling us which insurance plans, doctors, treatment, and amount of money to spend on our own care. We do not want the IRS to have the power to exact penalties on people for not bowing to a socialist health care system. We are against the destruction of our economy through endless bailouts, spending, and taxation. We do not want erosion of basic freedoms. We know what’s in the bill, and it’s a Constitutional violation of epic proportions. Not that you’ve read it.
      Uh oh, you lose again.

      A lot of baseless claims there. Evidence deary.

      The evidence is in the bill itself. It lays out exactly what the Dems plan to do with Medicare.
      And they’re proud of it, too. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/04/democrats-win-cuts-of-400-billion-to-medicare/

      You are the most philanthropic entity on the planet in terms of sheer numbers, but that is also because you are the richest country. The true measure of philanthropy is through proportion of GDP, in that you fail miserably….

      Our GDP won’t be worth squat in the next decade thanks to Obamanomics. Over the next ten years, our debt is expected to reach 90% of our GDP. Looks like all those beneficiaries will have to go elsewhere. To repeat: The true measure of charity is comes from the heart, not the barrel of a socialist gun, or for that matter, the Euro’s idea of “wealth redistribution”. Since the world doesn’t like America being a world cop, we should also stop being such a philanthropist.

      Again your knowledge of political systems is left wanting, as it takes a long long while to modernise a country, it cannot be done on a whim. Read Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine for more on this and your own false logic. “they’ve yet to develop into civilized nations” – you sound very much like a colonialist who wanted to “civilise the uncivilised”. By which I think you mean, gun toting, polluting, credit accumulating hyper consumerist.

      On a whim? Jesus Christ, for some countries—in Africa, Asia, Indonesia—it’s NEVER happened. On a whim….gawd you are such a piece of work. Naomi Klein…ah yes. “Activist”, anti-capitalist, socialist salesperson…what a source of integrity and credible opinion. Yeah.
      Here’s a good critical look at Naomi’s scatterbrained ideas: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=242
      Oh by the way, this moron thinks that relief efforts in Haiti are “exploitation”. There’s no pleasing you Leftards. We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. Back to the eeeeeevil capitalist again. How dare we engage in productivity, earning money, and believing in the Second Amendment. You want pollution? Sheeeeit. The United States has some of the most ridiculously restrictive regulations anywhere. Nothing compares to China’s contribution to atmospheric and environmental filth. An estimated 178,000+ people in its major cities suffer premature deaths from pollution. Their children have 80% higher blood-lead levels than what is considered dangerous. Go peddle your eeeeeeevil polluter crap to Bejjing.

      The cause of terrorists, shows your lack of knowledge on the cause of terrorists. Congratulations.

      Yeah, all those “developed” nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, are such fine examples political stability, suffrage, and civil liberties. Uh huh. Indoctrination of Islamic religious zealotry and lack of education, have a lot to do with the breeding of terrorism. And they start early. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeZzSgKUde8
      http://youtube.com/user/AbuMarwan23
      You’re such a wealth of knowledge. *snicker* But then, you’ve never been to the Middle East. I have. When you get assigned there in a military/counter terrorism capacity, we’ll compare notes. Okay, sweetpea?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh dear. You honestly think they’re socialist don’t you? No deary, they were fascists who used the label ‘socialist’ to appeal to the German workers. So fact check, not regurgitate Beck-isms next time you make a claim. I mean it will stop you looking even more like a narrow-minded Rightard than you do at the moment.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You’re such a jackass. You’ve never bothered to read about the National Socialist Workers Party or Hitler’s own words. Once again, you demonstrate ignorance. (I see a pattern there) Socialism and Fascism aren’t mutually exclusive. That’s something I learned by reading history, not watching Glenn Beck. You have such an anal fixation with him. You must be a closet fan.
      Hitler made one of the few distinctions between Nazism and Marxism with this:

      “Not only has it (Marxism) been unable anywhere to create a cultural or economic system of its own; but it was not even able to develop, according to its own principles, the civilization and economic system it found ready at hand. It has had to make compromises, by way of a return to the principle of personality, just as it cannot dispense with that principle in its own organization. The folkish (Nazi) philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.”
      —Volume Two – The National Socialist Movement
      Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State

      The only reason he never totally accepted Marxism was the disagreement on race. Otherwise, the two ideologies would be competing on the same common ground. Must’ve been that “label” ruse.

      Have you looked up what social justice means? I didn’t think so:

      Fucking please. “Social justice” is a hackneyed catch phrase for “workers of the world unite”, communist/socialist/Bolshevik crap. And Wikipedia as a source? Good gawd.

      Again you’re just regurgitating Beck-isms. You need to learn to think for yourself. I mean you lot complain about how ‘oppressive’ Obama is, yet Fox, Beck, Rush have got millions of people brainwashed into believing what they want you to. Obviously you don’t realise that as you’re under the spell.

      You’re quite adept at regurgitating “isms”. You’ve done nothing but spout nihilist bullshit since you first posted. The trouble is you believe everything The Nation tells you. Talk about brainwashed. And speaking of brainwashed, nowhere was that more apparent than the sheeple who swallowed everything the fawning MSM said about their lord and savior Obamessiah. Get up off your knees and wipe your chin. Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform” America has shaken a lot of people, former Obamabots included, out of their comas and into a harsh reality. Under the spell….give me a fucking break.

      Biggest compliment ever. Thank you for comparing me to McChesney. It’s an honour.

      Well, I’m sure a socialist blowhard like McChesney would agree.

      “You and you ilk in Britain have a lot in common with idiots like them” Once more, evidence?

      Read your comments. That’s all the evidence required.

      “That’s exactly what you sound like” Trite comments like that make you out to appear more ignorant than you really are. There is a layer of intelligence underneath your brainwashed espousals.

      OH NO!!! Not the trite/ignorant/brainwashed accusation! Oh mercy me. You’re running low on intellectual ammunition. Better consult Keith Olbermann for more debate material.

      Majority of American’s? His show gets around 3 million viewers, so that’s less than 1% of the population. Yes you’ll trot out the ‘cross-section of population’ and the stat about people wanting the Reps to keep on fighting, but that a) assumes people have perfect knowledge of the situation, which they don’t and b) a majority of people support the Bill, which cancels out the other pro-Rep stat.

      Yes, the majority of Americans. You know, those “bitter, gun clinging, racists” that scare the hell out of the Dems with all that “hate speech” about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the fact that the Dems voted on a bill they haven’t read, the hubris of politicians who dismiss citizens’ anger with epithets, and “we’re going to do this whether you like it, need it, want it, or not”. Those Americans. You assume that we do not have a perfect knowledge of what the Dems are doing to this country. You assume wrong.

      God, seriously. How can you believe that you love the Constitution more than anyone else? It’s your external source of perceived legitimacy, not down to your extreme love for a 200 odd year document.

      Gawd, how is it that you’re such an expert on the document without having ever read it? Perceived legitimacy? That 200+ year old document is legitimate enough for the Supreme Court to interpret on a regular basis. It was legitimate enough to establish our country with fundamental values and principles. I perceive you’re a pompous, know-nothing ass.

      You’re “nutjobs” because you fall for the extreme conspiracy theories, supported by spurious/no evidence other than “because I said so”. These people aren’t having their feelings “reflected” by Beck they are having them created by him. It’s scary just how much power he holds within his sweaty grip.

      Ignoramus. You really know nothing about this country, the people, the legislative process, or the concept of grassroots public opinion. And you really must get over your ‘sweaty’ obsession with Glenn Beck.

      You fundamentally do NOT pay high taxes on everything. You have no idea about high taxes. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of how the governance process works to question the role of taxation. This debate has been raging over here in the UK too regarding the best way to reduce the deficit….

      I have no idea about high taxes? So I’m guessing that as outrageous as the growing tax burden is in our country, you’d rather we wait until it gets to the level of your wonderful Euro socialist utopia…then we can really bitch about the gouging. Like hell. We’re aware of you’re your situation. We want no part of it, and we are going to stop Obama’s efforts to clone the Euro disaster on this soil. November is coming. “Repeal and replace” is a phrase you will hear a lot.

      Yet one thing there is a general consensus on is the failed monetarism paradigm you seem to be an advocate of. You have a very rose tinted view of businesses, thinking that they are community centred, and any extra money they get will be ploughed into helping people find employment. No. They keep it as(funny this) businesses raison d’être is to make money. This was brought into the UK by Thatcher and failed miserably.

      The entrepreneurs, factories, and corporations being put out of business by Dem economic policies don’t share your view of “failure”. Money, profit, and tax incentives fuel the success of a business, maintain employment, and a healthy economy. That eeeeeevil concept diametrically opposed to your “social justice” mantra.

      Awwwwww. Bitter much? Try reading some Political Science books then get back to me on how wrong you are. Somehow I don’t think that voting is a sufficient qualification to understand the motiviations behind politicians. Neither is “commenting”, eg does someone who says ‘Hitler was an egg’ over and over again make it any more right? No matter what cheap epithets you can throw, it doesn’t remove the lack of evidence (your logic above was to say “I write therefore I’m right”) or logic you have throughout your narrow minded ramblings.

      Try reading? Your self-important flatulence is absurd. Try experiencing, first hand, the result of foreign policy in a place like the Middle East or Korea or Bosnia. Try being a part of military combat operations. Try being involved in contingency plans or counter-terrorism. Your arm-chair expertise doesn’t quite measure up.

      You’re one of those true patriots. You know the ones who stood up for the right to own slaves and subsequently got their ass handed to them.

      Back to the “slavery” insult again. How original. Race pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Alcee Hastings on this side of ‘The Pond’ tend to spew the same crap. They carry around a whole deck of race cards to throw, just in case.

      1) You have representation. Last time I checked there is the little thing of the mid-terms coming up soon. 2) It’s not socialist. Obviously you read the wrong Bill/don’t understand socialism.

      Really? Not according to the Dems:
      “There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.”
      —Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a disgraced former judge who was impeached (by a Democrat Congress) for taking bribes.
      Their behavior since 20 January 2009, is indicative of an out-of-control autocracy with no intention of “representing” their constituents. As for the mid term elections, you can count on it.
      You mean ObamaCare and the government takeover of business and financial institutions isn’t socialism? You mean all this time I’ve been mistaken about Obama’s vesting of the ownership and control of the private industries he seized? Oh my goodness gracious. You mean the language in H.R. 3590 that covers mandatory purchase and coverage of government health care, expansion of the IRS into an ObamaCare extortion agency for those who don’t pay up, the elimination of consumer health care choice and free market competition, isn’t socialism? Silly me. I must have read the wrong bill.

      As far as I know you were the one who jumped to “socialist/communist” and “Leftard” first. Hypocritical much? And as for racist…..

      Let’s see, you started off on the Left foot and espoused socialism with your very first comment: “This attitude taken by so many Americans is deeply upsetting as it illustrates the inability to look past your own nose.” And you gave two citations from the Guardian. Jumped to “socialist/communist”? It wasn’t much of a leap. Frank Rich, New York Times hack and resident moonbat. Wow, what a “journalist” If Rich is so confident about the (fabricated) slurs, let him provide proof. It’s already been debunked but that won’t stop a loon like Frank, or you from repeating the story as if it were fact.
      Here’s just one of the responses to Rich’s latest rant: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/28/whos-perpetuating/
      And as for Blow’s column: Gotta love the requisite “run on guns”, the Southern Poverty Law Center citation, “rabid bigotry”, and the “disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack”. I’m surprised he didn’t include quotes from Deliverance.
      Bigoted stereotypes are okay….as long as the target is a white American. That’s how it goes in Blow’s world, and the New York Times. I’ve written about assclowns like Blow: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/how-to-speak-douchebag/

      What concepts within the Constitution are you wanting to debate dear? How can you say “understand it”? Like any document it can be interpreted in many different ways, from the extremist: you, to the broad: everyone else. Let’s not try and elevate you to the level of Constitutional academic, as somehow I think you’re lacking.

      Well, sweetpea, how about debating exactly what the federal government’s role is, as stated by the Constitution. When you actually read and understand it, we’ll discuss that. So far I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. An academic—Constitutional or otherwise—you ain’t.

      How can you be so outraged about this happening when it also happens the other way round, yet a bit more explicit. Though obviously your darling little Beckettes couldn’t be in the wrong, for to say ill of the ‘true patriots’ is unjust…..

      There’s that Beck thing again. I think you harbor a secret crush on the guy.
      By the way, an update on the threat against Rep. Cantor: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/arrest-made-in-threats-against-rep-eric-cantor-r-va/

      Now for the student loans: Obviously you won’t agree with the govt regulating student loans, which can stop the practice of leaving many students with crippling interest payments.

      What does (another) government takeover of student loans have to do with health care? Not that creating another entitlement group matters, right?

      “The type of “regulation” McChesney wants is to stifle anything that dissects and criticizes socialism; a real impinging on our democratic system” You missed the point entirely didn’t you? You have to realise that when it gets to the point of saying that 5 of the top 6 news agencies are spouting lies, you’re on the fast track to cuckooville. What makes you think that they didn’t look at the character/issues for the candidates? Obviously as the majority of American’s didn’t agree with you, they got suckered in by the razzle-dazzle, rather than supporting one of the Republican stooges.

      Spouting lies…except for the left-leaning news agencies and sources you rely on. I didn’t miss a thing.
      For YEARS we have been inundated by MSM bias. This past election was no different. They suppressed stories that would have shown Obama for the socialist empty suit that he is. They were so in love with him, they engaged in some of the worst pandering I have ever seen. Their “character/issues” coverage consisted of fawning over Obama and the defamation and character assassination of Sarah Palin. Obviously, you were too preoccupied to pay attention. The stooges who voted Obama have developed quite the case of buyer’s remorse.

      The final part of the Guardian article put it perfectly: the left-wing governments would love to remove regulation but “Polluters dump crap into rivers and the air. Employers in dangerous workplaces cut corners, resulting in death and injury. Car companies knowingly put gasoline tanks in dangerous places. Lenders rip people off”. Obviously you’ll counter saying that “waaaa waaa waaaaa they won’t do that they will take over the WHOLE COUNTRY waaaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaa”. This cannot be countered, not due to the convincing nature of the argument but because of the facile way you go about it.

      WAAAAAAAAWAAAAAA, those bad polluters! They’re just a bunch of eeeeeeeevil capitalists making money off the exploitation of the masses! Those capitalist pigs! Oh, the horror! We need the government to babysit us, otherwise, we’ll bever make it through life!

      In some parts you are arguing my point. It does come through those things, but not everyone starts with the same foundations to leap from; someone living in the inner-city will not have the same contacts, the same prosperous environment, the same level of income to pursue a better form of education as someone from a well off family. You said it yourself “people accomplish that though opportunity and hard work”, whilst hard-work can be the same (I note you didn’t respond to my claims of a mother working 2 jobs), the opportunities are mostly dependent on income and the environment you were brought up in. It’s not a case of dragging the top down, but giving a helping hand to the ones at the bottom. How can you deny people their ability to pursue the American Dream if they are caught within poverty, barely making enough to make ends meet? Your viewpoint is so stuffily elitist it is slightly suffocating. It’s not OK to simply deride the poor as not working hard enough, until you understand society you cannot make an informed comment. Merely stating that people should just “work harder” places on a billboard your holier than thou attitude.

      No one gave me a free meal ticket in life. I come from a working class family. My environment was far from prosperous. My mother raised 7 kids, mostly by herself. We all worked. My two older step sisters worked two part time jobs, and my mother worked to make ends meet. I also had the spine and motivation to do something with my life besides being a victim and blaming everything on “the system”. We believe in a helping hand, not a handout. Deny them the American dream? Are you fucking kidding me? I live in an area saturated with low-income and welfare recipients. Many of them have no desire to give that up. They know the government dole is a reliable source of income. Even when the economy is good, they prefer welfare to work. So, don’t give me that bullshit about not “understanding society”. I’m a hell of a lot more informed than a stuffed shirt limey. Only an elitist moron would think replacing a Democratic Republic with a socialist system is a wonderful idea. Of course, then there wouldn’t be any more eeeeeeevil filthy rich; we’d all be peasants.

      Firstly, why be so defeatist about life? Yeah, it isn’t fair but instead of standing there commenting on it, do something to help. The people who excel aren’t always the cleverest, the smartest, the ones who work the hardest, it’s the ones whose parents have the money to give them better opportunities. But for those who do work hard then once again (as you don’t seem to heed the message) taxation isn’t so much to reduce a prosperer into a pauper. Obviously in your mind it is, because not exaggerating a claim isn’t in your prevue, but to ordinary rational humans the rate of taxation is based on their ability to pay.

      I’m a realist. Something you have yet to achieve. “…..the ones whose parents have the money to give them better opportunities” Scuse me??? I thought that it was the parents who worked hard, and set an example of values, principles, and work ethic to help their kids have a better life than they did. The opportunities are there. You have to do something besides sit on your ass and complain about how unfair that the eeeeevil rich have so much money. Ordinary rational humans wouldn’t want to destroy their countries’ economy and penalize wage-earners with more taxation. Unless that is your purpose, like that class warfare crap you neo-Bolsheviks conjured up.

      Ever seen the film rendition? Or read about the case of Binyamin Muhammed?

      Oh my gawd. You talk about “being under a spell”. Have you ever worked in counter terrorism? Have you ever bothered to get information from a source other than a leftwing Hollywood propaganda film? Did “Rendition” fulfill all of your wet dreams about the big, bad, awful American war on the ‘peaceful’ practitioners of Islamic jihad? I couldn’t care less about rendition, or doing what it takes to extract information that saves lives.
      You have NO credibility.

      Good. So then why was the version of the “Mission Accomplished” where it extended to Iraq as a whole, get pushed to the fore? It was so he was perceived as being a hero in Iraq.

      That’s a good question. Why don’t you ask the MSM? They made it a point to use that sign as a sarcastic, cynical story line to fit their anti-war narrative. We kicked the Al Qaeda’s ass out Iraq, and eliminated a WMD wielding megalomaniac and a threat. The heroes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are the United States Army.

      Again, you’re bitter because the rest of the world can see painfully clearly the things that you are too blindfolded by partisan hatred to realise. As much as I can see, with the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded for Peace, it really should honour those who have made steps in that direction, just because you disagree with them domestically doesn’t mean you can’t see the positive contribution they’ve made internationally.

      “The rest of the world?” Ah yes, that’s the term used whenever the blame America first crowd wants to “prove” how “out of touch” we Americans are. We just don’t have the “worldly” sophistication of the Euros or the U.N. who gives the Nobel to ‘tards like Carter, Gore and Obama. How far down the barrel did they have to scrape to come up with those three stooges? The Nobel is a joke.
      You espouse an ideology that stifles freedom, and advocates the U.N.’s New World Order, and you expect me to take you seriously? Fucking please.

      Could it be because of the actions and beliefs of your Rightards that the Islamists want to attack us? You have to understand how the actions of America (bases in the Middle East, support of Israel) angers, rightly or wrongly, some of those who live there.

      I’m surprised it took you this long to resort to the America had it coming shit. How little you Leftards know about history. Read the Koran. The Islamic theology, as prescribed by Mohammad, declared war on the Christians, Jews, and “infidels” in 692 AD. The muslims started prosecuting that war in 693 AD. The muslims didn’t need our “presence” in the Middle East to want to attack the west. You just keep all of your theories in mind the next time the muslims that the Dhimmified British government tends to appease all the time, blows up more people in London.

      People on benefits cannot live comfortable. I said it in the last post, maybe you missed it what with your blinkered warblings.

      If it’s so uncomfortable, they need to use some of those other government programs, like the Pell Grant, get a better education, and get off of welfare. They need to teach their children that making a living off of public assistance isn’t a very productive life. They need to stop having kids they can’t afford. But, now that Obama’s in office, there’s even more of an entitlement attitude. You missed that, too.

      Only someone with no knowledge of the UN would call it anti-democratic. Just look at what it does.

      Like parrot the one-world order party line. The U.N. outlived whatever usefulness it had a long time ago. It’s nothing more than a platform for radical stupidity. Case in point: The climate change racket. But, that’s for another thread.

      Actually, with academia encompassing pretty much all aspects of human life, and removed from any decision making biases, it is better than the armed forces to assessing how power really works.

      You’ve never made an unbiased, realistic, assessment in your life. All of your moonbat theories and comments prove that. I’ve actually seen the results of power and diplomacy; strategically and tactically. You’ve never been out of a fucking classroom. I’m real impressed with your academic “experience”. Now, go out into some of the places I’ve been and see how well your education works in those environments. Good luck with that.

      Explain to me, theoretically, how communism leads to ‘brutality, genocide and damage’? In practice it is a failed economic system, there is no two ways about it, but theoretically communism does not lead to harming its citizens.

      Theoretically?? If only the genocide of 100,000,000 people world wide, and the subjugation of people in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba, were as theoretical as your lame-brained statement. Yeah, communism is real pretty. On paper.

      It seems unbelievable to me that you are unaware of what morality is. To deny someone the means of extending their life is immoral, especially if it is just money that stands in the way. Money is the root of evil.

      To deny people the right to earn money and keep most of what they earn is immoral. To relegate everyone to a system that oppresses creativity, wealth, and self-improvement, is immoral. To force everyone into a sub-standard government-run health care system with rationed care, long waiting periods for treatment, and penalties for those who don’t want the socialist trainwreck, is immoral. For someone who spouts about morality, you sure don’t have a clue as to what it is.

      But of course Glenn Beck doesn’t want you to think that. No. You must march to the tune the Pied Piper wants.

      Glenn Beck again. I think you’re in love.

      SFC MAC

  5. Subtlety is one thing you and your fellow band of paranoid nutjobs sincerely lack. Wanting to give a base level of living to every American is not Communism. Communism is the taking over of the entire economic system. Every company, every business would be government run. Agree so far? Obama doesn’t want to do that. He is merely creating a safety net so that the poorest CAN LIVE!
    Using your “communist/socialist” argument. Let’s flip-reverse that: you’re right-wing, therefore you must be a fascist Nazi. You killed millions of Jews. Doesn’t work does it? No. So learn the boundaries of your argument. This is what I was stating a few posts back about the hyperbolic nature of you and all your like-minded followers. It is exaggerated to the extreme, and all the reasoning behind it is: “but it is”. Equivalent reasoning can be found in a 5 year old child.

    The more you talk the more you sound like Glenn Beck (which is a bad thing by the way): social justice isn’t a bad thing. You could argue that the Teabaggers (I’ll keep using it as it’s funny) were arguing for social justice too. Now it doesn’t seem like a bad thing.

    This is where we fundamentally disagree. You see taxes as hideously bad; the government as hell-bent on destroying America (unless it’s a Republican one); helping the poor as possibly the worst thing ever and will no doubt lead to thousands of Americans ending up in Gulags. You have to have some basic understanding of the electoral system. No DEMOCRAT will do anything that will remove the democracy from America as it will harm their chances of being re-elected. You won’t be shimmying up alongside Kim Jong Il any time soon.
    The mainstream Republican thought processes have gone so far to the extreme, thereby taking many unthinking people with it too. Fox News and the GOP have manipulated citizens into thinking the worst of people. For shame.

    The bank bailout. I stand with you on that. Obama would stand with you on that. Because of your beloved, de-regulated financial system that the banks could get so large that if they were to fail, they would bring down the whole system. No matter who was in charge, unless they had a death wish, it was an imperative action. So that was a nice try with the nationalising, but look for the cause first.
    Robert McChesney argues that due to the vastly under-regulated communications industry, the public debate is near absent on the main channels, as people would prefer to be entertained than watch a programme revolving around politics. Because of this it is impinging on your democratic system. How can the average voter expect to be informed enough to cast an educated ballot? This goes right to the centre of media/political communication. It is pretty axiomatic. How would you rectify the situation?
    You’ve reciprocated with exaggeration. Try one more time.
    “the government deems the treatment too expensive”. How is that any different to the insurance companies?
    ““Selfish”… A middle class person wanting to keep the money I’ve earned” – dictionary definition of selfish. I couldn’t have asked for a better definition in a million years. Again you are taking the argument to the extreme. No one is going to take all your money. You can hang onto it, fret not. But can’t you see how paying taxes to an accountable body (the govt) is much better than paying the same money to a profiteering business, who by their very nature do not want to pay out on claims.
    I agree with the fact that everyone needs incentive to reward them for working hard, and for working hard in the first place. But what happens if your rewards aren’t as great as others.
    Hypothetical time: imagine that you are close to poverty, not close enough to qualify for Medicaid, but near enough that things are not comfortable. You contract a disease. What would you say to people who are denying you the very means to rid yourself of the affliction? You seem fundamentally unable to see past your own situation, and think about how this Act could positively impact on others.
    As I said previously, the injection of privatised elements into the NHS, and the development of them into local Trusts have meant the quality can vary. And again, ask any British citizen and they would rather have the free-at –the-point healthcare than the failed model you are so vigorously expounding.
    Now, now. It wasn’t just “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was it? No it is LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With the income between US citizens fluctuating wildly, how can the US Govt provide “the pursuit of happiness” without getting involved somehow? Namely, they can’t. There has to be a firm foundation for which people can build their lives from, not let them free fall.
    Grassroots doesn’t equal right! If you look at where they’re getting the information it will be: Fox, Glenn Beck, or Rush. Each one more delusional than the next.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp1xet7pJwI
    How is it akin to the Soviet Union? To say that the Dems don’t support the Bill of Rights or Constitution is completely disingenuous. It is one feature of protests that people pick an outside object to give their argument perceived credibility, so the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is just your particular weapon of choice. Its the unifying banner under which you can all march, which doesn’t mean you’re any more patriotic. It just means you’ve interpreted it differently.
    Much like anyone who spoke out against the Bush administration were terrorists? Bush has met lots of people from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden comes from there. Ergo by your argument: BUSH IS A TERRORIST!
    How can you see if they are who you think they are unless you give them a fair trial rather than assuming they are guilty. What about the detainees who have been returned back home, after being found not-guilty? Enemy combatants I think not.
    “Praising the Islamic enemy responsible for countless atrocities including 9/11, was “speaking truth to power”” – come on. I’ve heard better shit come out of Sarah Palin.
    So Bush standing in front of “Mission Accomplished” sign wasn’t an idiotically foolish idea, when after than countless more Allied soldiers died in combat? Again you’re making aspersions and not backing it up with evidence.
    Actually most of the people the forces are fighting want the troops out of the country. I don’t really think that the Nobel Committee can be called “eurotrash”. There’s nothing like fighting ignorance with ignorance. What about all the innocent people, caught in a repressive regime, would they be sentenced to death because a handful of people perpetrated an atrocity?
    Was that a critique of Bush? The justification for the Iraq War was loose, and has changed numerous times ever since. It was a mistake to go in, but I think it’s much better now that Saddam has been deposed.
    You’re viewing the War on Terrorism as having a particular state attached to it, this is incorrect in the current incarnation of terrorism with (as I’m sure you’re aware) non-state actors taking a leading role.
    Or there are people who have been born into money….As for working harder, try saying that to a single mum having to work two jobs trying to make ends meet. There is no corollary between working hard and being rich. Life isn’t equal, it never was, and it never will be. But the least we can do is to even it out the best we can. People with money need to realise their place in society, they aren’t completely separate from one and all, they have a role to play and pity those who don’t.
    THE TOP 1%. Mercy me, what will the other 99% think about it. Have you thought your argument through; if 1% of people have to give 40% of their earnings over a certain amount, to the tax man that still leaves them with over 60%. Now that might seem harsh to a person earning $10,000, but to someone raking in $10 million, it’s a different matter.
    “What makes you think the massive influx of new dependents won’t cause that to happen?” because the state benefits will not be enough for people to live off comfortably. You have a narrow view of human nature that anyone but you is a work-shy sponger, out to take money off you. They’re not. Some are, yeah. But most people have some kind of motivation.
    The UN is a forum for collective decision making. You’re that with the EU. Is anyone that doesn’t agree with you and your narrow minded friends, a communist? It really just shows you to be a bunch of ill-educated know-nothings.
    “Take that “Declaration of Human Rights” and shove it” – I’m sure the UN will thank for you that.
    There is no abuse. You’re just bitter you didn’t win.
    “Not to mention battlefield experience. I traveled? I was boots on the ground, up close and personal, with the people and places to which I was assigned and deployed” That hasn’t given you an analytical mind, just a didactic learning framework inside the military complex. It doesn’t mean you’ve understood things more, you’ve just been American in more places.
    A Politics degree teaches you to be analytical. To not take for granted any piece of information, and to question the sources and the motivation behind each actor, so yeah its a pretty real qualification to talk about politics.
    Oh Boo Hoo. You dislike “Euros”. You give American’s a bad name. The sheer arrogance you portray in thinking that America should be the global policemen, and that because you shout louder with bigger conspiracies, you automatically win. Why do you hate Euros? I mean, most of Americans descend from us.
    You know nothing of a totalitarian system. Why is it impossible for you to emit a sentence without it being blown out of all reasonable proportion?
    And to say it has nothing to do with morals? Blimey…. Would you say to a person with a curable disease, who doesn’t have the money to get treatment “I’m sorry, I’m not going to give you a tiny fraction of my money as I want to horde it”. You’re missing the point completely when you’re saying it has nothing to do with morality. Yet that doesn’t surprise me.

    1. flamjew,

      Wanting to give a base level….

      The way to maintain a decent standard of living is through economic free enterprise, not the socialist takeover of private enterprise. Economies thrive much better when people have the opportunity to excel and invest their own money, efforts, and ideas into business without oppressive government stupidity.
      I know what I’m talking about. Case in point: My hometown is 30 miles west of Cleveland. The entire North East Ohio area has been in a Democratic economically-depressed stranglehold for decades.
      READ my post on this: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/life-in-a-democratic-stronghold/
      Corporations and even small businesses have moved to other states so they can flourish in business-friendly environment. Companies provide employment and raise the standard of living in communities. That’s something the Dems can’t wrap their minds around without destroying the economy or their neighborhoods. Socialism is diametrically opposed to economic productivity and competition.
      FYI: Real charity comes from the heart, not at the barrel of a socialist gun.
      The Left always knows how everyone else’s money should be spent.

      “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
      —Winston Churchill

      We take care of our needy. Why in the hell do you think we have welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid? All three are broke by the way, thanks to government pilfering from those benefits to spend on other wasteful projects. More of that will happen thanks to Obama. The ObamaCare bill will cull billions from Medicare to shove into feckless spending.

      On a side note: Our generosity extends well into foreign aid. This country is the most philanthropic entity on the planet. We bailed out Mexico to the tune of 50 billion dollars, only to see the customary refusal of a third world cesspool to modernize. We spend billions on taxpayer funded relief efforts in Haiti, Africa, Indonesia and Asia. We’ve been throwing money at “developing countries” for decades without proper accountability and they’ve yet to develop into civilized nations.
      Impoverished societies are a breeding ground for terrorists and other extremists because of several factors, not the least of which is the unwillingness to affect change. No birth control, no disease control, no personal responsibility, no infrastructure, but there’s plenty of despots and pigs at the trough.

      Using your “communist/socialist” argument. Let’s flip-reverse that: you’re right-wing, therefore you must be a fascist Nazi. You killed millions of Jews. Doesn’t work does it? No. So learn the boundaries of your argument….

      First of all the Nazis were SOCIALIST. Secondly, “social justice” in the mind of a nilihist always involves a complete destruction of free market enterprise and individual freedoms. An American five year old can put the “boundaries” of your arguments to shame.
      The more you vent, the more you resemble:

      There is no real answer but to remove, brick by brick, the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.
      —Robert McChesney

      “We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America.
      ……I am opposed to the system we traditionally call imperialism and the idea that some people have rights and privileges that are not granted to all human beings. And the solution to that problem is called communism and socialism and we should put it in our mouths. We should say it when we say what is your politics? I am a socialist. I demand that we have health care for people and it’s not a demand that’s negotiable with health insurance companies.
      We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.”
      —Communist Jed Brandt at the Brecht Forum in New York, 16 September 2009.

      You and you ilk in Britain have a lot in common with idiots like them. That’s the same type of nihilist shit that abounds in Obama’s inner circle of friends and appointees. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Valerie Jarrett, Andy Stern, Mark Lloyd, Anita Dunn, and Robert Creamer, the convicted felon/architect of ObamaCare.
      Creamer’s intentions had nothing to do with increasing access to health care, lowering its cost or increasing its quality. As he stated in his book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, health care was to be the first in a set of steps aimed at a radical redistribution of wealth and a massive increase in government control.
      Every one of them would have been well-suited for the Soviet Politburo. That’s exactly what you sound like.

      Glenn Beck reflects the feelings of the majority of American citizens. We want our government to
      respect and follow the Constitution, not the Communist Manifesto. There are millions of ordinary folks across this country who never thought about attending rallies or protests until we were faced with a malevolent government, hellbent on taking us to hell in a socialist handbasket. We won’t march to Obamessiah’s socialist drum, therefore, we must be “nutjobs”. Marginalization has already been tried by Obama and the rest of the Dems. It won’t work.
      If that’s a “bad thing”, it’s because it offends your socialist ideology. Too bad.

      This is where we fundamentally disagree. You see taxes as hideously bad; the government as hell-bent on destroying America (unless it’s a Republican one); helping the poor as possibly the worst thing ever and will no doubt lead to thousands of Americans ending up in Gulags.

      I made these comments to a poster on another thread:
      Basic economic facts: You cannot spend your way out of a deficit.
      We already pay high taxes on everything. Property tax, income tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, gas tax, car tax, “sin tax”, license tax, state tax, city tax, taxes on utilities….I can hardly wait until the IRS shows up at funerals to see what else it can get…oh wait, it already does; in the form of more state, local, and sales taxes. Increased taxes are NOT the answer. The government can save money by cutting spending, and in addition to the many taxes they already collect, both can be used to decrease the debt. Tax reform in the application of a Fair Tax initiative, would be great, across the board.
      You’re trying to justify tax increases to cover spending that will never abate. Let’s cut spending first. The money saved can go into decreasing the debt. If we keep doing that, there won’t be a deficit.

      There’s a connection between lower taxes and increased job growth. Business owners create employment. The more tax penalties you shove onto businesses, the less they will hire. Our unemployment rate is approaching 15%. You’d think the government would have figured this out by now. Keep in mind that 40% of Americans do not pay taxes. 60% of Americans who are productive shoulder the $1+ trillion burden. Something’s gotta give, and it ain’t gonna be the taxpayers anymore. They’re fed up. The taxpayer base is shrinking. What will they do when they run out of people to gouge?

      You have to have some basic understanding of the electoral system. No DEMOCRAT will do anything that will remove the democracy from America as it will harm their chances of being re-elected. You won’t be shimmying up alongside Kim Jong Il any time soon.
      The mainstream Republican thought processes have gone so far to the extreme, thereby taking many unthinking people with it too. Fox News and the GOP have manipulated citizens into thinking the worst of people. For shame.

      As an American who has voted all of her life, and studied and commented on our political system, I know far more about our electoral system than a snooty little limey effete. Trust me.
      The mainstream Republican thought process coincides with Middle America. That’s what scares the leftwing-dominated MSM and the radical Dems. Why in the hell do you think Republican leaders started speaking out in earnest, against the Obama trainwreck? It’s because of citizens like me who read the legislation, witnessed the hubris of the ruling Dem Congress and Senate, and stood up to object. They tried circumventing the Constitution (again) by “deeming” the bill passed without a vote. They continue to ignore the Constitution with their actions. Taxation without representation and forcing the entire country onto shoddy government-controlled socialist health care, are not the kind of principles on which this country was founded. It’s you that haven’t given much thought to this whole disaster.

      For one thing, Americans are angry at the tyrannical way this bill was rammed through the legislature without the consent of the American people. Sound familar? I’ll give you a hint: “When in the course of human events…”
      Also, if you can’t argue your point without resorting to leftwing hyperbole of “racist” and teabagger”, then the douchebag adjective I use to describe you and your comrades, certainly fits.
      As patriots, we are very direct, outspoken, and insistent that our legislators honor and defend the Constitution they were sworn to protect. Last I checked, we still have free speech rights, until Obama suspends and/or passes legislation to do away with them. Given his tactics, that’s not a stretch of the imagination. Since Obama took office, he and the Dem supermajority have trampled all over the Constitution. Look, if your not going to take the time to read and understand it, then don’t bother trying to debate the concepts therein. You look stupid.

      Any attempt to approach Dem politicians is rebuffed with dismissive arrogance and threats. At town hall meetings, the electorate questioned the motives and methods of inflicting destructive socialist policies on this country. In turn, they were cussed at, told to “shut up and sit down”, harassed by SEIU thugs, and called “extremists”, red necks”, and a variety of other vulgarities.
      Speaking of “not very subtle”, take a gander at the paranoid leftwingnut wack jobs (supporters of the socialist health care wreck) who have lobbed bullets though office buildings and made threats, both email and phone calls, to Republican lawmakers.
      http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/25/republicans-target-of-threats-and-violence-from-health-care-debate/

      Dem politicians and their supporters have threatened, assaulted, marginalized, sworn at, and name-called constituents who oppose ObamaCare, and the way B. Hussein mangles national security and foreign policy:
      http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/20/democrat-compares-health-care
      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70917-gop-senators-rebuke-reids-slavery-remarks
      http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/dem-congressman-its-unamerican-to-oppose-us-terror-trials.php
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/the-new-democrats-the-party-of-hate/
      Yeah, real subtle.
      More “subtlety” from the Left:

      http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/sarah-palin-effigy-hanged-from-house-20081028-5a2r.html
      http://patdollard.com/2008/07/iraq-war-protestor-spits-on-iraq-war-vet-and-more/
      http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/mccainsupporterclearsair
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/seiu-thugs-charged-in-gladney-assault/

      There are things in that bill that have nothing to do with health care—reform or otherwise—the takeover of student loans, federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders, culling revenue from Medicare, the egregious expansion of the IRS into a health care enforcement agency for those who don’t pay up. This monstrosity will also add billions to the deficit and debt. That is a power grab, not democracy.
      62% of Americans want the Republicans to continue fighting this bill. We want it repealed and replaced with a more sensible, less restrictive program.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html

      If ObamaCare is so god damned wonderful, why are senior officials scrambling to get out from under its influence?
      http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/
      The Democrats don’t even care what’s in this train wreck, they just want to pass it as another step toward government-controlled health care; a system to which they will never subject themselves. You can bet your ass members of Senate and Congress will never tolerate the lengthy wait and deteriorated state of medical care they want to inflict on their constituents.

      Much like the socialist/communist regimes throughout history. ‘Do as we say not as we do’. If you think Obama and Pelosi will be on a six-month waiting list for treatment like the rest of us, I have ocean front property in Arizona for sale….cheap. It’s right next to the London Bridge.

      Castro is a big fan of ObamaCare. The Cuban population has their own input on Castro’s health care…but it’s not a good thing to say it out loud.
      http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ELOMH80&show_article=

      Thanks to Obama’s stupidity, the economy is sinking further with no end in sight:

      Social Security payouts will now exceed what it takes in.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

      Joblessness has hit 15% and the 2011 economic forecast isn’t pretty.
      http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/29/troubling-democratic-tremors/

      The bank bailout. I stand with you on that. Obama would stand with you on that. Because of your beloved, de-regulated financial system that the banks could get so large that if they were to fail, they would bring down the whole system. No matter who was in charge, unless they had a death wish, it was an imperative action. So that was a nice try with the nationalising, but look for the cause first.

      Like the rest of your “facts”, the above statement is an epic fail.
      The cause? Look no further than the Democratic Party. It was part and parcel to the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae/TARP debacle that kicked off the government-dictated subprime lending rates, and subsequent market collapse. They refused to reign in the out of control programs, and as a result, failed banks across the United States were seized by the FDIC. In 2004, Dem leaders Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Christopher Dodd, repulsed efforts by the Republicans to monitor and prevent the impending collapse. Obama doesn’t stand for anything except more of the same.

      Robert McChesney argues that due to the vastly under-regulated communications industry, the public debate is near absent on the main channels, as people would prefer to be entertained than watch a programme revolving around politics. Because of this it is impinging on your democratic system. How can the average voter expect to be informed enough to cast an educated ballot? This goes right to the centre of media/political communication. It is pretty axiomatic. How would you rectify the situation?

      The type of “regulation” McChesney wants is to stifle anything that dissects and criticizes socialism; a real impinging on our democratic system.
      All one has to do to be informed is check out CSPAN for broadcasts of legislative procedures and debates, go to websites that breakdown where candidates stand on the issues, read, listen, research. Hell, if they had done that instead of swallowing the ABC-CBS-PBS-NBC-MSNBC Obama pablum, he would have never made it to the primaries.

      How is that any different to the insurance companies?

      One more time: Government control and elimination of choice is not the answer. I can always switch insurance companies and doctors if I don’t like the service. Under ObamaCare that won’t be possible. It’s a power grab and it will take freedoms from citizens to make their own choices. Insurance premiums will increase. Quality of care will decline. You will be forced to pay for the care of someone other than yourself, even if you are single with no dependents. Small business will suffer. The population will be subjected to draconian regulations.

      Those are facts. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

      And this comes straight out of the mouth of Karl Marx:

      …..A middle class person wanting to keep the money I’ve earned” – dictionary definition of selfish. I couldn’t have asked for a better definition in a million years. Again you are taking the argument to the extreme. No one is going to take all your money. You can hang onto it, fret not. But can’t you see how paying taxes to an accountable body (the govt) is much better than paying the same money to a profiteering business, who by their very nature do not want to pay out on claims.
      I agree with the fact that everyone needs incentive to reward them for working hard, and for working hard in the first place. But what happens if your rewards aren’t as great as others.

      Yeah, let’s place so much government regulation and socialist laws on eeeeevil businesses so they can no longer profit, hire people, or contribute to a healthy economy. Damn those profiteering businesses. How dare they make money? Why, that’s not “social justice”, that’s a “human rights” violation! How dare those evil hard working capitalists exist, especially when the welfare class doesn’t ‘get the same rewards’.
      When the obsessed get their panties in a wad, they demonize industry.
      You are the quintessential communist. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. Thank you Karl, I couldn’t have given a better example of communist orthodoxy.

      You communist dead heads can’t get it through your thick skulls that the world doesn’t owe you money, or a living. You have to earn that yourself.

      For your information: The average industry profit margin is under 4%:

      According to the most recent Fortune 500 rankings, health insurers are not even among the top-30 United States industries in profit-margin. Health insurers rank 35th, with a profit-margin of just 2.2 percent — less than one-fifth the profit-margin of railroads. None of the ten largest American health insurers made profits of more than 4.5 percent, and two of them lost money. Health insurers’ collective profit-margin is less than one-eighth that of drug companies and less than one-seventh that of companies that sell medical products or equipment. It’s also less than that of medical facilities. Yet when was the last time you heard President Obama rail against greedy hospitals?
      The combined profits of America’s ten largest health insurers are $8.3 billion. That’s less than two-thirds of the profits of Wal-Mart alone, less than half of the profits of General Electric alone, and less than one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud. Health insurers collectively have one-eighth the profit-margin of McDonald’s or Coke, one-ninth that of eBay, and one-fifteenth that of Merck.
      In all, the combined profits of the 14 largest American health insurers (the ones who crack the Fortune 1000) are $8.7 billion. That’s less than 0.4 percent, or 1/250th, of overall U.S. health-care costs, which are $2.5 trillion.
      Anyone but an ideologue could plainly see that insurance profits aren’t the problem. The problem is having a health-care system with too many middlemen (government or otherwise); too little competition and choice; and too little opportunity for Americans to control their own health-care dollars, shop for value, or even see prices.
      http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njk4NmQ3YmI1N2QzMWFjMzFiY2ZlMmVjNGUxZTNiMGM=

      “Repeal and replace” is coming. You can count on it.

      With the income between US citizens fluctuating wildly, how can the US Govt provide “the pursuit of happiness” without getting involved somehow?

      Income fluctuates due to the individual skills, education, and motivation of each citizen. I know this may be a difficult concept for a British Royal subject to grasp, but good gawd, I don’t know how much simpler I can make this for you. It is NOT the federal government’s responsibility to provide “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It’s the role of the federal government to protect the citizens inalienable rights to pursue liberty and happiness. The people accomplish that though opportunity and hard work, not through government dictation. Got it?
      Newflash, sweetpea: Life isn’t fair. To penalize those who excel is indicative of a mediocre person obsessed with keeping others down to their level. I don’t envy the rich or pity the poor. You talk about “human rights”, yet you think the abolition of the basic right to work and keep most of what you earn is “selfish”. You’re an ass.

      Much like anyone who spoke out against the Bush administration were terrorists? Bush has met lots of people from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden comes from there. Ergo by your argument: BUSH IS A TERRORIST!

      Hell, it’s not like the anti-Bush/anti-military/anti-war crowd didn’t make their feelings known:
      http://www.laweekly.com/2002-11-07/news/behind-the-placards
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/anti-war-talent/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-marching-morons/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/pro-terrorist-moonbats-on-parade/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/anti-war-idiot-spits-on-iraq-war-vet/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/note-to-frank-rich-heres-your-violent-escalation/
      Kucinich, Pelosi, McDermott, all made their trips to Iraq to show support for Saddam Hussein.
      Ergo, it’s pretty clear whose side they were on. And they’re proud of it.

      How can you see if they are who you think they are unless you give them a fair trial rather than assuming they are guilty. What about the detainees who have been returned back home, after being found not-guilty? Enemy combatants I think not.
      “Praising the Islamic enemy responsible for countless atrocities including 9/11, was “speaking truth to power”” – come on. I’ve heard better shit come out of Sarah Palin.
      So Bush standing in front of “Mission Accomplished” sign wasn’t an idiotically foolish idea, when after than countless more Allied soldiers died in combat? Again you’re making aspersions and not backing it up with evidence.

      Let’s see…they were captured on the battlefield during firefights, and as part of counter-terrorism ops in Al Qaeda and Taliban safehavens. But nah, they’re “innocent” until proven guity. Like Khalid Sheik Mohammad.
      Uh huh.
      By the way, the “Mission Accomplished” sign that you moonbats love to jump on, was acknowlegment of a successful Navy mission—it was the end of their tour of duty. The success in Iraq is not an “asperation”, it’s a fact.

      Actually most of the people the forces are fighting want the troops out of the country. I don’t really think that the Nobel Committee can be called “eurotrash”….

      Considering the recent collection of Nobel recipients, including moonbats Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and Obama..EuroTrash fits.
      Germans, Italians, and Japanese were caught in repressive regimes. Do you give a fuck about what we had to do to places like Dresden, Hiroshima, and Salerno? Do you care that at least 2 million people in Germany, and 70,000 in Italy were killed? I sure as hell don’t.
      Islamic nation states—all across the Middle East—nurture, train, breed, fund, and indoctrinate jihadists to kill the infidel and commit atrocities for their religious ideology. You Leftards have less of a problem with Islamic terrorism than what it takes to stop them.
      Want a critique of your ignorance? The “Bush lied” mantra is hackneyed and patently false.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/

      What makes you think the massive influx of new dependents won’t cause that to happen?” because the state benefits will not be enough for people to live off comfortably.

      Yeah, gouge the working people and those eeeeeevil capitalist filthy rich so that the welfare class, which will burgeon to fanstatic proportions under the new socialism, can live comfortably. I have a very narrow view of an entitlement culture. The self-appointed “I’m entitled” crowd wants what the evil rich folks have, even though they didn’t earn it. The wealth envy of lazy, unmotivated, able bodied moochers is
      astounding. Every developed country has them. It’s the perpetual welfare class that doesn’t work because they don’t have to. They know how to manipulate the system and they pass it to their children like a fucking family heirloom.

      The UN is a forum for collective decision making….

      Whose decision making? It’s a platform for anti-democracy activists with a visceral hatred of the United States. I’d love to see it kicked out of the country.

      A Politics degree teaches you to be analytical. To not take for granted any piece of information, and to question the sources and the motivation behind each actor, so yeah its a pretty real qualification to talk about politics.

      My analysis came not just from the training I received, but actual contact and experience.
      Your “qualifications” are based solely on classroom instruction; which is only a small part of understanding how geo-political influences function in the world outside your academic bubble.

      You dislike “Euros”. You give American’s a bad name. The sheer arrogance you portray in thinking that America should be the global policemen, and that because you shout louder with bigger conspiracies, you automatically win. Why do you hate Euros? I mean, most of Americans descend from us.

      Global policemen? Oh, fucking please. I’m all for isolationism. We should stop giving aid and support to countries who expect us to do the heavy lifting when it comes to being a world cop, while jeering from the sidelines. On the other hand, if you attack us, we annihilate you, your country, your supporters and your allies. How’s that? Maybe then we could watch as you Euros pick up the slack because you have so much moral superiority. I can hardly wait. When we gained independence, we cut ties with the British idea of Monarchy and transformed into a Democratic Republic. We’re proud of our ancestry, but modern Europe, not so much.

      You know nothing of a totalitarian system. Why is it impossible for you to emit a sentence without it being blown out of all reasonable proportion?

      The Soviet Union, Vietnam, and China aren’t good examples of totalitarianism? Scuse me, but I must have blown the brutality, genocide, and damage caused by communsim all out of “reasonable proportion”. Tsk. Tsk.

      And to say it has nothing to do with morals?

      Yeah, inflicting socialism where there was once freedom is so moral. Creating a country of government dependents where no one can grow—economically and personally—beyond what the government stipulates, is so moral.
      Keith Olbermann called. He wants his talking points back.
      SFC MAC

  6. Marxist? Obviously your Republican nature has never let you pick up a book by Marx, as you’d know that Obama and Marx are coming from two different standpoints. Obama is still wholly neo-liberalist for starters. Linking to articles where either you or other people say that he is Marxist or keeps fellow Reds as company is not proof. And one of those, Robert McChesney is a fantastically well-regarded Media scholar, so maybe you have a problem with the whole academic system too?

    And again you miss the point. I’ll break it down simply: 1) Joe contracts a disease 2)He goes into the hospital 3)They treat him. Outside of this, Joe pays taxes; it may not be as much as some or as little as others but he pays. Fin.

    In the US there are 2 scenarios: 1)Joe contracts an illness 2) is Joe rich? Yes 3)Treats him, he’s fine.
    BUT 2a) Is Joe rich? No 4)Joe can’t afford to get treated. Joe dies. How can you live with yourself knowing that your corrupt system either bankrupts (half of all foreclosures are due to healthcare costs) or kills your fellow citizens each day?
    Surely the only people coming into the system are those not on Medicaid as they are deemed to have too much money, most probably because they are working, thus are paying taxes.
    Exorbitant taxes? Nah mate, not here. They might be to you, but that’s because you and your ilk are selfish. In the Scandinavian countries their taxes are much higher than the UK but they have a much fairer system. Alas fairness and the US do not seem to be true together.
    As for unearned entitlement, you do confuse that with basic human right. The two often are easily confused.

    You cannot stand in the middle of an inefficient system (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8160058.stm) and preach that the UK health system is failing? Ask any of the main party leaders in the UK and they will defend to the death the NHS. Healthcare is not something you can or cannot afford, like a new TV or a new dishwasher; it forms the bedrock of the government’s responsibility to us. People who are afraid of socialism need to grow a pair and get out of the Cold War era mentality. Just by giving US citizen’s protection in affording treatment isn’t going to lead to Cossacks sprouting in Missouri or the re-animation of Stalin’s corpse.

    Whilst I for one would have preferred to see Obama do more with his time in office, it is just the sense of re-invigoration that he brought to those who were previously under-represented. The Tea-Baggers are viewed from here as delusional nut jobs. Mainly because they are. They have listened to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and decided that the most irrational voices are the true ones. The sheer number of conspiracy theories that they both expound is phenomenal. The Tea-Baggers merely spout vitriol with no apparent reason. No one to this day has said why socialism is the evil they decry it to be, they assume it is axiomatic, this inadvertent truth to which we are all party to. Its really disheartening to see how manipulated a portion of the country actually are. For instance most of your assertions about Obama/against healthcare are either from questionable sources going so far into conspiracy theories you can see the Grassy Knoll, or are not making the same point as you (NHS for instance, those articles are not advocating the end to socialised medicine, just that tweaks have to be made).

    It’s the principle of the Patriot Act, the removal of the need to a fair trial, how habeas corpus can also be rescinded etc. As you seem to love the Constitution: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

    How about the lack of critique of the Bush administration and his policies: John Ashcroft the ex-Attorney general said that those who don’t support the Government Policies “aid terrorists”. For more read “Terrorism and the Politics of Fear” by David Altheide, or Brigitte Nacos “Mass-Mediated Terrorism”.

    This is a whole new area of wrongness. In theory, a free-market driven press is ideal, as it is receptive to the wants and desires of the citizens. But it is when the media industry has been concentrated to an extent where 4 or 5 companies own a large percentage of available outlets. This is a problem that transcends partisan politics, as both CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox are all caught within it. All the of the heads of these conglomerates (News Corp, Disney, GE, Tome Warner) all speak with similar voices, which stifles speech. As an advocate of free speech you should understand that how can people who stand outside the remit of the Big Five get heard? Surely that is the bigger free speech question that should be raised? Read Ben Bagikian’s book The Media Monopoly and you will be chilled.

    The paragraph about Iraq makes little sense: 1) if it was down to Military Command why include Pres Bush there in the first place 2) With there being only 1 President at any one time, it is not as if anyone else could have proved their effectiveness.

    Yeah nothing says failed foreign policy than international regard and recognition. Can’t you see that because you were in the army you have the military complex, therefore are hawkishly biased toward conflict? How would you prefer to deal with Iran, N Korea, China, Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time?

    The overburdened rich? Oh those poor little millionaires! I bet they are struggling to make ends meet, what with their expensive houses, brattish kids, multiple cards; I find it very hard to care about any qualms they might have. Other than spurious guesswork, what proof do you have on the claim that “an entire new class of welfare recipients”?

    Whilst the FairTax sounds fine and dandy, and fair for all, read this: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

    Blimey. The 50 year old monumental document which reaffirmed the basic rights to every man, woman and child in the world is passed off as a UN concoction. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    How can you think the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are future proof? THEY WERE WRITTEN OVER 200 YEARS AGO!! Back in their day slavery was still in operation; back in their day smallpox and cholera were still rampant; back in their day the NHS would not be created for about 175 years! Although most of the truths contained within the Constitution are self-evident, it cannot be taken as a predictor for the rest of time.

    Sorry I’ve just finished laughing after you called the American health system the best in the world: patients having their insurance taken away from them because they got sick. One woman who had already had her stomach taken out because of cancer only to find it had spread to her intestines was left high and dry because her illness was ‘chronic’. Chronic illness according to the company included: a medical condition which has at least one of the following characteristics: has no known cure; is likely to recur; requires palliative treatment; needs prolonged monitoring/ treatment; is permanent; requires specialist training/rehabilitation; is caused by changes to the body that cannot be reversed.

    How can you say you have the best medical system in the world when it is so grossly inefficient, when it is benefitting those in the insurance industry, when so many of your citizens are denied healthcare because they are sick? I’m sure it’s perfect for those times when you are well.

    Ah the US Military the home of the reasoned opinion……Though my previous point still stands. You have travelled but you haven’t understood anything other than your own opinion. Oh, and as a Politics Graduate I do kinda know what I’m talking about.

    Once again you’ve missed the moral argument. Again everything you’ve said is to do with economics. Again you seem unable to look past what you don’t like and see that it will have a huge positive benefits on the 32 million citizens who will gain healthcare insurance.

    Open your eyes and see that the world isn’t the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed.

    1. flamjew,

      Marxist?…

      I’ve read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Alinky’s Rules for radicals.
      Obama is a Marxist. His background, philosophy, friends, associates, appointees, words, and deeds back that up. ACORN, William Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, The Annenberg project, The New Party, “social justice”, “spread the wealth”, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright….the list goes on. He’s appointed like-minded radicals with similar agendas to his cabinet and government departments. There’s a common denominator there. It’s not hard to find.
      Obamacare, the government seizure and nationalization of private industry, banks, and the auto industry…that is socialism, NOT free market enterprise. To ignore all that takes a pretty sophisticated set of cerebral blinders.
      The academic intelligentsia is rife with socialist radicals:

      Robert McChesney is the founder of the “media reform” organization Free Press, and a board member of Norman Solomon’s Institute for Public Accuracy. He is also a former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes.
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227

      Nice try.

      And again you miss the point. I’ll break it down simply:

      I’ll reciprocate with simplicity. Under ObamaCare: An American citizen gets sick. They have to go on a waiting list to see a doctor. Six months go by. They see the doctor and are diagnosed with cancer. Another six months before treatment. By that time the cancer has matastisized. Too late. The government deems the treatment too expensive. Hope they have their funeral expenses paid up. So long sucker. And golly, the best part is we get to pay for all this.

      Exorbitant taxes? Nah mate, not here. They might be to you, but that’s because you and your ilk are selfish.

      “Selfish”… A middle class person wanting to keep the money I’ve earned. Opposition to socialist ObamaCare. Against footing the bill for a new class of dependents. Wanting to keep the healthcare plan I earned and paid for. That’s what you effetes call “selfish”. You just keep digging into your pockets; millions of freeloaders depend on you.
      Health care is not a basic human right. Unless you’re incapacitated, it’s earned. Big difference between rights and entitlements.

      You cannot stand in the middle of an inefficient system…

      The main party members??? How about the rank and file:
      http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/
      http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/20/how%e2%80%99s-that-government-run-health-care-working-out-britain/
      http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/24/what-obamacare-and-the-nhs-have-in-common/

      The government’s responsibility??? The (U.S.) government’s role is to protect and defend our inalienable rights (liberty, pursuit of happiness), not to implement a cradle-to-grave Nanny State.
      The Constitution LIMITS the power of federal government, and makes it quite clear the governed (the individual states) grant the power to the federal government, NOT the other way around. READ the Constitution. The more you spout, the more foolish you look.

      People who are afraid of socialism need to grow a pair and get out of the Cold War era mentality…..

      People who kowtow to socialism don’t have a pair to begin with. The practitioners of communist/socialist ideology only killed about 100,000,000 people and destroyed the economies, productivity, and spirit of entire nations; let’s give it another chance.

      The Tea-Baggers are viewed from here as delusional nut jobs. Mainly because they are….

      Douchebags usually resort to the “tea bag” epithet when all else fails.
      Take a good look at the Tea Party. It’s a grassroots cross section of America. Construction workers, office workers, house wives, factory workers, hispanics, blacks, whites, young, and old.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/tea-party-tax-protests-held-nationwide/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/patriotism-dissent-and-the-democrats/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/dallas-based-tea-party-invites-olbermann-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
      The animosity being leveled at Americans who support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Tea Party supporters protest Obama’s malicious socialist agenda, and for that we are marginalized by a hostile leftwing media prompted by White House myrmidons.
      We vehemently object to the government bailing out and taking over businesses, and flushing ’stimulus’ money down a toilet of payoffs, special interests, and phantom congressional districts. In order to do all that, they looted the treasury. We speak out against the Dems’ attempt at absorbing control of our health care, and in return we are called ”white supremacists”, “racist”, “evil”, “hate mongers” and unbelievably, “terrorists“. That last one is incredibly stupid, given the fact that Obama hopped in the political sack with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, a long time ago. Considering their chickenshit approach to “man-caused disasters” and reluctance to decisively finish the mission of kicking Islamofascist ass, they wouldn’t know a real terrorist if Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab planted a bomb in their crotch. (http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/patriotism-dissent-and-the-democrats/)

      Looks like some of your own comrades are not pleased with your wonderful NHS:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/brits-hold-their-own-tea-party/

      It’s the principle of the Patriot Act, the removal of the need to a fair trial, how habeas corpus can also be rescinded etc….

      You have the same problem as Obama’s regime; the fatuous inability to tell the difference between a civilian criminal and a wartime enemy combatant. No where in the Constitution does it mention rights for enemy combatants, habeas corpus or other wise. We are at war and Islamic terrorists are enemy combatants. They belong in front of a military tribunal, not a civilian court of law.

      How about the lack of critique of the Bush administration and his policies: John Ashcroft the ex-Attorney general said that those who don’t support the Government Policies “aid terrorists”. For more read “Terrorism and the Politics of Fear” by David Altheide, or Brigitte Nacos “Mass-Mediated Terrorism”.

      No critique of Bush?? You’re kidding. For eight years during the George W. Bush administration, there was no shortage of anti-war, anti-military, pro-Islamic terrorist demonstrations from A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, and a plethora of other moonbat groups. ‘Dissent’ they insisted, ‘is patriotic’. The mainstream media joined in with, and sometimes directed the chorus. Protesting against a President who had the guts to pick up the gauntlet thrown by muslim jihadists and shove it up their ass, was considered chic. Hoisting signs that declared “We support the troops when they shoot their officers” was all the rage. Praising the Islamic enemy responsible for countless atrocities including 9/11, was “speaking truth to power”.
      Now we get leftwingnuts in Obama’s Poltiburo who claim that “critics of Obama are aiding terrorists”.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/brennan-critics-serve-goals-of-al-qaeda/

      As an advocate of free speech you should understand that how can people who stand outside the remit of the Big Five get heard? Surely that is the bigger free speech question that should be raised? Read Ben Bagikian’s book The Media Monopoly and you will be chilled.

      Being heard….hmmmm. The bulk of the MSM was so far in the tank for Obama that they functioned as his PR staff. Fox News was the only stand out that gave opposition voices a forum.
      READ this:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/the-media-cavalcade-of-bias-hypocrisy-and-craptastic-stupidity/
      I get chilled every time I do.

      The paragraph about Iraq makes little sense: 1) if it was down to Military Command why include Pres Bush there in the first place 2) With there being only 1 President at any one time, it is not as if anyone else could have proved their effectiveness.

      That’s not the point. The military, under the auspices of the Bush administration, accomplished the heavy lifting necessary to make Iraq a success. The Commanders in question were tasked with the mission of invading, kicking out al Qaeda and the Taliban, and securing the theater of operations. They did that. Obama was left a winning hand on both fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan), and it’s now his turn to either fuck it up, or let the military finish the job. According to him “winning isn’t necessarily the goal” in Afghanistan. Like I said, he’s a total shit for brains as a “commander-in-chief”.

      Yeah nothing says failed foreign policy than international regard and recognition. Can’t you see that because you were in the army you have the military complex, therefore are hawkishly biased toward conflict? How would you prefer to deal with Iran, N Korea, China, Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time?

      “International regard”??? You mean the same Eurotrash who sit on the sidelines jeering while the United States commits forces and fights the Islamofascist enemy who wants to turn the world (including Britain) into a Caliphate? This is my approach: We should have neutron-bombed a good portion of the Middle East on 12 September, 2001. If Islamofascist swine want a jihad, then by god, let’s give ‘em one. I was deployed to Iraq twice, and I never agreed with this piecemeal war. When you fight back against an enemy that attacked you and took so many lives, you reciprocate swiftly and with as much brutality as it takes to defeat them. That means you annihilate them. We didn’t half-step in WWII, and we shouldn’t now. Iraq is done. We’re continuing the mission in Afghanistan. As for Iran, N Korea, China, and Russia, ‘apology tours’ do nothing to establish a tough diplomatic stance.

      The overburdened rich? Oh those poor little millionaires! I bet they are struggling to make ends meet, what with their expensive houses, brattish kids, multiple cards; I find it very hard to care about any qualms they might have.

      Wealth envy at its finest. There are people out there who have worked smarter, harder, and longer than you. In the process they became very successful. Some of them created businesses and employed thousands of people while they were at it. How dare these people work that hard and earn that much money? Don’t they realize they’re making you look bad? If the “evil rich” aren’t paying enough taxes, then just how is it that the Imperial Federal Government is collecting about 40% of all income taxes paid from the top 1% of income earners? When everyone is reduced to being poor because of the kind of communist “spread the wealth” crap you want, who will be left to fleece for more money?
      Jesuschristonacrutch. Put away your Che t-shirt and your “workers of the world unite” posters, and get a fucking clue.

      Other than spurious guesswork, what proof do you have on the claim that “an entire new class of welfare recipients”?

      What makes you think the massive influx of new dependents won’t cause that to happen?

      The 50 year old monumental document which reaffirmed the basic rights to every man, woman and child in the world is passed off as a UN concoction.

      Blimey. Our U.S. Constitution is 223 years old and is the law of our land. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it trumps anything the U.N. concocts. By the way, that U.N. “Declaration of Human Rights” is a pretty oppressive document.
      How does the UN feel about things such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, and that everyone has the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Sounds reasonable until you get to this part: Article 29 Section 3: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Really? Need a translation? This section says that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your freedom to “seek, receive and impart information” cannot be exercised if you would interfere with the “purposes and principles of the United Nations,” whatever those are. The U.N. also sets their own selective standards for “hate speech”, which they determined as “war crimes”. You liberals love the United Nations and think that we should turn over our sovereignty to this hostile anti-democratic entity. Good luck.
      We won’t let the nihilist mutherfuckers currently occupying the White House and the Democratic Party get away with the crap they’re pulling. What makes you think we respect the communists in the U.N?
      Take that “Declaration of Human Rights” and shove it.

      Although most of the truths contained within the Constitution are self-evident, it cannot be taken as a predictor for the rest of time.

      Which illiustrates why the Founding Fathers put that into writing, knowing that leaders and politicians had the potential to commit the abuse that is taking place right now.

      Sorry I’ve just finished laughing after you called the American health system the best in the world…

      You want “laughable”?? Check out the “glowing” reports of the British NHS (see the links above) of how patients are treated. That’s one sick joke.

      Ah the US Military the home of the reasoned opinion……Though my previous point still stands. You have travelled but you haven’t understood anything other than your own opinion. Oh, and as a Politics Graduate I do kinda know what I’m talking about.

      A politics graduate…so?? And that qualifies you as an expert simply because you disagree? I was in the intelligence field; counter-terrorism, battlefield doctrine, strategic doctrine, geo-political studies, country studies. Not to mention battlefield experience. I traveled? I was boots on the ground, up close and personal, with the people and places to which I was assigned and deployed.
      When you grow up, we’ll compare DD214s. Effetes like you make me dislike Euros even more than I already do.

      Once again you’ve missed the moral argument. Again everything you’ve said is to do with economics.

      Forceably taking money from people to finance a socialist totalitarian system has nothing to do with morals. You’ve lost that argument.
      Looks like even some of our own resident lefties have gotten a clue:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html
      Jane Hamsher is so left of center, she makes Vladimir Lenin look Republican. She went right down the line and busted the pre-conceived ideas of how ObamaCare is going to cure what ails the health care system. Gawd, I love it when moonbats have an epiphany.

      Open your eyes and see that the world isn’t the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed.

      The way Obama is going, we will end up resembling 18 Century serfs.

      SFC MAC

  7. Yawn. I bet you think Glenn Beck talks sense, rather than simply reiterating the myriad voices in his head.

    No. Healthcare is free at point of service. If I get a disease I don’t need to worry that I don’t have the money to pay for it. Can’t you see that that is the simple beauty of the system? I’m not sure of the precise figures, but surely the insurance premiums you have to pay equate to the tax that is paid here?

    Why do you assume that I am on welfare? By that same extension: do you live under a rock?

    What I hoped you’d say is that you’d read it with a slightly open mind, as in possibly thinking that it could be true. But alas such analytical reading seems beyond your remit.

    As for Bush. Seriously. Look outside America and you’ll see the level of mockery levelled at him. Look at any academic work and you will see criticism after criticism: the links to the defence industry, erosion of civil liberties, the monopolisation of the communications industry, the failed foreign policy, etc etc etc. Though wait a minute. A handful of people say that Obama is corrupt so you must be right…..sigh.

    But this forms the centre point of any argument towards public goods, that the small price you pay will benefit a greater number of people. With a progressive tax system it means those who can afford to pay more, do. Your assumption is that everyone is out to screw you and only you over. It’s time to wake up, and realise that they are trying to get on with their lives in the same way that you do. They might not be as rich, but that is not a failure on their part, it is just the nature of the beast. Instead of lording over them boaning the fact that you have to give up some of your money to possibly help them. And to a point I do agree with you, those lounging on benefits who a capable of work are sponging off the government, and they should be (possibly forcibly) coerced into work. But still that is no excuse to give up on the system.

    Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights. Surely there is a moral right. Thrughout your entire diatribe you have avoided that issue, instead you have tried to equate the economic argument to the moral one. Underpinning all the points you have made is the issue that you shouldn’t have to pay more, or the country can’t afford it. Can you separate yourself from money for a second and put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a minute, and see that there IS a human right for affordable healthcare for all.

    Leftard. Well done. Though Rightard works far better.

    It is almost as if you are imbuing the Democrats with having creating the national debt. As far as I’m aware, Messers Bush and Chaney ran up huge costs on a rather expensive war or two. Whilst I cannot argue that I am no economist, I am capable enough to realise that the very same CBO you pointed out also said that this healthcare package will lower the deficit.

    Socialised medicine DOES work. I’m living in the country where it is quite evident that it works. It is only the recent privatisation of the parts of the health system that have created disparities in the healthcare coverage. I’m not claiming that it is a perfect system. That is a fallacy. But compared to the US, it is pretty darn close. Not having the insurance industry acting as a gatekeeper to life and death removes an unnecessary pressure in people’s lives, a pressure that is immoral at the very least.

    Whilst on your simply wonderful travels (thanks for letting me know) obviously you never spoke to anyone who actually lives in the country. Travelling doesn’t equal an ethnographic study into the make up of that particular society, so please get some acadmeic funding and carry that one out and if it does support your hypothesis, I will obligingly eat my words.

    Limey snobbery? How about American arrogance? It’s OK to criticise some aspects of the make up of the US. God knows we criticse the shit of the UK.

    As for the self-interest. That makes no sense. Look up self-interest and get back to me. Though “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The insurance industry takes a huge dump on the first one, eh?

    1. flamjew,

      Yeah, you’ve got me yawning too. I’ve read every ObamaCare bill put forth by the Democrats.
      I’ve read about Obama’s Marxist philosophy, background, friends, mentors, and associates, and I’ve seen the consequences of his “wealth redistribution”, so I’m pretty knowledgeable even without the benefit of Glenn Beck. READ: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/obama-and-the-company-he-keeps/

      If I get a disease I don’t need to worry that I don’t have the money to pay for it. Can’t you see that that is the simple beauty of the system? I’m not sure of the precise figures, but surely the insurance premiums you have to pay equate to the tax that is paid here?

      Where do you think the money for your treatment comes from?? Does Britain simply print more currency? No. Your exhorbitant taxes take care of that. I guess if I were a freeloader, I’d love the “simple beauty” of that system, too. Under socialized medicine, our premiums and taxes will go up to cover the mass influx of new patients forced into it. Just. Beautiful.

      Your sense of unearned entitlement is on par with the welfare queens in the U.S.

      But alas such analytical reading seems beyond your remit.

      My analysis is based on exactly what the bill contains and what Obama said he intends to do. The Canadian and British government-allocated healthcare has proven to be an abject failure. The people are taxed to the extreme to pay for an overburdened healthcare system which struggles to maintain even a modicum of quality. Period. Cognitive reasoning with regard to cost, debt, deficit, and the inefficiency of government-run health care is not your forte.

      As for Bush. Seriously….

      Don’t make me laugh. Your Obamessiah is an abject failure. He makes Jimmy Carter look ‘presidential’ and up until now, no one believed that was possible.
      Looks like you Euros are becoming disenchanted with THE ONE:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/sarkozy-obamas-overrated/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/euros-love-affair-with-the-one-is-on-the-rocks/
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/04/europe-wakes-from-its-obama-dream/
      This one by British journalist Simon Heffers is particularly good:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/simon-heffers-thoughts-on-obamas-descent-and-fox-news-popularity/
      Millions of people across America are fed up with Obama, the Dems, and the in-your-face corruption. http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/tea-party-tax-protests-held-nationwide/
      That’s a hell of a lot more than a handful, sweetpea.

      Democrats have also been big beneficiaries of the defense industry.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030702216.html
      http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/1951
      http://www.truthnews.us/?p=359
      And your point is?

      Erosion of civil liberties: If you’re bitching about the Patriot Act, that was approved by the Supreme Court, and used successfully to target and capture Islamic terrorists on our soil. Like I told another leftard on here: The NSA isn’t interested in your phone sex.

      Obama, on the other hand, has engaged in some of the worst violations of the First Amendment. Ever.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/dissent-in-the-age-of-the-one/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/enemies-of-obamas-state/

      Speaking of the communications industry:
      Obama’s efforts to squelch the First Amendment
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/obamas-communications-diversity-czar/

      Foreign policy: We won in Iraq, no thanks to B. Hussein. That job was accomplished by the United States military under the leadership of President George W. Bush, General David D. McKiernan, General Ray Odierno, and General David Patraeus. Any success from here on out in Afghanistan, will be due to the U.S. military’s continued bravery and dedication under the auspices of General Stanley McCrystal.

      Obama is a stupid, dangerous scatterbrain, with no clue how to run a country or a war. The “community organizer” in the White House thinks his socialist ideology and his Dhimmi approach are a good idea.
      His patty-cake approach to North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China has made a joke out of our foreign policy. He’s an empty suit with serious character flaws. The current Comander-in-Chief slot, is for all intent and purpose, vacant until 2012.
      And he’s so sophisticated when it comes to protocol. Tell me, does Her Royal Majesty enjoy the gift of an iPod full of his own speeches?

      But this forms the centre point of any argument towards public goods, that the small price you pay will benefit a greater number of people….

      Oh, fucking please. Charity is one thing. Government shake downs to “benefit a greater number of people” is extortion and theft. When you’re finished taxing the already overburdened rich—or for that matter the Middle Class—into poverty, who will be left to gouge? What socialism does is create an entire new class of welfare recipients.
      How about a Fair Tax system. Never heard of it?
      Here:
      The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

      The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

      The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

      The FairTax:

      Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
      Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
      Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
      Allows American products to compete fairly
      Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
      Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
      Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
      Abolishes the IRS
      http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

      Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights. Surely there is a moral right….

      “Declaration of Human Rights”…you’ve gotta be kidding. That must be a U.N. concoction.
      Our Declaration of Independence says nothing about the “right to health care”. Neither does our Constitution. Read it sometime. We have plenty of disabled and elderly people in this country who cannot work. Disability, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are already available. And incidentally, all those programs are going broke because of government spending and waste. While you’re dishing out lectures, maybe you can convince Congress to stop that shit.

      It is almost as if you are imbuing the Democrats with having creating the national debt…

      Obama’s only been in office 14 months and already he’s surpassed the spending, debt, and deficit levels of previous administrations. The national debt was bad enough, now he’s adding to it by leaps and bounds. Incidentally, the stimulus package (another pile of spending waste) consisting of an 800-billion-dollar-plus price tag consumed more resources than have been laid out for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
      You need to read more CBO information:

      In 2009, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion, or 9.9 percent of GDP–the largest budget deficit relative to the size of the U.S. economy since World War II.[2] And the Obama Administration is proposing to add trillions of dollars more in debt over the coming decade. As shown in chart 1, the Administration’s 2010 budget contemplates deficits exceeding $630 billion each and every year through 2019.

      ……by the end of 2019, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Obama budget plan would push the debt burden above $17 trillion–an increase in the nation’s debt burden of $11.3 trillion over the period 2009-19. (Congressional Budget Office, “An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2010,” June 2009)
      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/06-16-AnalysisPresBudget_forWeb.pdf

      Obama’s habit of blaming Bush for his own fuck ups won’t work anymore.

      Socialised medicine DOES work. I’m living in the country where it is quite evident that it works….

      That’s bullshit on stilts. The Euro health care system is rife with inefficiency and a severe decline in quality care. Let’s see: Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care…Dental patients face care lottery…Women in labor turned away by maternity units…British hospitals told to delay surgeries…Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS…and spending months on a waiting list, isn’t what one would call a system that “works”.
      Until ObamaCare kicks in, we still have the best care in the world. If socialized medicine becomes law, the government’s death panels will be in charge of our life and death decisions. We will have no choice. On top of that, the government will force us to pay for this train wreck. That’s immoral.

      Health care reform is needed, but not at the barrel of a government gun.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/message-to-senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-and-rep-betty-sutton-d-oh/

      Whilst on your simply wonderful travels (thanks for letting me know) obviously you never spoke to anyone who actually lives in the country. Travelling doesn’t equal an ethnographic study into the make up of that particular society, so please get some acadmeic funding and carry that one out and if it does support your hypothesis, I will obligingly eat my words.

      I was in the United States Army for 30 years. I spent more time outside the United States than I did at home. I’ve been all over the Middle East, Korea, and Europe. Academically, I know more about those particular societies than your woefully scant observations of America.
      You want salt with that crow?

      As for the self-interest. That makes no sense. Look up self-interest and get back to me. Though “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The insurance industry takes a huge dump on the first one, eh?

      Not as much as the shit Obama just took on our freedoms.
      You totally missed the “self-interest” statement. My self interest involves the support of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution. The documents that used to be honored by my government. Now, not so much. READ: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-democrats-assault-on-america/

      When you’ve had a class or two in American civics, get back with me.

      SFC MAC

  8. Thankfully I live in the UK, so I don’t need to worry about financing that retrieval. But that would have been a much costlier procedure under the old system.

    Obviously you haven’t tried to engage with the other side’s literature, and seen that 1) the country will not end up in dire straits, if Bush managed for 8 years with his corrupt cronies in charge I think Obama can manage just fine. The term ‘hyperbole’ has been taken to a whole new extreme during this Healthcare debate. 2) The price of health has no cost, this has been one argument that has been avoided by the opposing side. No one should be without the money to pay for their health care costs. No one. And I’ll be interested to hear about any arguments to the contrary. 3) Have you looked beyond your rather narrow view of the world and read literature you don’t agree with? Or tried to think of the motivations behind each article, the tactics used by the media/govt to try and get their way. 4) I said “improve the lives of a significant portion of your fellow citizens”, obviously you haven’t and continue to be enclosed within your self-interested bubble.

    1. flamjew,

      How nice that you don’t have to worry about financing your health care. I bet you’re on welfare, too.

      The other sides “literature”?? We’ve been inundated with the “other side’s” viewpoint, in the form of “Shut up, you’ll take this socialist system and you’ll like it”. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Dems have been spewing that for months. The leftwing MSM has done its fair share of selling this rancid bill of goods on their behalf. I, and millions of other Americans don’t subscribe to the kind of “literature” that advocates the evisceration of 20% of our economy.

      As for your slam at Bush, you’re full of shit, but then you’re a leftie and I expect nothing less. Not even Jimmy Carter holds a candle to Obama’s corruption.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/impeach-obama/

      You think health care is “free”?? Where in the hell did you get that idea? Public benefits are not free. Here’s an argument to the contrary: Someone has to pay for it, and it’s usually the working population who supports the segment of society that either can’t or won’t work.
      Socialism takes from those who earn, and gives to those who don’t or never have. For them, sucking off of the public teat is so much easier.
      Health care is NOT a right, it’s earned. In a Democratic Republic, able-bodied people work and pay into the system for their own health care plans. There is NO Constitutional right to health care.

      We won’t end up in dire straights??? You cannot be that dense, even for a Leftard. You’re certainly no economist.
      Take a look at the acummulating debt: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
      The National Debt Clock is a billboard-sized running total dot-matrix display which constantly updates to show the current United States gross national debt and each American family’s share of it. It’s numbers are astronomical.
      More:

      The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since…Obama took office.
      The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.
      President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Obama 421 days.
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/speaking-of-the-debt/

      We have unsustainable debt, deficit, and out of control spending. After the projected Obama-generated $23.7 trillion (and more) deficit hits the next generation, there won’t be enough revenue to pay for it all. If you think government grew under previous administrations, just wait until Obama gets done.
      This is the kind of crap I’m talking about:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/where-that-stimulus-money-goes/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/seiu-big-beneficiary-of-obamas-787-billion-stimulus/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/citizens-against-government-waste-2009-pig-book/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/obama-denies-responsibility-for-deficit-he-helped-create/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/stimulus-money-went-to-phantom-districts-and-zip-codes/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/shocker-obama-lied-about-stimulus-created-jobs/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/13-bucks-of-stimulation/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/stimulus-costs-more-than-war-on-terrorism/

      Socialized medicine does not work. READ what foreign doctors have to say about what they’ve learned about their socialized health care system.
      The example set by Canadian and British socialized medicine should serve as a warning, and they’re warning us not to follow their example.
      Some of the atrocious crap that happens when a government forces rationed care on its people:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/want-a-taste-of-obamacare-try-canada/
      http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

      The incoming director of the Canadian Medical Association says that the healthcare north of the border is about to implode.
      http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

      All nationalized healthcare ends badly due to overburden and hidden costs.

      As our CBO (Congressional Budget Office) so kindly pointed out, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of (government-sponsored) health care.
      http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

      Americans are healthier and living longer. As the number of elderly with age-related health problems climbs, the younger working generation will foot an even larger bill. The system is overburdened as it is and the braindead Democrats want to stuff it with about 47 million more Americans (at the onset) with MANDATORY government-run medical care. No choice. No paying for your own private insurance to get immediate and adequate care. The government will ration doctors, treatment, and allocation of funds for whatever they see fit, whether it’s in your best interest or not.
      Again: Whenever the government invents a program ask yourself one question: HOW will they pay for all this? Three guesses, first two don’t count.

      As for your “wonderful” British health care:
      Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/nhs.health2

      Dental patients face care lottery
      http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=127814&in_page_id=34

      Women in labor turned away by maternity units
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/21/health.nhs

      British hospitals told to delay surgeries
      http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2007/01/02/British-hospitals-told-to-delay-surgeries/UPI-52441167771563/

      Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490233/Record-numbers-abroad-health-treatment-70-000-escaping-NHS.html

      And Canada:
      Canada’s Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

      ‘Sicko’ slant irksome even in Canada
      http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/25776

      Man, woman who couldn’t get quick treatment travelled to U.S. to get brain tumours removed.
      http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/253664

      The American Spectator:
      http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/07/socialized-medicine-an-interna

      Euro-style health care is bankrupt both monetarily, and in quality. If ObamaCare takes over, where will Canadians and Brits go to get their health care?
      Oh yeah, I really want a Euro clone.
      Considering you’ve never been exposed to our health care and what it means to lose it, you’re the one with the narrow view. I’ve been around the world and exposed to a variety of cultures. So, you can take your limey snobbery and shove it up your arse.
      The only “self interest” I have is the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Neither of which apply to you.

      No hyperbole, just FACTS.
      Hate to burst your bubble.

      SFC MAC

  9. But most are utterly bemused by the stubborn reluctance to move America into a position where no one gets left behind.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/23/united-states-healthcare-barack-obama
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/23/healthcare-barack-obama

    The NHS provides the luxury of walking into any hospital and not having to worry about being able to afford one of the fundamental human rights, our own health. This attitude taken by so many Americans is deeply upsetting as it illustrates the inability to look past your own nose. Why should people who want to genuinely improve the lives of a significant portion of your fellow citizens be criticised to vehemently?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial