The Tea Party Needs To Kidnap Mittens!

[Guns Guns Guns]

I wonder how broadly Democrat strategists grin when they see threads like this...a significant proportion of the Rightwing nutbase won't support Mitt, and may even split the Rightie vote in November by writing in some fringe no-hoper like Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul.

Hilarious.

 

[apple0154]

Well, I don't know what thread you've been reading, but we've most certainly been talking about Socialism and Socialist governments. You said yourself, it is important to distinguish the difference, and I thought we had. The US has had social programs for decades, longer than most of us have been alive, we can't recall a time when we didn't have social programs in America. So the silliness of claiming that I or republicans want to get rid of social programs is ridiculous. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is seriously talking about eliminating some social programs, and I don't even think HE would say we need to eliminate ALL social programs. You're just a fucking idiot who can't make a point without trying to divert and distract.

As for who is advocating what, perhaps you need to read more, because I see plenty of pinheads standing up for Socialism, like christiebitch, who thinks Cambodia's Killing Fields was the result of US bombs. Virtually everything that comes out of your fingertips, is Marxist Socialism, not simple social policy. You continue to ignore the fact that we already have safety nets, we already established protection for the poor and elderly, it was done many years ago and these programs are still around today. You want to pretend it is 1935, and we have no laws to protect consumers, no means of caring for the elderly or poor, people starving in the streets from lack of help... that isn't the case, that's not the reality of what is happening.

Of course it's happening. A Harvard study determined 45,000, every year, die due to a lack of medical insurance. How many deaths do you require before you realize the need for ObamaCare?

What group of people are not covered by Medicaid and Medicare, or indigent care laws? What group of people are not allowed to use state-run health clinics?

Ask the families of those 45,000 people. Perhaps they can get through to you.

So now we're back to tacitly advocating Socialist government again???

Socialism: 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.

Do your own Google. Try learning before typing.

Ever hear of:
The Tea Party!
Mitt Romney!
Rick Santorum!
Ron Paul!
Newt Gingrich!

53% of Americans want Obamacare repealed... so you're WRONG AGAIN!

The medical plan hasn't even come into full effect so, again, you type without having any knowledge. The 53% have been told lies just like the lies involving Iraq. The Repubs are great at lying.

Once again, there is not one country that reverted to a "pay or suffer" system after having a government medical plan. Not one exception.

I don't know why you insist on showcasing your ignorance, over and over. Do a simple Google. Surely you can master that.

 

[apple0154]

No, again, read very slowly.... there is a distinction, I keep having to make it, between "social programs" and "socialism." Implementing some social programs, does not make us Socialists, just like implementing some capitalist plans doesn't make you capitalistic. Republicans, for the most part, don't have a problem with limited social programs, but this has nothing to do with implementing a socialist government.... two entirely different birds. Obama and democrats would like to implement a socialist government, it goes way beyond limited social programs we all agree on. It is more a fundamental way of doing business, are we going to be free-market capitalists, or are we going to be the former Soviet Union? You want to be the former Soviet Union, and I don't.

OK. Now I know you're on drugs.

While you were tripping the Bush boys were discussing SS. While you were tripping the Repubs were carrying on like this over ensuring everyone had affordable medical coverage.

Do a Google on Socialism. You don't know what you're talking about.

The reason "doing business" is involved is because some folks won't help others. That's the problem. That's the problem with SS. In order for those in need to receive help the program has to include everyone getting something out of it so contributions are made mandatory. The same with health insurance. If people simply agreed to help those who couldn't afford medical care, through tax contributions, nothing would have to change. But some people, those who can afford to contribute, won't do that voluntarily so a program has to be implemented involving everyone.

 

[apple0154]

You just want them to be able to walk into other people's homes, as long as yours is undisturbed; but then, you're just a hack.

You're making a faulty assumption.

 

[apple0154]

Seems like it's a Canadian problem, that you're complaining about; but then, you're just a hack.

Good grief. Another poster who doesn't know what they're talking about.

A limited liability company (LLC) is a flexible form of enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate structures. It is a legal form of company that provides limited liability to its owners in the vast majority of United States jurisdictions.

 

[apple0154]

I've often wondered how Apple would feel, if say, in 20-30 years from now, we have fully government-run medical like he wants, only the radical social conservative right has taken over government, and 'health care' is what THEY say... meaning, no birth control, no abortions, no treatment for homosexual-related diseases, bible thumpers mandating when you can and can't see your doc and what they can and can't do for you, or who and when you can have sex? LOL... you think he'd be singing the same tune? I doubt it! Liberals want things to be how they want them, but with THEM in charge!

It's like the current debate going on now concerning birth control and religious institutions. While some believe their medical plan should cover birth control and others don't the point is, in either case, one is permitted to buy their own birth control. Furthermore, there are private companies offering coverage for those things government medical does not cover.

The point of government medical is it covers most common illnesses. Also, because government medical has to cover everyone more illnesses are covered than by individual policies.

Let's say home owner's insurance was government run. The standard policy would have to cover flood damage even for people living in the desert. Considering tornadoes Rhode Island has suffered zero deaths from tornadoes since 1787 while Texas has seen over 800 people die since 1893. http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/worstts.htm Government home owner's insurance would have to cover tornadoes even for people living in Rhode Island.

The point being government medical, having to cover people living in different areas and different nationalities prone to differing ailments, automatically includes more illnesses than the average individual policy. That said, the best part of government medical is the encouragment of regular check-ups. That saves a fortune in costs. Early detection of disease allows early treatment and possibly the ability to control the illness before medication is needed, like diabetes for example. In some cases a simple change in ones diet can stave off the necessity for medical treatment.

No one is obliged to go for a check-up. No one is obliged to do anything other than contribute to the common good and as responsible citizens they should be more than willing to do so. Ask not what government medical can do for you. Ask....well, you know the rest.

 

[christiefan915]

As for who is advocating what, perhaps you need to read more, because I see plenty of pinheads standing up for Socialism, like christiebitch, who thinks Cambodia's Killing Fields was the result of US bombs.

<snip>

You're an idiot who shouldn't post drunk. It makes you sound more ridiculous and incoherent than usual.

"And it's just hilarious you bring up Pol Pot but ignore the US's part in destroying that country and killing off the population."

I didn't say the killing field were the result of US bombs. I said those deaths were in addition to all the death and destruction caused by US bombs.

And as far as your dumb argument linking socialism to dictatorships, analyze this: Correlation does not imply causation

<snip>

As far as repealing health care, your stats aren't the only stats out there. Moron.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029123-503544.html

 

[Damocles]

<snip>

You're an idiot who shouldn't post drunk. It makes you sound more ridiculous and incoherent than usual.

"And it's just hilarious you bring up Pol Pot but ignore the US's part in destroying that country and killing off the population."

I didn't say the killing field were the result of US bombs. I said those deaths were in addition to all the death and destruction caused by US bombs.

And as far as your dumb argument linking socialism to dictatorships, analyze this: Correlation does not imply causation

<snip>

As far as repealing health care, your stats aren't the only stats out there. Moron.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029123-503544.html

Where is the question that asks if Congress should "correct" it rather than repeal it? My guess is that would be far over the relative tie between "repeal" and "keep"... That many who think it should be kept think it should be fixed, and that many who want it repealed would be less inclined to think that way if it were fixed...

IMO, this poll is limited in its black and white approach.

 

[christiefan915]

Where is the question that asks if Congress should "correct" it rather than repeal it? My guess is that would be far over the relative tie between "repeal" and "keep"... That many who think it should be kept think it should be fixed, and that many who want it repealed would be less inclined to think that way if it were fixed...

IMO, this poll is limited in its black and white approach.

I'm not saying it's the last word on the argument, just that it's a different conclusion from the Rasmussen poll. That's the problem with taking any poll seriously, too many opportunities to steer toward a certain conclusion.

 

[cawacko]

I'm not saying it's the last word on the argument, just that it's a different conclusion from the Rasmussen poll. That's the problem with taking any poll seriously, too many opportunities to steer toward a certain conclusion.

Christie, my apologies for nitpicking but is this the Carville quote you are referring to in your sig?

"The Republican party no longer listens to Rush Limbaugh. The Republican party IS Rush Limbaugh." - James Carville on #RealTime @BillMaher

 

[Jarod]

I want them to fix it, we need a public option. All of the Republican candidates vow to repeal it, a losing proposition that Romney will back off of once nominated.

 

[Phantasmal]

Christie, my apologies for nitpicking but is this the Carville quote you are referring to in your sig?

"The Republican party no longer listens to Rush Limbaugh. The Republican party IS Rush Limbaugh." - James Carville on #RealTime @BillMaher

You are one of the best "nit pickers" on the forum! Now, back to hating Rush...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Of course it's happening. A Harvard study determined 45,000, every year, die due to a lack of medical insurance. How many deaths do you require before you realize the need for ObamaCare?

First of all, I don't believe the pinheads at Harvard, I'd like to see the coroner's reports on anyone purported to have died from lack of insurance. I just don't think that is a terminal illness. Secondly, let me answer as accurately as I can... Right now, 6% more people want Obamacare repealed, (53% to 47%) and 6% of 320 million Americans is 19,200,000... so that is the number who need to die in order for Obamacare to be realized.

Socialism: 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.

Exactly the pattern followed by the Obama Administration. Exactly what you advocate here on a daily basis.

The medical plan hasn't even come into full effect so, again, you type without having any knowledge. The 53% have been told lies just like the lies involving Iraq. The Repubs are great at lying.

That wasn't the point, you said to name one country where the people want to get rid of their government medical, and I did. Now you want to start jawing with excuses!

Once again, there is not one country that reverted to a "pay or suffer" system after having a government medical plan. Not one exception.

You're going to see it happen in January 2013, as soon as the new Republican president is sworn in.... stay tuned!!

I don't know why you insist on showcasing your ignorance, over and over. Do a simple Google. Surely you can master that.

STOP TALKING TO YOURSELF, APPLE! And, I never need Google when I argue with you, it's overkill.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't say the killing field were the result of US bombs. I said those deaths were in addition to all the death and destruction caused by US bombs.

Comparing the number of innocent Cambodians killed by indiscriminate US bombings during Vietnam, with the total number murdered by the Pol Pot regime, is like comparing Ted Kennedy with Ted Bundy... both men killed women! And unlike Ted Kennedy, at least the US had a good excuse.

 

[apple0154]

First of all, I don't believe the pinheads at Harvard, I'd like to see the coroner's reports on anyone purported to have died from lack of insurance. I just don't think that is a terminal illness. Secondly, let me answer as accurately as I can... Right now, 6% more people want Obamacare repealed, (53% to 47%) and 6% of 320 million Americans is 19,200,000... so that is the number who need to die in order for Obamacare to be realized.

Why do we need Harvard when we have Dix, the all-knowing?

Exactly the pattern followed by the Obama Administration. Exactly what you advocate here on a daily basis.

Obama wants to take over "the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"? You're not well, Dix.

That wasn't the point, you said to name one country where the people want to get rid of their government medical, and I did. Now you want to start jawing with excuses!

The program hasn't even been fully implemented. How can people make a knowledgable judgement considering all the lies and contortions the Repubs have used to describe the program?

Rmember, there is not one country that reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one country. The Repubs have no proof, whatsoever, government medical does not work.

You're going to see it happen in January 2013, as soon as the new Republican president is sworn in.... stay tuned!!

You're heading for a major disappointment but we'll be here to comfort you in your hours and days of depression.

STOP TALKING TO YOURSELF, APPLE! And, I never need Google when I argue with you, it's overkill.

I know you don't Google. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about and you refuse to learn. Most unfortunate.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why do we need Harvard when we have Dix, the all-knowing?

DAMN STRAIGHT!

Obama wants to take over "the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"? You're not well, Dix.

Well, I would say... YES... that's exactly what he wants and what you want. I base this on every argument you and he make, on virtually ANYTHING that should come down the pike... In your eyes, GOVERNMENT is always the solution! I mean Apple, when government takes majority ownership of the largest manufacturer in our largest industry, how can you argue they are not attempting to control means of production and distribution, of capital, etc.? That's EXACTLY what Obama did with General Motors! When the White House forbids drilling in the Gulf of Mexico... is that NOT "controlling the means of production" in your warped mind? Across the board, from the Keystone Pipeline project, to Boeing in South Carolina, this President, this Administration, and this Marxist Socialist movement you are a part of, has attempted to undermine capitalist principles and implement Socialist policy. Not only that, but they have brazenly taken the tack, that they have the power to implement these policies against the will of the people or their representative Congress. And in November, it's all going to fucking end.

 

[apple0154]

DAMN STRAIGHT!



Well, I would say... YES... that's exactly what he wants and what you want. I base this on every argument you and he make, on virtually ANYTHING that should come down the pike... In your eyes, GOVERNMENT is always the solution! I mean Apple, when government takes majority ownership of the largest manufacturer in our largest industry, how can you argue they are not attempting to control means of production and distribution, of capital, etc.? That's EXACTLY what Obama did with General Motors! When the White House forbids drilling in the Gulf of Mexico... is that NOT "controlling the means of production" in your warped mind? Across the board, from the Keystone Pipeline project, to Boeing in South Carolina, this President, this Administration, and this Marxist Socialist movement you are a part of, has attempted to undermine capitalist principles and implement Socialist policy. Not only that, but they have brazenly taken the tack, that they have the power to implement these policies against the will of the people or their representative Congress. And in November, it's all going to fucking end.

It's obvious you have difficulty living in a civilized society. It's like a game. There are rules. Here's something to help familiarize yourself with rules. http://www.bigmoneyarcade.com/?action=playgame&gameid=792

 

[Jarod]

Dixie does not understand what a Socialist is, it appears many Republicans dont.

They have obvously realized that line of attack was not working because there has been a tremendous shift in the way they are going after President Obama. They are not using the superficial name calling, they are making an intelegent case against him now. I respect that much more.

If the President is able to pull another Rovian trick or two and turn social issues like birth control against the Republicans, it looks like his reelection will be much easier.

 

[cawacko]

A world government to oversee where the resources can be used to the best advantage. Co-operation rather than competition. If countries are shown/given/loaned the means to produce food and housing fewer jobs would be required. For example, third world countries. Some natural resources channelled in their direction to allow them to build factories that produce manufactured homes. Machinery to work the land. If they could produce enough food to eat, like we do here, a lot of people wouldn't need a job in order to eat or the jobs could be shared. A sort of communal farm, so to say.

The goal is for people to work or do a job that produces benefits as opposed to just being a way to make money. Technologically speaking, everyone does not have to work. Everyone does not need a job.

A little fun listening for you apple courtesy of historian Niall Ferguson. At close to the nine minute mark he discusses the six killer apps of prosperity used by the West. I'm sure you'll recognize number one.

1) Competition
2) The Scientific Revolution
3) Property Rights
4) Modern Medicine
5) The consumer society
6) The work ethic

Kind of a bit different than what you are proposing.


http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html

 

[apple0154]

A little fun listening for you apple courtesy of historian Niall Ferguson. At close to the nine minute mark he discusses the six killer apps of prosperity used by the West. I'm sure you'll recognize number one.

1) Competition
2) The Scientific Revolution
3) Property Rights
4) Modern Medicine
5) The consumer society
6) The work ethic

Kind of a bit different than what you are proposing.


http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html

Regarding a world government there would be voting involved which was not the case in China. There is no problem with one power overlooking everything as long as the people in power are democratically elected. It is no different than a majority in Congress making laws. The majority are the “one power”. The difference is the “one power” is elected every four years so the people can change the “one power”.

As for land ownership everyone has to have the right to obtain something of value. Land has an inherent value. People can obtain food and shelter from land.

The video mentions Winston Churchill’s, “Civilization, and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort and culture. When civilization reigns in any country a wider and less harassed way of life is afforded to the masses of the people.”

A kinder, gentler way of life, if you will.

The main thing that propelled the west to advance was what Niall Ferguson mentions near the beginning of the video and that’s “Laws and rules invented by reason.” That, in my opinion, was/is the greatest propellent to success. From religion to customs to the “conservative” lifestyle everything had to be looked at through the lens of logic. That’s the progressive Liberal way. It was the church and the "conservatives" who imprisoned people (astronomers and mathmaticians) who were trying to advance mankind.

Years ago, I dated a gal from Bulgaria. Her parents were "confortable". One day I asked her if her parents were planning to come for a visit and she said her mother or father wouldn't come alone so I asked why they don't come together.

"Oh, they couldn't do that,", she replied. "The people would rob everything in the house. Even the authorities, the Police."

Corruption was the main problem. People didn't want their success to be known. Imagine opening a business and not wanting the neighbors to know how successful you are. Kind of difficult to get ahead, to say the least.

Corruption lies at the heart of it all. The people in authority don't want change. Why would they? They are doing fine now. It is democracy and logical laws that are the greatest contributors to success.

Finally, competition is fine. It is the lack of sharing with those in need that I object to, not competition. Ensuring medical care for the ill, food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless…..in what sense do you believe competition belongs there? Should people compete for food when there’s plenty for all? What is the purpose of that?