indy500fan

I can believe it.

Yeah I already posted those Bridget Regan pics earlier in this thread :smile:

Because I would consider it corporatist rather than capitalist. It makes more money by cutting as much coverage that people have paid for as possible, whereas a capitalist system would be companies competing to provide the best coverage possible for as cheap as possible.

There are tons of different measurements of "better off" but most Western European countries' citizens are better off than the corresponding US citizen. Better, cheaper health care (socialized), higher average wages, ect... The Human Development Index is a good overall country comparison, and the US only ranks 13th. EDIT: Ironic you talk about indoctrination and think that the US is the best country in the world. And since we are talking about socialized health care, you should look at who has the best health care systems in the world: WHO - the "capitalist" US health system is beaten out by 36 countries with some sort of socialized care.

I only watched it once, pretty enjoyable. Next time I watch it I'm going to try and follow along on the timeline someone made that explains everything.

There are multiple tax brackets, and tons of things that you can count as deductables. No person in the US pays 55% tax.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the present vaccines and their would be absolutely nothing wrong with the vaccines if they still used the same preservatives that the study back in the 90s was about. 10 of the 12 scientists who worked on in recanted their work, and it was a very narrow study that was expanded by fear mongers in the media to the point where people started to get afraid of vaccines. Getting vaccinated doesn't make stronger strains of the virus either, that is another myth spread by anti-vaxers (overuse of antibiotics can create stronger diseases, vaccines are completely different). All of you against vaccinations should realize that 99% of the anti-vaccine stuff is complete [cabbage] and stems from that one test back in the 90s that had nothing to do with almost everything they argue against.

Wow, everything in that post is wrong. It is all FUD spread by the anti-vaxers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the vaccines.

I stopped reading at the 9 seconds per stone being impossible. First of all, that doesn't even sound like the right number taking into account over 20 years of work and around 2.3 million stones. Secondly, that's only doing one stone at a time, and they had thousands of people doing this. They aren't all going to be working on the same stone.

I'm not going to say racist because once again, race has nothing to do with this. Health insurance for every American is needed, if for nothing else to give American companies the same advantage as foreign competitors. Small businesses can't afford to pay a decent salary and pay for part of health insurance, meaning they will only get the least qualified people. Large corporations can afford it, but health insurance costs are tremendous. How are Ford/GM supposed to compete with Toyota when Japan provides universal health care for all it's citizens? Health insurance is one of the socialist programs that aren't necessary (such as courts, police and military) but is one that is more efficient that capitalist counterparts (such as roads, bulk mail).

Somebody here reads /tv/.

1. Credit card bill of rights. Stimulus package. Ordering the end of the Iraq war the first day in office (although this is progressing rather slowly). Closing Guantanamo Bay. Fund high speed rail projects. Reverse restrictions on stem cell research. I've provided the link twice now, not my fault you aren't clicking on it. 2. So if every single person with health insurance is happy then that statistic would be accurate. However I know of a few people personally with health insurance who are not happy, so it is already wrong. Look at the link you provided, it said many of those insured are under insured and I am sure they aren't happy. 85% of Americans being insured and 85% being happy with current health care are two completely different things, so yes, it is 100% false. Just because two statistics have the same numbers doesn't mean they are equivocal. 3. You can get fair and balanced, like I said earlier I can't claim anything about other TV news stations since I don't watch them. However NPR is a good example of giving both sides their time to talk.

1. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/ There are 53 things here. I linked it in an earlier post already. 2. I find 85% being happy with current health care to be extremely unlikely, considering 28% said that they or a family member could not get medical care that was needed. Also 42% worrying that they would lose their health insurance in the next year source 3. The only news station I watch is Fox News, so I can't compare it to other stations. Whenever I see anything on it from say Glenn Beck, most of the time it is FUD that is more or less completely false. Look back to earlier this year when they were talking about death panels, or even late last year during election time when they were questioning Obama's citizenship/religion. The station is nowhere near fair and balanced, it is an outlet for the Republican party.

Obama done nothing. 85% approve of current health care. FOX News being fair and balanced. Three 100% false statements. I would rather assume someone is trolling than they believe blatantly false information. EDIT: Plus mentioning the President's race, which is completely irrelevant.

You better be trolling.

Star Wars.

Jennifer Love Hewitt! She was one of the first celebrities that I started to crush on (yeah, all the way back in 1998) EDIT: Also want to mention that it makes me sad people don't know her by name right away. Sad because it makes me feel old.

Well it is November the 5th so I watched: V for Vendetta - It was enjoyable, as always. Since I've been in commentary mode I was hoping to listen to it for this, but it doesn't have one.

And the whole private security industry isn't controlled by the government (there are tons of private body guards and corporate security), and the whole national security industry isn't controlled by the government (Blackwater mercenaries).

You could legitimately argue for or against the Afghanistan war, however blaming him for the war in Iraq is completely justifiable. There was absolutely no reason for that one (other than keeping the USD hegemony of course).

Soldiers fire on their fellow soldiers hitting 43 of them before being stopped all over the world? It's a military base, they are obviously going to have guns and ammo. There is no way to prevent this if the person was acting alone.

What the [bleep] have you been smoking? Are you seriously saying that Obama can easily pass bills because Democrats have a majority in the House? Just look at the health care debacle for all the proof you need against that. The few things that he could push through really quick were actually bills dealing with the stimulus plan at the beginning of his presidency. One of those he actually got through as a Senator before he became president (but after the election), all those were only because of the financial crisis. Since then 90% of Republicans decided that they were now fiscally conservative (even though they didn't give a [bleep] about that the previous 8 years) and pretty much want to kill every bill that he wants to go through, and the idiot Democrats try all day to concede and get votes across the aisle and in the end become as useless as the Republicans (because in the end the Democrats generally just want to talk a lot to get support but not do anything that could jeopardize getting those centrists)

You lost me at the Post Office isn't a socialist organization. If you think that and then post the first definition which proves the USPS is socialist and still think it isn't then you are just an idiot. The problem here is also that you automatically think something socialist is bad. There are a few programs that have to be socialist in nature, because they can't be fair when run by individuals. For example courts (ie socialized adjudication of legal disputes) have to be government run, if they were run by corporations then they would inevitable support whoever gives them the most money. The police (ie socialized personal security forces) have to be government run because corruption would be too easy of private security. The military (ie socialized national security forces) have to be run by the government because you really wouldn't want a corporation having full control of the military. Then there are programs that work better as socialized programs. First is the one you claimed wasn't, the United States Postal Service (ie socialized mail service). The problem with it now is that it is no longer needed nearly as much. It runs at a loss because the law says that it has to deliver mail everyday the person gets mail. Mail is extremely inefficient means of conveying information. But when it was necessary before the Internet it was a way to get mail from any part of the country to any other part, without having to deal with multiple companies and multiple fees. Another program that is better government run is roads. With the few exceptions of toll roads you can drive anywhere in the country on the same road network, not having to stop every ten minutes to pay a fee to go another few miles than another company owns. Then there is also no incentive to bother paving side roads, since the people have no other options they simply have to deal with it. So yeah, socialism isn't bad, it can even work better than capitalism in some cases. Socialized medicine I agree with you, there is no reason for that. I do however think that socialized health insurance is needed.

Yeah I heard about this, it is pretty sad.

Umm, no it hasn't been a year. He took office January 20th of this year. Promised a lot, and we have seen a decent amount completed so far (link), so I believe he has done OK. Especially since he had to pick up the pieces of the previous 8 year horror.