magekillr

Oh, man, now I know you're being sarcastic. Are you that damn deluded to actually call the circus that is Fox news...news? CNN and MSNBC are bad enough, but at least what they shell out somewhat resembles news, somewhat. They never really call anyone out, except on rare occasion, and they rarely report anything of actual worth, but they don't flat out lie to their audiences. I'd say NPR is someone's best bet for "fair and balanced" news, because it doesn't distort things. Although, they refused to call torture for what it is, and instead kept shilling that "enhanced interrogation technique" jargon. Sure, it's fair and balanced. It's fair and balanced so much so that when Bill O'Reilly brings on an opposing guest and gets his [wagon] spanked, he yells, screams, hollers, and when that's not enough he cuts your mic. What's the purpose of news? To be informed and educated. Why are Fox viewers so ill informed? Christ, 2/3 of their viewer ship, as of 2003, believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The more you watch, the less informed and educated you become: [yt]DzLdVNM9pQ8[/yt] Yeah, a network where 80% of their viewers have one or more misconceptions about reality is soooo fair and balanced. That sounds like setting the middle as the virtue again (although Fox doesn't represent the middle whatsoever). When one side preaches peace and one side preaches genocide, the middle is not ideal. So even if you ARE fair and balanced, that doesn't mean you're doing your job, and that's to inform the public. They are a [cabbage] stain on our democratic republic because of how misinformed the populace is. More on why they fail: http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010013 http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250041 Lol, oh jeez. Where to begin. 1.) Progressive taxation is not socialism. If you argue that the rich shouldn't pay a higher rate than the poor, and to otherwise do so amounts to socialism, then that's your problem. Not even the majority of Republicans assert such an asinine proposal, although a lot of them would just looove for that "fair" sales tax that would cripple the poor and be a huge gift to the wealthy. Oh that Ronald Reagan who increased taxes later on to make up for the huge budget and trade deficits that he created, and is somehow a conservative icon despite increasing the government and implementing so many protectionist measures, he's just such a socialist. Him and his higher tax rates for the wealthy than are currently in place. It's just...awful. And George Bush Senior, that evil socialist commie bastard also increased taxes to make up for some of his budget deficits, what a socialist. And that tax and spend liberal, Bill Clinton, how dare he have higher tax rates during his tenure than are currently in place; he's such a socialist pinko hippie who happened to balance the budget, something no modern conservative can say they did. And John McCain? Here he is on video admitting to how red he is, through and through: [yt]X2JPbQOHEkY[/yt] He admits it! 2.) The general public isn't concerned about health care reform? I mean, it was only the second most important issue during the entire campaign, short of the economy (and had there not been an entire collapse because of a bubble built under George Bush's watch due to Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan's incompetence, that probably wouldn't have been the case), but never mind those liberal facts. Let's talk about your 5 million lie for a second, discuss the 100+ million who are underinsured, and the 14,000 who lost their insurance today. a.) 5 million who are not insured but can't pay for it. Well, for one, the 5 million number is a lie. I mean, how many provisions do you have to put in to even get that number? You say legitimately need, when who really defines who legitimately needs it? I'll give you a hint, everyone needs it, and without single payer, should be mandated to buy it. You are a risk to my tax dollars for not being insured, you cause my premiums to go up if you have an accident and go to the ER without insurance. You not having insurance results in a $1,000 tax per family because of medical bills not being paid, which either the hospital or the government pays. They can't afford it. Yeah, but the number who can't afford it is much higher than 5 million. The average health insurance plan for a family of four these days runs about $12,680 a year in premiums. The average house hold in America brings in what? Like $50,000? Oh, yeah, that's definitely only 5 million who can't afford it, genius. 1/4 of their wealth goes to health insurance PREMIUMS per year. b.) This isn't just about "5 million" who aren't insured, this is about America going bankrupt because health care costs DOUBLING in 10 years, 2.5x faster than inflation and 3x faster than wages. Meanwhile, more people are losing their insurance because employers can't afford it; more people are going into poverty over it; and they cause 2/3 of bankruptcies in this country. Why should ANYONE go into bankruptcy over their health care bills, WHEN they HAVE insurance? It shouldn't happen, period. Nada, never, no. It happens nowhere else but here, your capitalist utopia. c.) 18,000 people die a year in this country because they don't have access to medical treatment. How does that grab your conscious? Is that just reality to you? Because other countries spend less money, far less money, and that doesn't happen. We're ranked number one in this area (preventable deaths), so I guess you can say we're number one at something. d.) People who have insurance are cut loose for things like preexisting conditions, even after spending money on premiums. Others aren't allowed in the pooling risk at all. 14,000 people are losing their insurance every day. More and more people are being dropped from their employer's insurance, and without government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this health care situation would be far worse. So many elderly would be in poverty, and they were--prior to Medicare that is. e.) The public option is dead, count on it. These corporate [bleep] and sellouts have given in, and Max Baucus has let a Well Point VP write his health care plan. You'd think they'd be better at hiding it, but they just don't care anymore. It's so obvious, but even if it wasn't, Liz Fowler's name was on the documents. I'd think they'd care more, but I guess it's so obvious that they're bought by the insurance companies that they don't care. f.) Even if it wasn't dead, those taxes would be "priming the pump." Basically, setting it in place. Once it's in place, that "sur tax" would go away. Nonetheless, it's not even his proposal, that was the House's proposal. Anyway, the public option would be funded by premiums only. So where are you getting that he's paying for this with taxes, when it's selfsustaining? Too much Fox News? Opinions aren't neutral, sorry. You don't even know what the hell socialism is. If he's a socialist by your definitions, every president since the 16th amendment have been socialist. Buahahahaha. Omg, you are a joke. Have you taken a single economics class? I know you're an engineer, so it might serve you well to take Econ 101 to know what you're talking about when discussing economics. a.) Increased spending. Hmmm, what increased spending? All of those deficits? Those are George Bush's. Obama accounts for a tiny percentage of them: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat ... e_republic Thanks, Dean Baker, the economist who first called this housing bubble, for that handy chart. b.) Nationalization. What's he nationalizing? If you were to take a quiz right now on misconceptions due to watching too much Fox News, you would fail, really hard. GM? Please. It's not nationalized, and it's not going to stay the way that it currently is. Had we not done what we did, millions more would be out of work. Do you know why GM sucks so hard, as do most motor companies in America? No, it's not unions; Scandinavia has an 80% union rate among their entire workforce, try again. It's health care costs. Burdening employers with skyrocketing health care costs, when it should be a single payer system just like every other civilized nation. c.) Stimulus package. Here's where basic economics would help you out. You're arguing against a stimulus package, something practically every economist supports barring the Austrian school wing nuts? Warren Buffet is such a socialist, him and his arguing for a second stimulus package and everything... Our GDP is expected to have grown 3% due to that stimulus package this quarter. Do you know how much money would have been LOST if the economy shrank and contracted? I know you conservatives and your knee jerking reject thinking outside the box, but when an economy contracts, the government loses a [cabbage] ton of money, investors back off, people go unemployed, and the economy sucks. By sitting back and doing nothing, we would have lost a hell of a lot more than $787 billion dollars. John Keynes understood the danger of allowing the economy to go under, which is why he was a close advisor to FDR. He was no socialist, he belonged to the conservative party in Europe. As an idea capitalism wasn't dead, but had things gotten worse, we certainly wouldn't be capitalist. People are emotional, not rational. The Great Depression almost brought about socialism, because capitalism's "failure" was being blamed. It's why he argued against punished Germany after World War I; and he was vindicated by the rise of the Nazi Party. Too bad Churchill didn't heed his advice. Thanks to Keynes, we are still a capitalist nation, just like most of Europe (barring Portugal). How are we mimicking much of Europe? If anything, we still haven't learned our god damned lesson. As Winston Churchill once said, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. We still haven't learned. This health care bill, as it currently stands, is going to be one gigantic failure. In some ways I support doing nothing, because it seems it takes an entire economic collapse for this damned country to wake up and smell the coffee; it's what got us social security. We don't believe in evolution. We don't believe in climate change. We are still dropping bombs for peace and "democracy." To say we're mimicking Europe would be an insult, and if I were European, I would take it as one. I showed you that wealth gap chart before, but allow me to refresh your memory: Again, they currently control more of the wealth than they did before an income tax. Giving it to them how? By educating them? By keeping them healthy? By keeping crime lower? By giving them retirement (which is capped at 107,000 or so anyway)? The rich benefit from the poor being educated, healthy, and from lower crime rates. All of these things are combated or encouraged by public education, should be encouraged by a national health plan, and crime is combated by keeping people out of poverty. The wealthy get way more out of the government, so why shouldn't they pay more of their fair share? It's called living in a society, and a society can't be healthy when the wealth gaps are approaching Mexico's. Yeah, to someone who doesn't know what the [bleep] socialism even is. Buy a dictionary, I assume you and your parents are rich enough. No hand outs for you. yes you are, you make the same arguments. You said I try and hide straw men in intellectualism (which isn't true in the first place, seeing as I almost never build straw men to knock down). You're just someone who tries to appear to be independent and non-biased as a front to make your arguments seem appealing. The whole Sotomayor debacle taught me an important lesson, and I think it's the true difference between conservatives and liberals; that's empathy. You clearly have none, you can't for one second put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's not even sympathy or pity, it's empathy. Trying to understand why they're in the place that they're in. It's obvious you have never experienced anything that the majority of this populace experiences. I would never wish upon you harm or for you to lose your own health insurance, but maybe if you do, then you'll wake up and grow up. edit: oh, and look what I found: http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/poverty_day.aspx Remember, increases in poverty = more crime and less economic growth. But but but, tax cuts for the rich that aren't paid for will create jobs and "trickle down!" edit2: More! http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/m ... been-worse

See, this is why I can't take YOU seriously in a debate. I suspected that you really were fronting with your want for "actual debate." To think I apologized in a pm for thinking otherwise; won't make that mistake again. Socialist ideas? Jesus, Reb, get a grip and start talking in reality. What socialist ideas? Please learn the definition of what socialism is before you start decrying a center-right President as someone who has "socialist" ideas. If he has socialist ideas, I'd like to know of someone in the House or Senate who doesn't. Maybe Jim DeMint, that crazy bigot who rejects science; I believe he hasn't taken a single earmark for his state. South Carolina seems to be doing so well thanks to him. Like, I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic here or not; it's THAT out there.

What he said isn't as important as should he have been doing it and the fact that it is illegal. He changed what he had planned to say after there was so much uproar, but of course no liberal is going to give that a second thought. Stay in school, you of all people need it. Tell me, how is what he did illegal, and what evidence do you have that he changed it "after the uproar?"

I really tire of the argument that "statistics don't prove anything," or "you can use statistics to prove anything." Actually, no, they do "prove" things, and no, you can't use them to "prove" anything you want. There's a difference between some polling survey, and the usage of raw data. Even then, polls are entirely legitimate if the method, questioning, and sample size are adequate. Can they be altered to misrepresent the final conclusion? Yes, they can, but that's the person interpreting them, not the method itself. Just look at global warming and how denialists take the data, misrepresent it and claim, "We're actually in a cooling phase right now." Stop throwing statistics and data to the way side because you don't like where the evidence points towards. That's called being an ideological hack. And about using "other" methods for execution (namely "rope")? That's without a doubt a violation of the United States Constitution. The death penalty is cruel and unusual in and of itself in my opinion, but there's no way you could justify the killing methods you're proposing. I still can't believe that people would allow the state, willingly, to kill its own civilians. I'm supposedly a lover of "Big Government," too. It's odd that the libertarian here supports the DP.

Reb, you have it entirely backwards. The general populace's opinions don't drive the media, the media drives the narrative. This has nothing to do with a business model or capitalism. It has everything to do with the elite protecting our government officials. Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism. Second, you CAN get ratings by stating the truth and calling people out like Rachel Maddow does, although she has been having a hard time getting conservatives to appear on her show after she reveals some truth that they don't like. She's rational, cool and calm, and allows for a good debate with people she doesn't agree with (just look at her recent interview calling out Tom Ridge for his complacency in the use of the terror alerts for political purposes and the Iraq War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIzsZ3g7dTU ). Her show is stealing other shows' ratings because she reports the facts and doesn't distort things. She also calls out Obama on his [cabbage], which is what the media is SUPPOSED to do! However, I suspect eventually once her show's honeymoon period is over, she's going to run out of people to interview because they don't want to come on anymore--it's already happening. Her show is up in the ratings, but only among the younger demographic. And these ratings are really nothing when compared to the clowns at Fox like Hannity and Beck. Another reason is that the establishment press doesn't like to be wrong. Where were they to call out torture when it was being done? Where were they to call out the Iraq War for the sham that it was? They were nowhere. They don't want to be wrong, and it's why a lot of them are pressing for Eric Holder to "look forward, not back" when it comes to prosecuting for torture. They feel that by not reporting about it in the way they should have, that they were complacent (and they were). And...of course a more important thing that drives what the media reports? I mean, it can't be entirely about ratings. Dan Froomkin was fired from the Washington Post, despite being the most read journalist on their team ( http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/n ... _73940.asp ). So why was he fired? Allow me to quote Glenn Greenwald: If it's against their own corporate interests, they won't report it. For example, Bill O'Reilly attacked GE for its dealings in Iran, and Olbermann would attack O'Reilly for something he lied about during his segment. This war brought both corporations HUGE ratings...but it made both of their networks look bad at the same time. GE owns MSNBC, Bill O'Reilly works for Fox and looks like an idiot when called out. So to suit both of their interests, MSNBC makes a deal with Fox, promising to stop attacking Bill O'Reilly if O'Reilly stops attacking GE. Both win. Capitalism is great, corporatism is dangerous; and that's what the US has really turned in to. A corporate society that protects and shelters the elites at the expense of everyone else. An uninformed populace cannot make up a democracy. I mean, this is just ridiculous: The media wasn't always this way, and it's always been for-profit and capitalistic. Good bye to real journalists like Cronkite. Bill Moyers is one of the last people who are left. For more on the lie that is the "liberal" media, here's some of Scott McClellan. The guy who criticizes the American media for being too cozy with the government, when he was George Bush's press secretary. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... mcclellan/

The political debate in this country has shifted so damn far to the right and into total absurdity that it's not even funny anymore...it's the media's fault. [/hide] Really, as far as I've noticed, American media is very liberal. That is, except talk radio. Talk radio is ridiculously conservative soemtimes. Allow me to rephrase: The media (television and newspaper) is neither conservative or liberal, it's pure corporate. They never point out what's true or what's false. "Obama said he's going to be giving a speech to students. Later, we'll have Pat Buchanan say why this speech is nothing but political drivel; David Brooks will be back to tell us why Obama's poll numbers are down because he's being too partisan; and then we'll have Sarah Palin talk about the death panels she claims are in the bill. In other news, [bleep] Cheney says that torture saved America; Barack Obama says the torture was unnecessary and didn't produce anything good." Do you see a pattern? It's not reporting, it's regurgitating what people say without discerning what is true and what is not. This often benefits conservatives more than it benefits liberals, and thusly why I say the media is conservative. Look at last Sunday's Meet the Press.The panel: Rudy Giuliani, Tom Friedman, Harold Ford, Jr., and Tom Brokaw. Guiliani warned there would be no health care with a public option; Ford told his "liberal friends in Congress" that they will have to be disappointed by the outcome; Friedman insisted that Obama adopt the proposals of Mitt Romney and John McCain and ensure he has the support of centrist Republicans; Brokaw offered some mild pushback against the attempt to demonize the public option. The words "single payer" were never spoken. So what we have is an entirely skewed debate of he said/she said with David Gregory never calling either side out when they lie or say something that's not true, AND you have no one representing the "real" liberal side. Look at ABC's This Week last Sunday. You have Mike Pence all over MSNBC lying about how federal employees get health care without ever being called out on his lying, and he's rewarded with a spot with George Stephanopoulos to lie some more. Of course George never called him out when he spewed his falsehoods, or correctly told him that he doesn't understand how he himself gets health insurance; he just sat there spilling his ridiculous lies and diatribe. And George shook his head up and down, and asked another softball question. Rinse, repeat. Mike Pence is one of the stupidest members of Congress (that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, he literally doesn't understand policy/economics...anything), and he's constantly called to talk on these shows. If people called him out and stopped him in his tracks and made him look like the idiot that he is, our media would be doing their job. But that doesn't get ratings. You get ratings by bringing on important and serious people, and they won't want to come back when you make them look foolish.

Here's the text for anyone who is interested: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResource ... olRemarks/ "Don't be institutionalizin' no liberal agenda in my children's ears!" Yeah, I guess encouraging kids to do good in school would be a liberal thing. :roll: In contrast, here's Ronald Reagan's speech, where he preached about tax cuts and his economic agenda: http://gothamschools.org/2009/09/04/fro ... -students/ The political debate in this country has shifted so damn far to the right and into total absurdity that it's not even funny anymore...it's the media's fault.

Death penalty should be banned under all circumstances. 1.) It's not a deterrent. 2.) It costs more money than life in prison (not due to appeals, either). 3.) It deprives the person of any right to overturn a conviction from new evidence. 4.) It's not used just for the most heinous crimes contrary to popular belief. 5.) People have been put to death despite being innocent. 6.) It targets minorities (particularly blacks and Latinos). 7.) It's discriminatory against the poor. 8.) Vengeance is not justice (in my opinion). 9.) It's unconstitutional, bearing in mind that it's cruel and unusual punishment. 10.) I wanted 10 reasons, but that's all I got. The state shouldn't have the right to condemn someone to death, especially when it's cruel and unusual punishment. And this article seems relevant: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ntPage=all More than likely innocent man, or at least not without a doubt guilty man, was put to death for arson. The justice system is far too hazy for death; of course I'd oppose it even if it were definitive.

I figured as much, and I know this topic has been reported on here before in the past. Thus, I figured I'd go back to that can of worms to see if this was actually anything different/waiting for someone over at the blogs to dissect it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 0223.story I'm not sure what this means, how much is being sensationalized and stuff, but this sounds like a really big deal at face value. I'll await the talk over at scienceblogs.com .

You'd be surprised, but a speech in this venue can go a long way. I can't find the article right away, but his election was a big ray of sunshiney hopey changey for the inner cities. Yeah, that effect might die in a few years (or less) and then everything goes back to normal, but when that effect is more wide spread with more role models, it can make for lasting changes. I'll look for it, hope I can find it.

The difference is that this isn't just "idiots," these are people who get taken very seriously in political debate (Michelle Malkin). That's what's so scary. I didn't go find some random blogger on RedState. Speaking of crazy, I can't wait to hear what Michelle Bachman (represenative from Minnesota) will have to say about this. She's talked about slitting wrists and becoming like blood brothers with her constitutents against health care reform. Scary. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that my want to put more people on a trade route rather than a college route is something that has anything to do with "stuffing [kids] full of facts and figures." I'm not going to ignore the fact that Massachussetts has the ability to pump more money into their system than Mississippi does, or that parents at home are able to care for their kids as much, etc. However, it's not the whole picture. Kansas scores fairly high, too, with a comparable per capita income to Mississippi. http://www.quickanded.com/2009/06/usa-vs-world.html study itself: http://www.air.org/news/documents/AIRIn ... ks2009.pdf What's your definition of teach properly, as that's overly broad (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this); where are you currently residing/have you had experience with say...Finland's educational systems; where at in Massachusetts?

Good idea, and as usual, the wing nuts are freaking out over "liberal brainwashing." http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/03/op ... s-on-that/ Parents are threatening to pull their children out for the day, for Christ's sake ( http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171 ). Some tongue and cheek, but if they pull their kids out of school over 15 minutes of a Presidential address, can we teach evolution all day? I'm not sure what he plans to say, but it's an encouraging development, to say the least. I'm not so sure our educational systems are as bad as everyone thinks, it's just certain areas of the country. For example, Massachusetts' schools are just as good as Japan and South Korea's in math and science and stuff, whereas schools in Mississippi are performing piss poor. Of course, I don't think Americans would ever stand for the education reform that I think needs to happen (as it'd be labeled some communist thing where the government says who can go to college and who can't), but reforms in this broken system can happen at least. In case anyone's wondering what that would be, it would just have testing to see if you're qualified to continue down the path towards college. The half that does bad would go the route for vocational trade school type things. Of course you could go to college later if you wanted...but you'd still have to test and such.

Excellent op-ed about how other great President's threw that bipartisancrap out the window.. The American people elected the majorities they did to see that party lead and govern, not to allow the losers to write the legislation. That's not how you lead, or govern. Roosevelt (2nd greatest President of all time, in my opinion) understood that: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opini ... ef=opinion

I wanted to be an astronaut ever since I was 7. That changed when I got to 7th grade because I needed glasses (slight corrective lenses). Then I wanted to just work on planes, with the thought of being a pilot and/or astronaut in the background. So....here I am, a senior in college, majoring in Aerospace Engineering. I'm also minoring in math and computer science because: a.) math minor only requires one extra math class with my major and b.) CS because all the job people ask if I can program and I always say no. Hint: grades matter, but only for internships and scholarships. Most jobs couldn't give a damn if you had a 4.0 or a 2.0, just the piece of paper. Hell, applying online with a perfect resume will probably return you with nothing, whereas if you give a crap resume to the right person you'll be interviewed the next day.

This. I really have nothing more to say.

They're not immoral for existing, or trying to make a profit, it's HOW they do it. I don't care about tobacco companies profiting from people's health, but I do care when they start enacting measures that try and lie about the debate. For example, when tobacco companies lobbied Congress with their "studies" that there was no link between second hand smoke and cancer. That is immoral, and they did it because they knew it would hurt their profits to put in protections. To same, insurance companies deny people care, don't allow people with pre-existing conditions, jack up rates for no reason other than the fact that they can (because they have monopolies by state...breaking up your company among states is a good way to avoid regulation) simply to maximize their profit, and people DIE and go into bankruptcy over it. Insurance companies in every other country aren't for profit, aren't subject to the whims of their share holders, and don't deny care when people truly need it. Some are for profit there, but very few. The ones that are, are subject to very harsh regulation (no discrimination based on medical condition, age, sex, etc). Of course, you're also talking to someone who doesn't believe in any morality but subjective personal morality; so what I think is immoral you might not, and that's fine.

I favor removing mandatory sentences for every crime, drugs especially. Mandatory minimum sentences don't allow for flexibility for discrete details. And as I said in a previous thread, I'm not one for vengeance, so long as they learn. Studies show that people are more apt to change their behavior just by the possibility of a conviction, not the length of the sentence.

In what aspect? Do we get rid of the government? How do they "get out of your lives?" Hmm, you kind of answered my first question here, so let's move on. So, you want to get rid of the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, COBRA, patents, etc? Why do you have "everyone" listed? Should they get out of peoples' lives, or should they only get out of some peoples' lives? Hmm, interesting. How do we do this? How does the government lower tuition? That's called a price control, and it's against what libertarians are about. How do you determine what you can sue for? 38 states already have tort reform of some sort, and many have place caps on damages. It hasn't done much, just to let you know. Also, without regulating the insurance industries (which I don't know why you guys are so set on protecting these immoral entities), they'll just pocket the differences and charge doctors the same rates anyway. Also, can you explain why Britain and Canada don't have this problem, when they have the same way of dealing with malpractice that we do? They don't have special medical courts, and I'm pretty sure they don't cap awards. Why are their health care bills not spiraling out of control if this was the main driving factor? Actually, they charge so much because of our stupid patent laws. They're protected from competition, and they lobby people in congress like corporate Democrat Mike Ross for those protections; he likes those protections, too, because he has 100% share ownership in his drug company even though he "sold" it. They also charge more because, well, frankly, Americans agree to pay more. The same drugs in Canada and France are 1/3 to 1/5 the price that they are here, because their governments act as giant negotiating firms, and negotiate with the companies for lower prices. A prescription assistance program is ok, I guess, but it doesn't solve the issue of cost. We'd still be spending a lot more money for drugs, we'd just have them more available to other people through subsidies. You mean...like the public option being proposed by the Obama administration? Actually, your plan is more socialist than Obama's, because his would just act as a single payer system like Medicare. Yours expands the federal government even more by employing more federal doctors and nurses. I'm not sure what you mean. Like, leasing health care payments or something? I'm not really sure what that would do, and it would strap a lot of people in just as much debt as they're in now. Mmmk...so Medicare. Co-ops have been proven not to work in the electric and phone industry. Prices only go up even higher because the co-op acts like a monopoly. Seeing as they don't work in the electric or phone industry, I'm not sure how this would work. Moreover, a lot of insurance companies already would qualify as co-ops, which is why I suspect Kent Conrad proposed them in the first place. So....you want to kill the poor and help the rich? I'm not sure what you mean. Like...a voucher system? I oppose vouchers the way they're done in America. Vouchers in Sweden and Finland are fantastic, and I would welcome a system like that. National or state? And this would hurt the poor and addicted just as much. I'm not in favor of abolishing sin taxes, as they are an incentive to quit, but that sounds awfully high. Such a high alcohol tax could push people to bootleg alcohol, much like they do in Sweden. So...you want to essentially return to the Gilded Age? Also, how do you pay for a Medicare-like system with just this? Medicare has its own tax right now as it is.

I know what you libertarians and your Ron Paul/Ayn Rand worship is all about. I've been in this business for a few years, seen it all and heard it all before. I deal with you clowns on a daily basis, because the internet is full of you. See, this is why libertarians in America fail. Real libertarians (you know, the original ones who were socialist commie hippies in the 19th century? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque ) are against all forms of authority. They don't just oppose the federal government; they oppose corporations and they oppose state and local governments. Freedom isn't about one sole entity, and that's why libertarians in America have the most fail ideology in America (among other things, like that their ideas would make things way worse than they are). Neocons might be worse, though, because people take them seriously and they start wars for no reason. edit: Since this is about health care, I think this would be a perfect time to talk to a libertarian and how they think we solve health care. So, Me_Hate_Libs, how do we solve health care? Even if you don't care about the uninsured, which seeing as you love Ayn Rand you probably don't, what about yourself? The rising cost of health insurance is causing a lot of employers to drop their plans, and by 2020 we're expected to spend double what we spend now. Can you afford spending double? It affects you just as much as everyone else.

I didn't write it, and obviously you're not saying that lol. The point is that people like Me_Hate_Libs go through their entire lives thinking they accomplished everything on their own, when it was those "mean spirited elitist" liberals who got those things accomplished. The reason for the beginning adjectives is just a mockery of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It's like how some liberals are now asking conservatives if they "hate America" when they oppose something the President does; much how conservatives asked me if I hated America when I opposed the Iraq War before it was the cool thing to do, because I'm a dirty hippie. They're not serious, it's just mocking with facetiousness. It doesn't have anything to do with health care, it has everything to do with him saying he did everything on his own and was self-accomplished, without realizing the debt he owes to society. Anyway, I don't mean to attack as much, and I know I get carried away (esp. with people like Bari who I think are genuinely interested in reform, even if their GOP leaders don't think so). However, I do this for a living. Well, not do it for a living as I'm in college, but I get paid to organize for liberal issues, and I tire of the constant spin on reality...so at times I lash out. And it's not a conflict of interest, haha. I don't have single payer people paying me or something...it's just to fight for things I believe in.

1.) How is that a straw man? A straw man takes what someone is saying, and turns it into something that they weren't saying; it's a misinterpretation of what they're saying. I didn't disregard what he said and then attack something else. I attacked his argument that he has "made it all on his own," when that's patently false. 2.) So what if I occassionally attack a person? It's not like I have ad hominems filled throughout my posts. I give reasons behind my attacks. I have yet to go through the rest of the post, but let's take Bari as an example. I asked him if he was being paid to lie; obviously an attack. Was it an ad hominem? No, clearly not, because he cherry picked polls left and right, demands bipartisanship when that's clearly not going to happen because of the GOP's mindset, and acts as if he hasn't paid attention to the debate right now. Either that, or he's watched Fox News rather than looked at what's actually happening.

Ok, I have A LOT of catching up to do in this thread, but let me start here with a story. Let me also say that libertarians (libertarians in the American context, not the global context) have to be supportive of the dumbest ideology in politics. And...I know you're going to reply to this story with this ( http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/000292.php ), but most of that is nothing but a libertarian fairy tale. Half of it is construed in mistruths (for example, how medical breakthroughs happen...hint: it's through the government who gives money to researchers, not for profit entities) and other nonsensical things that aren't delved in reality (much like the entire philosophy).

I just really want to hammer this out, because most people are too young to fully grasp what Kennedy did for this country; myself included. For example, if your parents immigrated to the US from Pakistan or India in the 60s or 70s, you can thank Senator Kennedy. Without him, they wouldn't have been able to come here. That is perhaps his most important achievement. It also subsequently was the first act he ever managed that passed: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. He essentially created the ethnicity of America. People were discriminated against through racial quotas when they immigrated here. Northern Europeans were the most "superior," and Africans, Jews and Asians were among the "least superior." This bill knocked that down, and renewed America's known characteristic as the melting pot, with the flocking of unwashed masses. That is, in my opinion, his greatest achievement. Of course, this doesn't even scratch the surface of his legislation in civil rights, women's rights, health care, education and voting rights.

Ted Kennedy was the greatest and most effective legislator that the United States has ever had. Thank you for everything you did, Ted. You are an American hero, and deserve much remembrance. Even though you never saw your dream of universal health coverage attained, I promise that I will work towards getting us there. I promise you. Thank you for everything that you and your family has done for this country. Say hello to Bobby and Jack for me; if there's an afterlife, that is.