Tea Parties and Obamacare
- Thread starter Ozrat
- Start date
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
Or just mirror Mexico's immigration laws.Cimmerian Nights said:
Turnabout is fair play.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No, we're talking about people wanting to enter into the country and the manner in which they do so. Mexicans don't enter the country against their own will, not unless they are coke mules that is.Julius said:
I'm not saying conscript foreigners, I'm saying mandatory military service for prospective immigrants.
edit: Wait, do you numbnuts actually think I wasn't taking the piss with my conscription/organ harvesting scheme? Jesus, NMA can be the most humorless place ever sometimes.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
The organ harvesting sounded like a joke and ending with the profit thing made it sound like a joke but there are some seriously crazy suggestions for how to deal with immigration so it can be difficult to seperate the jokes from the insane or stupid. Also, the ideas really weren't that bad, though it really all depends on what you meant by organ harvesting (after death of natural causes or killing people for their organs).Cimmerian Nights said:
You didn't propose something crazy enough
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I figured the absurdity of invoking pragmatism in a debate about politics would give me away.
Fear Factor
Fear Factor
Pardon my superficial reading of this thread. Have not reread sufficiently to check for accurate detailing,
but I doubt we are that formal in our academic disciplines as we participate in this illustrious group regurgitation.
Allow me to riff on the nuances.
Maybe some vibes of half chewed chunks don't apply here, maybe I refer more to the projectile shoutings going on out ... there ....
This thread may mirror how any national debate gets hijacked and lost in emotional pantings.
Little discussion has touched on how inanely and despicably inefficient unchecked organizations can be,
(except Cimm-y's fevered vision of getting flu shots at your local DMV)
only echoing the media retreading of Cold War slogans, mostly the hurling of 'isms' as pornographic invectives. Real adult behavior that gets things ... grid locked.
Here we stand tall in this 21st Century engaging in good old fashioned -- gutter politics.
The public discussion of healthcare reform is now defined by the spiritual aires of populist politicos.
The politics of 'the free' is FEAR.
Fear of:
No healthcare.
Healthcare administrated by a corporate bureaucrat.
Healthcare dictated by a state agency -- bureaucrat.
It is very important WHO gets to pull the plug on grandma, for we all know how human nature cuts expenses to profit our ideologies of administration and commerce. Profit is god in the Church Of Capitalism, no matter in which sector, public or private, resides one's pulpit.
Money is the grace and gratuitous gravy of this, in our owning image (tm), pecuniary deism.
Fear of lack of, or badly administrated, service Is pretty much what the status quo is now, just not officially fed by billions more in government payola. Or touched by --- OBAMA!
Hurray for the status quo.
Consider how interesting it is that the debate has hidden true agendas, Republicans rally, as Democrats despair.
How the shouting resonates with the politics of fear.
This is the self proclaimed "land of the free" and we are forever bitch slapped by the politics of fear.
This is how America's consent is forever engineered.
This is how the powerful manipulate the weak.
Fear.
Don't have to be a refugee of southern politics to know the drum beat of black fear, brown fear, yellow fear, red fear, and queer fear.
Once again profiles - brown - this time are the 'Willie Horton" surrogates.
Politically vectored ad campaigns, the poison pill of American media infotainment, kills or cleans as it purges the bandwidth.
So America, this mighty land of emigrants, puke it up!
So America, this mighty land of emigrants, there will be no change for a more efficient access to health services becAUSE -->
SOME MEXICAN
- (the most DEMONIC of illegals!!!11!!!) -
MIGHT GET SOMETHING For -- free.
Great.
Shake my consciousness and I grope for the nostalgia of the red baiting chant of 'socialism'.
At least that appeared relevant to how to -- or -- how not to instigate legislative programs.
Brown emigration and brown "gangsta's" are possibly a law enforcement issue, and a hallmark of failure for ALL past administrations.
But now 'brown fear' has superseded 'red fear' ,as THE pivotal argument in health care reform debates.
Very fitting for the land of the not so brave and the home of the not so free,
-- not so -- ?
'not so' because
America is a land of the --- fear, and the home of the emotionally whipped media chained slave.
Fear.
" " 'Wave that flag, wave it high and wide' "!
4too
Fear Factor
Pardon my superficial reading of this thread. Have not reread sufficiently to check for accurate detailing,
but I doubt we are that formal in our academic disciplines as we participate in this illustrious group regurgitation.
Allow me to riff on the nuances.
Maybe some vibes of half chewed chunks don't apply here, maybe I refer more to the projectile shoutings going on out ... there ....
This thread may mirror how any national debate gets hijacked and lost in emotional pantings.
Little discussion has touched on how inanely and despicably inefficient unchecked organizations can be,
(except Cimm-y's fevered vision of getting flu shots at your local DMV)
only echoing the media retreading of Cold War slogans, mostly the hurling of 'isms' as pornographic invectives. Real adult behavior that gets things ... grid locked.
Here we stand tall in this 21st Century engaging in good old fashioned -- gutter politics.
The public discussion of healthcare reform is now defined by the spiritual aires of populist politicos.
The politics of 'the free' is FEAR.
Fear of:
No healthcare.
Healthcare administrated by a corporate bureaucrat.
Healthcare dictated by a state agency -- bureaucrat.
It is very important WHO gets to pull the plug on grandma, for we all know how human nature cuts expenses to profit our ideologies of administration and commerce. Profit is god in the Church Of Capitalism, no matter in which sector, public or private, resides one's pulpit.
Money is the grace and gratuitous gravy of this, in our owning image (tm), pecuniary deism.
Fear of lack of, or badly administrated, service Is pretty much what the status quo is now, just not officially fed by billions more in government payola. Or touched by --- OBAMA!
Hurray for the status quo.
Consider how interesting it is that the debate has hidden true agendas, Republicans rally, as Democrats despair.
How the shouting resonates with the politics of fear.
This is the self proclaimed "land of the free" and we are forever bitch slapped by the politics of fear.
This is how America's consent is forever engineered.
This is how the powerful manipulate the weak.
Fear.
Don't have to be a refugee of southern politics to know the drum beat of black fear, brown fear, yellow fear, red fear, and queer fear.
Once again profiles - brown - this time are the 'Willie Horton" surrogates.
Politically vectored ad campaigns, the poison pill of American media infotainment, kills or cleans as it purges the bandwidth.
So America, this mighty land of emigrants, puke it up!
So America, this mighty land of emigrants, there will be no change for a more efficient access to health services becAUSE -->
SOME MEXICAN
- (the most DEMONIC of illegals!!!11!!!) -
MIGHT GET SOMETHING For -- free.
Great.
Shake my consciousness and I grope for the nostalgia of the red baiting chant of 'socialism'.
At least that appeared relevant to how to -- or -- how not to instigate legislative programs.
Brown emigration and brown "gangsta's" are possibly a law enforcement issue, and a hallmark of failure for ALL past administrations.
But now 'brown fear' has superseded 'red fear' ,as THE pivotal argument in health care reform debates.
Very fitting for the land of the not so brave and the home of the not so free,
-- not so -- ?
'not so' because
America is a land of the --- fear, and the home of the emotionally whipped media chained slave.
Fear.
" " 'Wave that flag, wave it high and wide' "!
4too
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
much better solution is rather than providing them with free health care would be borders that work no?
4too, i think you have misconstrued my whole point.
as long as its not a beurocrat who makes a choice on what care people get, its a good thing. as long as its your doctor and you the patient making choices as to what kind of care you get, i dont mind federal health care. i do not want some board saying no you dont need this care even when your doctor says you need to do this.
and no, i dont even want a board of doctors deciding what kind of care an individual gets. if that persons doctor talks to the person and they both or even just the doctor says "we need this" then thats what happens.
as long as its a REAL medical plan that covers everything except for maybe a small co-pay of $20-100 then its a good thing. having a medical plan that only covers like 50% of an organ transplant is just stupid.
and it should have inclusions of dental. and eye exams should be paid for as well. not your glasses, but the exam should be paid for.
i want REAL health care, not some empty shell.
and i do not want "oh, you need this brain surgery that will cost about $45,000 but we cannot operate on you as there is no more money left in the regional coffers."
4too, i think you have misconstrued my whole point.
as long as its not a beurocrat who makes a choice on what care people get, its a good thing. as long as its your doctor and you the patient making choices as to what kind of care you get, i dont mind federal health care. i do not want some board saying no you dont need this care even when your doctor says you need to do this.
and no, i dont even want a board of doctors deciding what kind of care an individual gets. if that persons doctor talks to the person and they both or even just the doctor says "we need this" then thats what happens.
as long as its a REAL medical plan that covers everything except for maybe a small co-pay of $20-100 then its a good thing. having a medical plan that only covers like 50% of an organ transplant is just stupid.
and it should have inclusions of dental. and eye exams should be paid for as well. not your glasses, but the exam should be paid for.
i want REAL health care, not some empty shell.
and i do not want "oh, you need this brain surgery that will cost about $45,000 but we cannot operate on you as there is no more money left in the regional coffers."
I have heard Canada had that issue in the past. Was it resolved? Surely a higher tax on the wealthy would more than cover it.
Personally, I want fast food to be taxed an additional percentage on top of what they as large businesses already pay, and funnel that into health care. You don't need fast food, it's a luxury.
M.
Personally, I want fast food to be taxed an additional percentage on top of what they as large businesses already pay, and funnel that into health care. You don't need fast food, it's a luxury.
M.
Yeah selective VAT really is an excellent tool of population management. Shame it isn't done more, but I guess it complicates things for retailers. Must be a way to ease that out in our computerized age though.
More taxes on gas is needed as well, but probably not the best idea during a recession.
More taxes on gas is needed as well, but probably not the best idea during a recession.
"as long as its not a beurocrat who makes a choice on what care people get, its a good thing."
But beurocratcy is a control method, to determine where money flows, no? Wouldn't you have it in the same excess if your bottom line is the ost important thing to you? Unless I'm misunderstanding beurocratcy, or you're implying that within a federal gov' it's always in excess. Most assuredly the lack of beurocratcy, if anything, has lead to scandles here . . . A "large" loss of funds. The Sponsorship Program comes to mind. Or, most of the late 80s.
""as long as its your doctor and you the patient making choices as to what kind of care you get, i dont mind federal health care. i do not want some board saying no you dont need this care even when your doctor says you need to do this."
Which is what I believe we have here. However, for elective surgeries, say . . . a laproscopic band, unless you meet specific requirements, you won't be covered. Some more exotic (well maybe obesity isn't exotic anymore) are not covered in part, or at all, provincially.
In terms of fixing the border . . . How the hell? Tracking chips in every person on earth, should help!
But beurocratcy is a control method, to determine where money flows, no? Wouldn't you have it in the same excess if your bottom line is the ost important thing to you? Unless I'm misunderstanding beurocratcy, or you're implying that within a federal gov' it's always in excess. Most assuredly the lack of beurocratcy, if anything, has lead to scandles here . . . A "large" loss of funds. The Sponsorship Program comes to mind. Or, most of the late 80s.
""as long as its your doctor and you the patient making choices as to what kind of care you get, i dont mind federal health care. i do not want some board saying no you dont need this care even when your doctor says you need to do this."
Which is what I believe we have here. However, for elective surgeries, say . . . a laproscopic band, unless you meet specific requirements, you won't be covered. Some more exotic (well maybe obesity isn't exotic anymore) are not covered in part, or at all, provincially.
In terms of fixing the border . . . How the hell? Tracking chips in every person on earth, should help!
DexterMorgan
A Smooth-Skin
It's rather amusing, watching people taking up arms to battle altruism.
del_diablo
First time out of the vault
Member of Khans said:
I am in Europa, and I disagree. We are still going at it like Canada. Well its Europa after all(we are divided, and thats it), Some are overly capitalist and some more overly towards socialism.
Public said:
Communism did not work, socialism works as far as we have seen it in contrast.
Well, as far as I know the only problem with free public is the chance of people would overuse the health care, which is easy to stop. Just make a bill of $1-2 for going there on checking and that. If your below 18 it is free. If you actually get ill(won't pass by itself in 1-2 weeks, or is very minor) you get a "free-card" which equals that you do not pay the bill of going there.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok, a person brings a gun to a political rally, trying to make a statement about his right to bear arms.
Does it make a difference to the other people who aren't armed, that this guy has the capacity to shoot them if he disagrees? Does that change the nature of the discussion, because someone is armed to back up their beliefs- because you really don't know why they brought a pistol to a peaceful demonstration?
Given the heat of political rallies, is this really a smart thing to do?
Lets say somebody wants to get some political attention and decides to ratchet it up a bit. Instead of just bringing a gun, he fires a blank into the air. The person's intention is not necessarily to support gun rights, but to raise awareness of the potential danger of guns to society.
What happens next? Does someone shoot the person out of self-defense, even though the person only fired a blank into the air? After all, how do you know if its a blank bullet? Does having the Secret Service go on high alert with regard to the discharge of the firearm make sense? Are you justified, legally or morally, at shooting a person because they fired a blank into the air as a form of protest? Are you, therefore, more at risk because of the confusion that follows the shot being fired? If the Secret Service shoots you because they think you are the one causing the violence, are they at fault?
Ok, but lets say that a group of protestors come to create a bit of chaos in the political discussion, and thus voice their displeasure. This is valid political speech, but some folks find it offensive. At what point does the offensiveness become self-defense and justifies a shooting?
Think Kent State except the National Guard isn't there but a group of gun advocates are. Think about a Klan March or a Nazi rally, where folks might feel intimidated of afraid, or where the crowd may become a mob.
Does it make a difference to the other people who aren't armed, that this guy has the capacity to shoot them if he disagrees? Does that change the nature of the discussion, because someone is armed to back up their beliefs- because you really don't know why they brought a pistol to a peaceful demonstration?
Given the heat of political rallies, is this really a smart thing to do?
Lets say somebody wants to get some political attention and decides to ratchet it up a bit. Instead of just bringing a gun, he fires a blank into the air. The person's intention is not necessarily to support gun rights, but to raise awareness of the potential danger of guns to society.
What happens next? Does someone shoot the person out of self-defense, even though the person only fired a blank into the air? After all, how do you know if its a blank bullet? Does having the Secret Service go on high alert with regard to the discharge of the firearm make sense? Are you justified, legally or morally, at shooting a person because they fired a blank into the air as a form of protest? Are you, therefore, more at risk because of the confusion that follows the shot being fired? If the Secret Service shoots you because they think you are the one causing the violence, are they at fault?
Ok, but lets say that a group of protestors come to create a bit of chaos in the political discussion, and thus voice their displeasure. This is valid political speech, but some folks find it offensive. At what point does the offensiveness become self-defense and justifies a shooting?
Think Kent State except the National Guard isn't there but a group of gun advocates are. Think about a Klan March or a Nazi rally, where folks might feel intimidated of afraid, or where the crowd may become a mob.
welsh
Junkmaster
No, I don't think we need to go that far.
But I think since most people can't carry loaded weapons into an airplane or a courtroom, I can see why it might be a good idea to make it unlawful to carry a loaded weapon in a political rally.
There is a risk, at a political rally, that things will get heated and dangerous. If you don't want to be exposed to the danger, don't go. But if you do go, then you assume the risk.
Its one thing for a rally to turn into a mob in which fistfights, wrestling and a bit of general rowdiness leave bruises and maybe send a few people to the hospital with broken arms. Its another thing when the mob turns into a firefight between multiple people or some idiot discharges a semi-automatic weapon into a crowd.
But I think since most people can't carry loaded weapons into an airplane or a courtroom, I can see why it might be a good idea to make it unlawful to carry a loaded weapon in a political rally.
There is a risk, at a political rally, that things will get heated and dangerous. If you don't want to be exposed to the danger, don't go. But if you do go, then you assume the risk.
Its one thing for a rally to turn into a mob in which fistfights, wrestling and a bit of general rowdiness leave bruises and maybe send a few people to the hospital with broken arms. Its another thing when the mob turns into a firefight between multiple people or some idiot discharges a semi-automatic weapon into a crowd.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcAQlRczXuo[/youtube]
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
It's not altruism when you force other people to participate against their will.DexterMorgan said:
Separation of charity and state, I say.
BTW, anyone notice the "peaceful" G8 protesters?
