Its what we'll continue to get until we get real campaign finance reform. Our politicians have been bought and paid for. This election cycle is more of the same, with the exception of Trump.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Its what we'll continue to get until we get real campaign finance reform. Our politicians have been bought and paid for. This election cycle is more of the same, with the exception of Trump.
The point, which you missed and now are ratholing like you always do....is that he has been all over the board. Said no to single payer and said it would be private now back at universal. That is the simple GD point.
As to the original question, I am marking you down as "too insufferable to tell".
Corrupt media is more damaging than the excessive money. Both need addressed.
One unforgotten piece of the healthcare puzzle is the role of the hospital. Most of these hospitals get tax exempt status because theyre supposedly treating those who cant afford it. Yet we know good and well that doesnt happen. Theyre getting the benefit of tax exemption with none of the burden.
Doubt any will. Only realistic possibilities would be Trump or Bernie. I say realistic because Carson and Rand probably would, but they have no chance to win.
Even if any of these candidates pushed for it, congress wouldnt vote for it. So its mostly moot in terms of a presidential candidate.
Doubt any will. Only realistic possibilities would be Trump or Bernie. I say realistic because Carson and Rand probably would, but they have no chance to win.
Even if any of these candidates pushed for it, congress wouldnt vote for it. So its mostly moot in terms of a presidential candidate.
Bingo. Those terrible ideas don't get momentum for nothing. Someone has to help spread the shit.
False, the problem is I didn't post about politics when Ronald Reagan nor Bush were in office and it just so happens that info post now and Obama is in office. I hated Bush more than I do Obama, so get that BS off the table. I don't have a clue what he did I seriously don't because I gave up on this country while he was in because he simply did not have what it took to do anything more than an everyday dipshit with a lot of backing.
No one ever said he was a politician, no ever said he was great or even good for Christ sake. We went on a witch hunt for him so his VP could get rich. Other than that I am pretty sure he hunted and fished and hung out on his ranch. 8 years worth, and had Obama done the same I guess we would be better off.
Neither were worthy of being a president, at all.
What hospital turns away sick patients and lets them die on the curb instead? Hospitals treat deadbeats who dont pay a dime but run into the emergency rooms for the slightest runny nose or cough.
They also transfer to other hospitals whenever they can get away with it.
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes
I'll say it again. Where is Colonel Sanders getting the $18 trillion in new spending?
From that evil 1 percent and mythical rich wizard money tree where all of the other free stuff comes from.
Damn, well. That's obviously a problem. We don't have $18 trillion in new spending. We have over $20 trillion that we are still paying on old spending.
Thankfully Sandy Berger tried to preserve those documents by jamming them in the dickhole of his underwear....
Ugh: "Berlin teen admits fabricating migrant gang-rape story, official says." http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/01/europe/germany-teen-migrant-rape-false/index.html
One out of hundreds of incidents does not make everyone else liars.
Didn't say (or imply) it did. A false rape accusation is always damaging on its own, particularly here. She's made it worse for everyone, that's the ugh part.
He's guilty, because he raped her with his eyes. That's almost as bad as him doing it. That refuggee was foaming at the mouth, lusting in a way only Ben Roethlisberger would know.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I'm a bit behind, just wanted to get back on a few things.
Once again, you're making careless generalizations about the impact on women, both with delivering a fully developed infant or choosing to end a pregnancy. It's not absolute, black and white, women think like this or women think like that.
The issue of the woman's right to decide and how it impacts her physical and emotional person is a strawman? Do you think a society's overall health is a strawman when considering health care coverage? Or maybe you believe the aging population of the US is a strawman argument when discussing the solvency of Social Security. Or that political contributions and tax breaks are strawmen when deciding energy policy?
If you don't care about the woman's body then you don't care about the baby that she would ultimately deliver if myriad factors go well. The woman has to go through a lot of sh*t, even if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy. You're just slovenly dismissing the woman's involvement in the gestational process in an attempt to make your argument easier, as long as she becomes the robotic vessel in which to pop out kids.
Never mind that pregnancy complications are the 6th most common cause of death for women in the US between the ages of 20 and 34.
A woman's rights over her own body and life is a strawman in the subject of abortion is one of the most obtuse takes I've seen in this thread.
Once again, you're making careless generalizations about the impact on women, both with delivering a fully developed infant or choosing to end a pregnancy. It's not absolute, black and white, women think like this or women think like that.
The issue of the woman's right to decide and how it impacts her physical and emotional person is a strawman? Do you think a society's overall health is a strawman when considering health care coverage? Or maybe you believe the aging population of the US is a strawman argument when discussing the solvency of Social Security. Or that political contributions and tax breaks are strawmen when deciding energy policy?
If you don't care about the woman's body then you don't care about the baby that she would ultimately deliver if myriad factors go well. The woman has to go through a lot of sh*t, even if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy. You're just slovenly dismissing the woman's involvement in the gestational process in an attempt to make your argument easier, as long as she becomes the robotic vessel in which to pop out kids.
Never mind that pregnancy complications are the 6th most common cause of death for women in the US between the ages of 20 and 34.
A woman's rights over her own body and life is a strawman in the subject of abortion is one of the most obtuse takes I've seen in this thread.
Thanks for regurgitating something I discussed at length just this past weekend. Good job! Good effort!
While we're on the topic of things I said earlier in this thread:
Rubio, as predicted, has surged enough to win the "expectations" contest tonight. Next up is to see what sort of lift it gives him in New Hampshire. If Trump hangs on to win there he will go on to even friendlier turf in South Carolina where he can expect to do well among the old Reagan Democrat electorate.
I meant to get back on this. Kinda embarrassing I'm bringing it up now.
No economic or social scholars will ever consider Atlas Shrugged to be anywhere near the most crucial work of literature ever. It's extremely debatable with political academia, unless we're talking about scholars referencing the book when talking about certain demographics inflating its influence.
The thought that any economic scholar would regard this work of fiction highly is comical as it adds close to zero value in economic studies. It's a sci-fi romance novel with rudimentary philosophical overtones.
Sure it's widely read, as is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
