I think Batman said it best in the "facts and fictions of tea partying" thread: I've never seen a movement so vehement over nothing but conjecture of what might occur. ****ing manipulated idiots.
Although in this case the public option pretty much has to pay for itself, and if it doesn't, cuts in spending will be put in place.
Like all anti-war movements? Funny how when it is a position that you guys agree with, you consider it prescience but when it is a position you disagree with you characterize it as overblown over-reaction.
pray tell how the recent anti iraq war movements have been built on conjecture like the tea baggers and their healthcare hate? even if we suppose they were conjecture, things turned out worse than what most anti-war protesters believed. so there is something to be said for hindsight. also generally in arguments, there's something to be said for appreciating folks on the side of wanting less suffering. whether its against wars or against needless bankruptcy and death caused by our healthcare system.
Try to be a bit more pragmatic giddyup. You know, like hitler. There is no "might" in thinking war will cause pain, suffering, and death. There is no "might" in thinking war expensive to the public, and profitable to industry. There is no "might" in being ethically opposed to preemptive strikes based on flimsy data.
".... another Viet Nam..." One man's conjecture is another man's educated guess is another man's studied prediction. Yet no such berth granted the teabaggers... or anyone you disagree with? I'm all for some kind of health care reform that equalizes access and stabilizes cost without destroying service.
It is always more expensive if the government does it and it is usually not as well-delivered or as sustainable. Maybe that is the problem with war? The real point is that there is nothing wrong with conjecturing; everyone does it, so why call out the teabaggers who are advertising what they see to be a problematic area?
Prove it, or shut up. Especially in regards to health care, you're going to strike out in a matter of seconds on this topic. What a great idea - let's have private wars instead. Conjecturing is only suitable up to a certain point. Your financial silliness aside, all you've really shown is a lack of moral aptitude.
How much were those tools and those toilet seats associated with those government projects? I've lost the email I got on it....
should i detail the cost of iraq? it is a modern day vietnam. america will not lose 60,000 soldiers in another war probably. but it has probably cost what easily two trillion? and its not like we're leaving for a long time. you may not agree with the comparison, but it's not like the teabaggers. i don't think teabaggers advocate anything that helps alleviate suffering. if they did, i would certainly be more favorable in my outlook towards them. i agree. and i don't think a mandate without a public option helps alleviate the excessive inflation one bit.
toilet seat? you mean the one at the pentagon? the military budget is inflated. wonder which side supports that most?
Thanks. You fail. No data, no argument, no ideological position... nothing. Except maybe diversion and strawmen. That's all you ever have. You're a giant twit, giddyup.
I'm not disagreeing about Iraq; I'm just legitimizing conjecture: some good, some bad and some unknown... but I just don't see how you can criticize anyone or any group for "conjecturing." So it's only okay to conjecture if it alleviates suffering? I'm in favor of a public option... I want to know more about the French system as portrayed in Sicko.
Are you denying the realities to which I've alluded? I don't need to bother with the details for they are legendary. Waste in government is iconic.
So is profit at the expense of society in industry. This has been hammered out 40 bazillion times already in this forum and I'm not going to rehash those points or re-cite those articles. It comes down to whether or not you agree that everyone deserves health care. If yes: 1) The public option is the only method that allows corporations to maintain profitability. It is simply not feasible for the private industry to cover everyone and make money. 2) Alternatively, you can subsidize the private industries to cover everyone, which tends to be the standard american modus operandi. But you hated waste, and this option is ****ing ridiculously wasteful. And to the benefit of the wrong entities at that. If no: You're a douche.
Yeah, the typical douchebag liberals like you are beyond *****ing stupid. And they are now exactly what they really hate, mainstream America. They are just to dumb to see it. Nobody is manipulating me at all. When you read and hear enough about how evil the private companies are so greedy and so evil, and movies how capitalism is the devil, what does that tell you? It tells me that they want them gone. But most liberals are too cowardly to actually say it up front. And when you point out instances when they do (like a blog in the Houston Chronicle etc) they try to discredit it and call it an anomaly. I'm not buying it, not one bit. They are manipulative, two-face socialist weasels and they make me sick. "Might occur" my butt. I would bet everything I own on it. The rest of them are either lying, in denial, or flat out stupid.
Of course, the email you got, which you probably believed without doing any research, was distorted (imagine that!). Those government toilets and hammers are purely an accounting issue. Government has overhead - that overhead is allocated to and spread over all the different things that they do. The procurement department overhead is allocated to the various things they buy. So if they buy a $12 hammer, it may show on the books as $2000, because that's where they charge their electricity and rent and other things to. Of course, since you saw it in an chain email, you just went with what you read instead of actually knowing any facts. Truly shocking from you. Here's the hammer's costs: http://news.cnet.com/2009-1009_3-5404307.html Facts are your friend. At least, if you prefer to base arguments on reality instead of chain emails.
The problem here is the type and structure of the government service. Was the windstorm insurance subsidized by the state?
