New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

the pro-'choice' left. well unless talking about education

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
You have a choice. You don't have to partake of the benefits of this society. Move to Somalia



Yup. because you benefit from the educational system as much as anyone else. Every $1 in K-12 education reduces prison costs by $10

uh, do you have anything besides your mouth to prove your claim? or are you as usual making data up out of nothing? remember


FACTS MATTER! GOT ANY?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Do you drink alcohol? Eat meat? Are you overweight? Do you exercise? Does your wife come from a family with a history of breast cancer? Do you smoke?

If you have an insurance policy through your employer then your policy may actually cost more than mine, but because risk is shared, your premium is the same as mine. What you don't get is that contraception is no different than any other coverage. You want your insurance company to cover viagra? I don't need it and don't think I should have to pay....that is your logic. There is no insurance plan that allows you to select just the medical issues you expect to experience. You are not paying for just what you are liable to use, you are paying for the risks associated with eveyone on your plan....

Yes, that means that insurance itself is sort of a socialist scheme....don't like it? Tough. I don't have a solution for you and I bet if you looked at the insurance issue with an open mind you'd realize just how silly your argument is.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
hmm so can you refute the verifiable facts that

The Domino Theory was valid?
That the USSR's GDP was NOT in free fall BEFORE Reagan took office
That after Reagan's 1986 tax cuts GDP growth SLOWED below its previous rate?
That Obama inherited the Second largest percentage wise GDP crash in US history and the largest in absolute numbers in HUMAN history?
That Obama has gone from 820,000 jobs lost per month the month before his inauguration to two monts of 220,000 new jobs created?
That Microprocessors were invented under Kennedy for use in NASA and ICBM Guidance systems?
That Internet protocols were developed for the DARPA network initially under Carter?
That the HTTP "mosaic" browser was developed by the DOE/DoD under Clinton?

Just ANY actual factual refutation here plesae... rather than just ad hominem

dude FACT THIS.

clinton presided over nothing. and people think he was a great president.

you're trying to deny Reagan credit for dropping the soviet union.

that's lame

makes you a partisan.

of course there were a zillion variables in play.

AND they collapsed under his and HW's watch.

so give credit where credit is due.

and I love the OBAMA SUCKS LESS jive.. what we don't know and can't measure (though he does using jive like jobs saved) is where we'd be economically if we had an American as president

and the rest of the internet jive is more granny warren socialist rap.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
Do you drink alcohol? Eat meat? Are you overweight? Do you exercise? Does your wife come from a family with a history of breast cancer? Do you smoke?
you want to date me?

If you have an insurance policy through your employer then your policy may actually cost more than mine, but because risk is shared, your premium is the same as mine.
so when did moses decide that health care in america ought to have to flow through the employer?


What you don't get is that contraception is no different than any other coverage.
contraception is not a coverage.

well actually a condom provides coverage.

what's your point?

You want your insurance company to cover viagra?
if I want my insurance policy to cover viagara. it ought to. if not, not.

I don't need it and don't think I should have to pay....
then don't. oh wait. the government has decided that you aren't entitled to that option

There is no insurance plan that allows you to select just the medical issues you expect to experience.
why not?


You are not paying for just what you are liable to use, you are paying for the risks associated with eveyone on your plan....
yes. and it's absurd

Yes, that means that insurance itself is sort of a socialist scheme....
pooled risk is science. it's not a 'socialist scheme'

don't like it? Tough.
well that seems to contradict life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, doesn't it?

what country are you living in?

I don't have a solution for you and I bet if you looked at the insurance issue with an open mind you'd realize just how silly your argument is.
so your 'open minded' solution is: DEAL WITH IT?
 

degsme

Council Member
Secondly, if something you do has less than a 10% chance of success, you are not likely to call that cause and effect. For example, knee surgery has a 10% chance of death. But you don't say that you are engaging in death to replace your ACL.
Well if there is only a 10% chance that one should be able to fund their own contraceptives, according to your logic.
Um that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to have contraceptive coverage as part of basic healthcare insurance, alongside treatment for erectile disfunction, Urinary Tract infections, prostrate exams, HPV vaccinations... etc.

You must like Somalia, it that where your vacation home is? It is bad enough I pay for my mistakes, why should I have to pay for you uncaring idiots that think everything should be free and you should have a happy go lucky life?
Again, if you don't want to have ME pay for your mistakes as well, Somalia's the place to go. ME? I think somalia sucks. YOU are the one who advocates policies and a role for government that is what Somalia has implemented.

So as far as I can tell, Somalia would be Eden... FOR YOU. ME? I like that I have a society that helps me achive more than I can on my own, and in the case that something happens to me that I have not forseen, is there to help me in my time of need. And that definately isn't Somalia.

if "self reliance" is so great, why is Somalia in such bad shap?


No it come down that if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.
See that's the part you don't get. If something has a 10% chance or less of happening, its not logical to "not do it" simply because there is a 10% chance.


What the Chuch objects to is the interferance of a leftwing government overstepping their bounds and doing what the Constitution forbids them to do.
The Constitution does not ban regulation of CIVIC BUSINESS. The Church is objecting to being asked to play by the rules of CIVIC BUSINESS, when it CHOOSES to leave its protected realm of Religious action and seek the legal and financial BENEFITS of CIVIC BUSINESS.

Sorry no. If you want to have the benefits of being a business (liability limitations, fund raising, financial transactions) you also get to submit to the CIVIC BUSINESS rules. If you don't want to, if you want to stand a point of RELIGIOUS PRIVILEDGE... you can. No one is forcing the Church to run businesses.
 

Bruce

Council Member
dude FACT THIS.

clinton presided over nothing. and people think he was a great president.

you're trying to deny Reagan credit for dropping the soviet union.

that's lame

makes you a partisan.

of course there were a zillion variables in play.

AND they collapsed under his and HW's watch.

so give credit where credit is due.

and I love the OBAMA SUCKS LESS jive.. what we don't know and can't measure (though he does using jive like jobs saved) is where we'd be economically if we had an American as president

and the rest of the internet jive is more granny warren socialist rap.
Yup, Reagan broke the soviet's and spent us into oblivion doing it. Your real problem is is in the number's. The rich winger's preach fiscal policy as they raid our treasury and run the plastic to do it.
The problem is (your problem is) finding the info to refute true number's from fiscal policies of the republican administration's and now you and your headmaster's want to keep right on doing it. Cut the taxes to the rich ) and run the CC thru the machine again to pay for the tax cut's. Eventually, you and I will pay for the cut's that the rich will enslave us with.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because of Reagan and GHW Bush? That makes you an incurable partisan. Every president from Truman to Reagan made a contribution.

If Reagan deserves credit for that because it happened on his watch then he also deserves credit for tripling the national debt and the S&L collapse. And while we are dishing out credit, W and W alone deserves the credit for the current recession....it did happen on his watch, right skip?

An American for president? Hawaii is part of the United States. His birth to a US citizen in Honolulu makes Obama an American....

Nobody is questioning Bush's citizenship, but God help us if we get another like him for four years....

The rest of your jive is just so much Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter...bullshlt.....
 

Bruce

Council Member
and thank you for your service to our country!!!!

i was referring to 'tet'. we actually drove the NVA back and 'won' but the squishy's back here influenced by the squishy reporters, got tired of our guys dying for no reason.

part the politicians fault for not making the connection, like bush in Iraq and obama in afghanistan.

when we stopped fighting wars to win them
You're welcome! The war in Viet Nam is still one of if not the most controversial war ever fought by the US. After all these years no one can actually say why we would travel so far and fight an unwinnable war. Some say it was for the riches and oil that VN had and other's say it was for helping an impoverished country from the hands of the commies but either way it was hard for people to take the body count and the relentless Chinese and Russian help given the NVC. Either way it was a great loss in our blood and pictures like this that touched the folk's back home.
If there was one photograph that captured the horrific nature of the Vietnam war, one photograph that tore at our collective conscience, it was the picture of a nine year old girl, running naked down a road, screaming in agony from the jellied gasoline coating her body and burning through skin and muscle down the bone. Her village in the Central Highlands of Vietnam was napalmed that day in 1972, and the little girl took a direct hit. It would take many years, and 17 operations to save her life. And when she finally felt well enough to put it behind her, that very photograph would make her a victim, all over again.

kim.jpg
 

Bruce

Council Member
Do you drink alcohol? Eat meat? Are you overweight? Do you exercise? Does your wife come from a family with a history of breast cancer? Do you smoke?

If you have an insurance policy through your employer then your policy may actually cost more than mine, but because risk is shared, your premium is the same as mine. What you don't get is that contraception is no different than any other coverage. You want your insurance company to cover viagra? I don't need it and don't think I should have to pay....that is your logic. There is no insurance plan that allows you to select just the medical issues you expect to experience. You are not paying for just what you are liable to use, you are paying for the risks associated with eveyone on your plan....

Yes, that means that insurance itself is sort of a socialist scheme....don't like it? Tough. I don't have a solution for you and I bet if you looked at the insurance issue with an open mind you'd realize just how silly your argument is.
Yup, Amazing how the CEO"S and BOD's Make so much money so it's anything but socialism.
$102 Million Payout To United Healthcare CEO Draws Outrage
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today expressed outrage over reports that United Healthcare paid its CEO $102 million in compensation last year and called on the state Department of Insurance to consider executive pay in future company rate cases.
 

Bruce

Council Member
The rest of your jive is just so much Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter...bullshlt..... Do'nt forget the hypocrit O-Reily
 
Um that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to have contraceptive coverage as part of basic healthcare insurance, alongside treatment for erectile disfunction, Urinary Tract infections, prostrate exams, HPV vaccinations... etc.


Again, if you don't want to have ME pay for your mistakes as well, Somalia's the place to go. ME? I think somalia sucks. YOU are the one who advocates policies and a role for government that is what Somalia has implemented.

So as far as I can tell, Somalia would be Eden... FOR YOU. ME? I like that I have a society that helps me achive more than I can on my own, and in the case that something happens to me that I have not forseen, is there to help me in my time of need. And that definately isn't Somalia.

if "self reliance" is so great, why is Somalia in such bad shap?



See that's the part you don't get. If something has a 10% chance or less of happening, its not logical to "not do it" simply because there is a 10% chance.




The Constitution does not ban regulation of CIVIC BUSINESS. The Church is objecting to being asked to play by the rules of CIVIC BUSINESS, when it CHOOSES to leave its protected realm of Religious action and seek the legal and financial BENEFITS of CIVIC BUSINESS.

Sorry no. If you want to have the benefits of being a business (liability limitations, fund raising, financial transactions) you also get to submit to the CIVIC BUSINESS rules. If you don't want to, if you want to stand a point of RELIGIOUS PRIVILEDGE... you can. No one is forcing the Church to run businesses.
That is exactly the issue, government stopping it war and inoring the Constitution and people paying for their own care that is not provided for them. That is what you do not want to address.
 

degsme

Council Member
That is exactly the issue, government stopping it war and inoring the Constitution and people paying for their own care that is not provided for them. That is what you do not want to address.
"Stopping it war"? huh? That doesn't parse

As for "ignoring the Constitution" - well it is true that Conservatives in Congress very much passed laws that ignored the Constitutuion when they

  1. Did not object to GWB's use of Writs of Attainder to start Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo bay
  2. Ignored GWB's Writ of Attainder against Jose Padilla
  3. ignored GWB's use of torture
  4. Passed the first Detainee Treatment Act suspending habess rights on Guantanamo Bay
  5. Passed the second Detainee Treatment Act suspending Due Process rights on Guantanamo Bay

But the Supreme Court of the USA overturned those

But you are hard pressed to show any of us, based in the actual text of the US Constittion, that the current administration has done anything like that.

For example the Healthcare REform Act... does not do what you conservatives claim it does. There is no text in the law that says everyone MUST purchase Healthcare Insurance. That text SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. so to claim that the "mandate" is Unconstitional is a bit like saying that Santa Claus is Unconstitutional.

There IS a clause in the HRA that clearly derives its authorty form the 16th Amendment of the Constitution that reduces your tax burden if you purchase healthcare insurance. And that is Constitutionally no different than reducing your tax burden if you buy a mortgage, a share in an oil well, a rental property etc.

And like with the Oil well or mortgage, if you CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE - you pay a higher tax rate.


So this notion of "ignoring the Constitution" is just something you are making up. You are really saying "I don't like this policy so it MUST BE Unconstitutional".... The reality is that you cannot actually come up with the part of the text that is the problem and how it fails to follow the Constitution.
 
[Did not object to GWB's use of Writs of Attainder to start Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo bay
Ignored GWB's Writ of Attainder against Jose Padilla
ignored GWB's use of torture
Passed the first Detainee Treatment Act suspending habess rights on Guantanamo Bay
Passed the second Detainee Treatment Act suspending Due Process rights on Guantanamo Bay

/QUOTE]

I see nothing wrong with the camp on Gitmo. It is nothing more that the POW camps we had out west during WWII.

I have no problem with what was done to Padilla. He was a sabatour and should be tried in by the military and not a civilian court.

Waht torture? Waterboarding? That's not torture.

The people at Gitmo are the enemy, were caputred on the battle field. They are not citizens of the United States and therefore are not privileged to the rights of a citizen.

Again, not citizens so they do not get the rights of citizens.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Waterboarding is not torture? By the fact that we have convicted a sheriff and his deputies in AZ and more than one Japanese soldier after the war for using waterboarding, I'd say it is.

No, not all prisoners at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. We had over 800 prisoners at Gitmo, now we have about 180 or so. They were not all enemy combatants. Some were innocent and were turned over to the US because we were paying a bounty for Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters. Want to make a quick buck, turn in that neighbor you never liked.
 
Top