StrangeSox

I am very glad Kissinger never had the potential to be President. Seems anachronistic these days.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 08:36 AM) Where is your line? What exact freedoms are you willing to give up so the government can make things "better"? I hear a lot of s*** from people who are willing to turn their lives over to the government, but I am curious for you all to start answering your own questions? Speech?-no Religion?-no Movement?-limited exceptions (do you have a problem with passports?) Property?-no, unless you consider property taxes theft/ government control. Then, yes. Now, what's the rational basis for allowing government to provide fire, police, EMS, infrastructure, schools, food and drug safety, military protection, etc. but not a health care insurance option in this case or even an NHS-style system? Why are your freedoms not being stolen, why are you not "turning [your] lives over to the government" for those services?

Where's your non-arbitrary line of demarcation? What government services lead to evil socialism and what government services are necessary for a functional society?

I heard they're fluoridating your water, too. Stealing your Purity of Essence.

It allows them to purchase insurance in the HCE. edit: AFAIK

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 07:40 AM) Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call. Except I didn't actually argue that strawman he erected. It's much easier to make up your opponent's position and then knock it down instead of addressing what was actually said.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) Sure. Because the "other side" is obviously lying, right? Ok, all BS aside, seriously, that's how it comes off. People can see and experience things, and it doesn't matter, because there's not "data". But yet, "data" can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say. So, because it supports a position you want it to, you're going to believe it more then you would something I would post. I'm using that as an example. Then you'll post counter after counterpoint talking about how my stuff is junk, because this that and the other is supporting your position. I'm not defending a dissertation when I post stuff - but I guess that tends to be my downfall. All I know is, there's a line between government intervention in MY life versus simply taking my property, and all Kaperbole ™ aside, that's where I draw the line, and apparently a lot of "fear mongering" Americans agree with me. Kap, you're defending irrationalism in this post. Just thought you should know that.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) The point is right now illegals are not eligible for insurance because they can't legally obtain work. That's honestly the way it should be. So they go to the ER, get treated with world class care (compared to the rest of the world - no it's no perfect, no one says it is) and we the taxpayer pony up or it gets written off. The issue becomes, under this plan, just like you say, they can go purchase insurance like it's bread in a store. "Purchase"... whatever the hell that is. Anyway, that's wrong. If you're not a citizen, you should not be able to pick up insurance like it's bread in a store. What the hell comparision is that? So I'll say it another way, which is the semantics game you're playing. Insurance is guaranteed to be available to them. That's FACT. And it's wrong. Jose Illegal (stereotyped) just got the same "rights" I just got as a citizen, and that's just wrong. Those goal posts must be awfully heavy, Kap. I'm really failing to understand why your option, not giving illegals the option to Purchase (to buy goods or services with money), is better. Because, as you said, we end up paying for their care in the end when they go to emergency rooms and don't pay. Isn't it better for everyone if they're paying into the system? And, really, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What's so morally outrageous about this? You're citing an opinion column by Betsy "Death Squad" McCaughey? She's the retard that started the whole "death panel" nonsense. I know you just love Jon Stewart so much--should I post a link to his interview with her where she couldn't, you know, actually find any part of the bill that actually says that and looked like the complete fool that she is? GMAFB. edit: Don't forget, that is the same Betsy McCaughey who lied her ass off about Clinton's plan.

Kap, I fully recognize that there are legitimate practical criticisms of this bill (how do they plan on paying for it?) as well as ideological criticisms I simply do not agree with. What I frequently argue against are what I see as ridiculous and just generally unsupportable criticisms.

he seems manic depressive or something.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:33 PM) Well, ok, what the hell are you (or I) missing? Under the HOUSE bill (yes, I understand your point about the Senate...) the only insurance you can get if you change is the public option, I asked for your source on this. As far as I'm aware, it is not in the bill. Another poster pointed out a section they thought you might be referring to, but I don't remember you following up. That's not the 'DEATH SQUADS' idiots are all worked up about. Palin talked specifically about some government panel killing her DS baby, not "end of life counseling" provided by her doctor if she wants it. Its not forced, its not mandated. Its simply more made-up bulls***. Why wouldn't I get hung up on "guaranteed" since that's the retarded fear-mongering bulls*** part? They're eligible to buy a plan in the HCE. Just like they're eligible to purchase bread at the grocery store. Its illogical to make conclusions based on unsupported premises, like illegals being guaranteed coverage. I'm still waiting for something indicating that illegals WILL RECEIVE health care free-of-charge, because complaining that they'll be able to pay for coverage is just too ridiculous to address. They're retarded.

Thumbs up on all Anderson films. When I saw Darjeeling Limited, we were the only people in the theater.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) But you just blended the two and people are "fear mongering"... they aren't fear mongering about crap the senate's doing. They are just pissed off and want left alone. I'm not sure why "liberals" don't understand that concept. If you're mentioning people "fear mongering" they aren't about the Senate, so why did you bring it up? Most of what they're ranting about isn't in any piece of legislation. Its made-up fear mongering bulls***, such as the only new option is the public option, DEATH SQUADS!, and illegals are guaranteed coverage. I'm not sure why you don't understand that concept.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:12 PM) My gawd that's BS. HB 3200 is where a lot of this comes from. So EVERY ARGUEMENT against health care is BS because no one knows what they want to do yet? That's mighty f***ing arrogant of you to then leap to then everyone (against this) is "fear mongering". When you subsidize "public option" and set pricing, it will kill the private industry. It just will. Which Obama himself admits that is what he wants. "The SENATE" "HOUSE Bill 3200" eta:: also, at least read my f***ing post. Your avatar is highly appropriate and saves me the time of posting it again and again. Its might f***ing arrogant of you to say I said things I did not.

Wow, now its almost illegal to tackle a QB. Just give them flags already.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ER&v=glance heard him on npr (1) Americans are completely hung up on the mechanism by which we achieve a good health care system. Predictably, then, we completely lose sight of the goal: universal coverage at a reasonable price. There are lots of solutions that would fail at this, and probably more than one that would succeed. But there's only one proven failure, and that's the status quo. (The National Acadamy of Sciences estimates that 22,000 people die in America each year of preventable ailments because they could not get money for a doctor). He points out the stupidity of this wrangling over whether it is the government or the private sector that will administer healthcare, given that many of the systems which perform better than our own are more private. They just don't allow big near-monopoly corporations to hold their government by the balls in those countries, and that goes for health insurance companies as well. (2) It doesn't matter if hospitals are run for profit--Japan has a tremendously better healthcare system than the U.S., and they also have more for-profit hospitals than the U.S. All that matters is who pays, and whether the nature of health insurance coverage will be determined solely by a handful of giant corporate entities. (3) The public hasn't gotten to see much detail about the things the Senate is considering, which is part of the cause of all the retardation from both sides that's been coming out at these town hall meetings; but regardless of what the details are of what the Senate is considering, there is no way that people who have a good health insurance situation right now will be threatened by a solution for the people who don't. Nothing has ever been mentioned by anyone in Washington to that effect. If you're good now, then nothing will change for you. Anyone who says or implies otherwise is fear-mongering. (4) What will probably happen: the federal government will push through a half-assed reform or less, the Democrats will declare total victory, and the non-retarded states will start working on creating their own public options, which will actually be good because it will give us a lot of basis for comparison as to the best solution.

Their guaranteed health care was the only premise of your link between the two. So, yeah, if that premise goes to s***, so does that whole argument. eta: will you admit that there's no such guarantee?

Kap, you said guaranteed first, not me.

1) No one's guaranteed health insurance. I'm not making an affirmative claim here, so the burden of proof is squarely on you. 2) The article you linked to says that the bill allows illegals to participate in the Health Care Exchange, meaning they can buy health insurance, including the public option. It does not indicate any sort of mandate or guaranteed coverage.

I need to watch RD again.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) It's in my own little fairy tale world. It's misinformation. It's a lie. It's something that you need to turn me into the White House for - you know - the hotline for turning people in for lying about health care s***. I'm sure that this link is somehow BS, right? http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseC...83496&EDATE Please indicate for me where in that article it supports your contention that they're guaranteed health care insurance. eta: but, yeah, out of typical character, you've been falling for the GOP BS talking points hook-line-and-sinker on this one. You've made a lot of dubious or flat-out wrong statements.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) Just stop health care. Then let the battle begin for immigration. But really, one is tied to the other because immigrants are guaranteed health care with the current proposal (HB 3200). If they pass health care, immigration is easy. If they don't, it's not. Source please.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) He is SO bi-partisan. He's reached out to SO many Republicans since he's been president. Oh wait, he's got his hand out, it's shake my hand, do it my way, or f*** you. Bi-partisan my ass.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 12:25 AM) I've never been as motivated by this thread to see a film as I now am to see Basterds. I like 90% of Quentin's films as it is, but between some of the early reviews and my general preconception that Nazis are not necessarily the humor well I was half-expecting ths one to miss the mark. I'm glad to see a number of posters here give this one high marks and put it back in my sights. I beg to differ.

I'm officially moving on to the Bears as of tomorrow night. I'll still watch Sox games, but I have zero expectations of them making the playoffs.