President's Speech to School Kids

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The frog has been in the water for three generations. The water temperature has steadily increased, slowly but surely. Obama hits the kitchen and turns the burner from “Low” heat to “Medium”. There is a reason to be concerned about this guy, to be wary. Others were content to leave the heat on low. This radical has no problem openly and brazenly cranking up the heat. Because of this the frog is either about to get fully cooked or he is going to jump out of the pot.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Nothing to do with skin color. Everything to do with Obama’s quest to rapidly move the U.S. towards socialism. No one, regardless of political label, can deny this. To do so is to invite instantaneous scorn for being so fuckin’ blind and deaf.[/quote]

Have you seen the movie John Q with Denzel Washington? Our system doesn’t work and has many faults. Exactly how many more generations did that frog need to stay in the water? Youy wanted it to die of old age?

282

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you :slight_smile:

Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?

[/quote]

Until just looking it up my definition would have been no euphemism. It would have been a literal description of justice

283

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you :slight_smile:

Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?

[/quote]

But to say Obama meant his statement euphemistically would be stretching it, because Social Justice has a literal definition as well

284

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I asked the question for discussion. You asked the question to claim some sort of victory in a debate. I really have lost interest in you at this point.[/quote]

This is nonsense - you made the claim that “politics” couldn’t be the driver of the reaction to Obama’s speech to schoolchildren. So, what do you think it is?

Why is it so hard to answer the question? This is the discussion, I’ve made no claim to victory - you made the original statement…well, what do you think caused it, if not politics?

285

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

One thing is clear despite everyone’s opinion here… the 2 party system sucks ass. [/quote]

Awesome - so offer a better alternative.

286

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

One thing is clear despite everyone’s opinion here… the 2 party system sucks ass.

Awesome - so offer a better alternative.

[/quote]

As I said in another thread-- With the exception of some individuals, there’s not a rat’s cunt hair of difference between the D’s and R’s

288

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Obama has middle America scared, the very people who elected him are now afraid. He did that with his outrageous appointments. He did that with his insidious health care proposal. He did that with his position on cap and trade and other major issues. Obama and his far left policies have motivated outraged voters who normally couldn’t care less about politics to attend town hall meetings and shout down those on the far left who support the President and his far left agenda.

Guy, I work in the health field and I can tell you the one thing screwing it up right now are the insurance companies which have so much control over treatment that they can actually dictate what treatment I can even do on a patient.Most people with insurance don’t even understand their own policies. Every patient I see has to be educated on what their own insurance covers so yes, it strikes me as strange that these same people suddenly understand the health care system on such a level as to label Obama’s plan as “insidious”…but let’s discuss that. What exactly is “insidious” about his health care plan? Please, be specific and teach me so I can learn what you apparently already know.[/quote]

None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

[quote]You see the Christian right as the biggest evil entity in this country. I see far left politicians as the biggest evil.

I see the Christian Right as a bunch of hypocrites. I see far left politicians as mostly impotent.[/quote]

I wouldn’t classify either group in that manner, but then again we are on opposite sides of the political fence.

[quote]You can call yourself what you like, matters not. We just happen to see the political spectrum from opposite sides most of the time and I know where I stand, I’m a conservative.

I know where I stand as well…and I know a label is the first step to being nothing but a follower.[/quote]

I think that’s the most popular thing to say but in all reality you and I, and everyone else have certain political opinions which would lead to fairly simple labeling.

That doesn’t mean that you agree down the line with any certain party. It has nothing to do with being a follower it has more to do with banning together and getting things done in areas where you are like minded, it’s called politics.

289

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you :slight_smile:

Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?

Until just looking it up my definition would have been no euphemism. It would have been a literal description of justice[/quote]

Then now you understand why Sotomieyeor was an important appointment for Obama. Social Justice.

290

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s upsetting that he wants to take money from people who have worked hard for it and basically give it to people who do not have it.

This is interesting to me…because under Bush and still currently, I lose much of my paycheck to income tax simply because I’m single and not poor. You, for some reason, seem to think things are better the way they are and were? LOL.

Now tell me something can most on your side say the same thing about President Bush?

Why do you see everything as Republicans vs. Democrats?

Not everyone who disapprove of Obama approved of G.W. Bush. Bush fucked up way more than Obama has so far, but he had 8 years to do it. Obama is leading us down the same path weve been on for the past 50 years.

Theres too much at stake for you to go around screaming “but Bush did it too.”

My side? Now that was funny. I would have voted libertarian if they would have had a chance in hell. Pointing out how loony the “Christian Right” is does not label me a democrat. Not seeing Obama as Hitler does not make me one either.[/quote]

291

[quote]ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

[/quote]

My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.

You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.

292

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
When did this become a “Christian” issue?[/quote]

293

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.

You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.[/quote]

Do you honestly believe adding more bureaucracy, mandating more coverage for people, eliminating pre-existing conditions, all while running up the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for a public option is going to lead to you having less money taken from you?

Coverage and cost are proportional. If you increase coverage for people you increase cost. That money has to come from somewhere. The only real way for the government to decrease cost is to ration (deny) care, the general rule being rolling back coverage for the elderly who use the most healthcare and aren’t going to live long anyway.

294

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.

You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.

Do you honestly believe adding more bureaucracy, mandating more coverage for people, eliminating pre-existing conditions, all while running up the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for a public option is going to lead to you having less money taken from you?

Coverage and cost are proportional. If you increase coverage for people you increase cost. That money has to come from somewhere. The only real way for the government to decrease cost is to ration (deny) care, the general rule being rolling back coverage for the elderly who use the most healthcare and aren’t going to live long anyway.

[/quote]

I apologize…when I asked for specifics, I meant WITHOUT speculation and WITH real facts.

295

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you :slight_smile:

Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?

But to say Obama meant his statement euphemistically would be stretching it, because Social Justice has a literal definition as well
[/quote]

But what is your definition?

296

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.[/quote]

If the national health care plan Obama style is going to save you money then it’s a good thing. Is that what you’re saying?

Please tell me how we are going to cover millions of people people and you will be paying less?

The most insidious part of his plan is the part where he says he’s only going to tax the rich. I hope you realize that there are not enough rich people in the US (and it will be shrinking if he gets all of his leftist ideas passed) to pay for this massive government program. You can of course change the definition of rich to include those making over 75-K per year and that might be what he has to do in order to pay for this catastrophe called national health care.

Of course there won’t be any fraud, long lines, or needless paper work involved because the government is so efficient.

How can you tell a politician is lying?

You know the answer.

297

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you honestly believe adding more bureaucracy, mandating more coverage for people, eliminating pre-existing conditions, all while running up the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for a public option is going to lead to you having less money taken from you?

[/quote]

I don’t know how this doesn’t set off the bullcrap-o-meter. Besides, anyone with foresight realizes it’s meant to be the yellow brick road to a single-payer system.

298

This is quite a hot topic… Very interesting.

299

This is quite a hot topic… Very interesting.

300

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?

That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.

My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.

You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.

Do you honestly believe adding more bureaucracy, mandating more coverage for people, eliminating pre-existing conditions, all while running up the deficit hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for a public option is going to lead to you having less money taken from you?

Coverage and cost are proportional. If you increase coverage for people you increase cost. That money has to come from somewhere. The only real way for the government to decrease cost is to ration (deny) care, the general rule being rolling back coverage for the elderly who use the most healthcare and aren’t going to live long anyway.

I apologize…when I asked for specifics, I meant WITHOUT speculation and WITH real facts.[/quote]

Selected Quotes:

“Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes” necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.”

“Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory – or cost curve – of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, “The curve is being raised.””

“Elmendorf responded: “No, Mr. Chairman.” Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs – increasing federal health spending overall.”