Townhall protests against "Obamacare" turned into battle zones - Polidicks

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16568204]You have serious problems if you believe that.[/QUOTE] What serious problems? It's obvious. It's all acting. [QUOTE={FP}ST;16568204]Also, what have any of these people tried to sell me, besides their books?[/QUOTE] Their books. Their shows. Their advertising space. Their other shows on Fox. Their conglomerates. Fox News is owned by a huge franchise that doesn't run only Conservative things. In fact, Fox Media has some of the most liberal shows on TV, Family Guy and The Simpsons. They don't give a shit about the Republican agenda, unless it sells. Why don't they have a Libertarian news network on TV? Because it doesn't sell. Communist News? It doesn't sell. Republican News? CNN and MSNBC never catered to that, Jackpot! [editline]02:49PM[/editline] Oh look a grown man crying, he must love his country as much as I do. Well, I know that I can trust Glenn Beck now.

[QUOTE=Coldlead;16568253][media]http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/bloodyguy.png[/media] sorry, it made me lol[/QUOTE] get out

Rupert Murdoch is not a politician, he's a business man and a media mongol, haven't you ever seen Citizen Kane?

[QUOTE=thisispain;16568149]Yeah, their news sources are completely correct, of course, you can't make up world events. But that's the trick behind Yellow Journalism. You take fact, distort it, and play it to peoples views. Fox News didn't start conservatism, that already existed, Fox News played at conservatism, and they constantly push the idea that their are the only fair ones, and that they don't hate conservatives, and they do that constantly, so all the conservatives will get pulled in and they can further their ratings. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, hell, even Keith Olbermann, are simply people who know how to do one thing, fool dumb people and sell shit to them using advertisement. I bet you the views that they present on TV aren't even theirs.[/QUOTE] You forgot Ed, the biggest tool of them all.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;16561883] We need to stop throwing money at people who don't earn it. My opinion, fuck the poor. It's every man for themselves. Hell during the Obama campaign some African American woman was going around truly believing that she would no longer have to pay for her food, gas, taxes, etc because Obama was gonna pick up the tab. If anything let's focus on education and social services so less fuck-tards like that are walking around.[/QUOTE] you are scum btw [editline]10:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bredirish123;16563034] Either way, if the Chinese had a problem with it they wouldn't be working in them. It's like you're playing as big brother trying to do what's best to seem like some hero of the Sweatshop workers and the poor. Why though? Really, they are working and doing what they can to earn money to support themselves, I think you should worry a little less about others and more of yourself.[/QUOTE] not only are you reprehensible, you're an idiot [editline]10:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE={FP}ST;16567994]I think Glenn Beck is one of the most trustworthy sources of news we have(despite his bias). Check what he says, it's almost always true. And next, you'll be after Rush, who happens to be correct 99.2% of the time, according to independent analysis.[/QUOTE] holy shit [editline]10:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE={FP}ST;16568119]Socialist? Yes. Communist, probably. .[/QUOTE] bahahaha if only seriously though obama is a centre-right politician who wants to keep the status quo

Hahahaha Rush and Glenn beck? Really? Now I don't know if Rush is right 99.2% of the time (all he fucking does is bitch and whine), but Glenn Beck is preaching that Obama is a communist racist. And he thinks cars.gov is some government plot to monitor you. That makes no fucking sense, and neither does half the shit he preaches. And I don't take 'independent analysis' as some kind of token that it's true and unbiased. There isn't really anything 'independent' in politics. Anyone who isn't and is in a position of power, will be persuaded to sway to one side, eventually.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;16562140]The UK and Canada also have long waiting lists for surgery.[/QUOTE] Well, they would, since they care for the whole country. A few tens of millions stack up a bit, you know?

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16567994]I think Glenn Beck is one of the most trustworthy sources of news we have[/QUOTE] Pffff-ha ha ha ha ha Did your mother drink while pregnant?

but obama is black it should be good guyz dont worry it is all cool

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16567994]I think Glenn Beck is one of the most trustworthy sources of news we have.[/QUOTE] Please leave, now.

[QUOTE=FPSDars;16570223]Pffff-ha ha ha ha ha Did your mother drink while pregnant?[/QUOTE] No, but she did mistakenly ingest a large amount of Barium for an X-Ray when she was about a month pregnant.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16570313]Please leave, now.[/QUOTE] when this guy says it it's serious

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16565300]The problem is, with finite resources you can't save everyone.[/QUOTE] True. Absolutely utterly true though. That's what I was getting at in my earlier post. The only problem is that the resource we lack, money... is something we make up to have value. I'll put it this way, if we did have a dictator that said 'Health care is free" and forced it all the way through to the point where debt becomes pointless, then theoretically the only supply, or actually [i]fuel[/i] that would be needed to make the gigantic health-care machine run would be the supplies themselves, rather than obeying and having society at the mercy of decimal numbers. But, we're a democracy, so we can't really say "Give sick people your supplies and don't charge them for it or we'll shoot you", because not only is it somewhat not fair to the people who had the supplies, but also because people will say "The government can't do that!". In my opinion, we should probably make health-insurance corporations, if they decide to decline an application for insurance, make them find the applicant someother service provider, or they have to take the client, period. Otherwise, maybe some sort of roster similar to the one we do with law firms for health-insurance companies instead.

Didn't Obama say something about a national competing marketplace for private insurance companies?

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;16570924]Didn't Obama say something about a national competing marketplace for private insurance companies?[/QUOTE] Yep, he did. I guess fox news just forgot to mention that.

sam tilgan please join a right-wing militia and get yourself killed tia

[QUOTE=Chippay;16572236]sam tilgan please join a right-wing militia and get yourself killed tia[/QUOTE] Good fortune to you, too. In fact, by Maryland law, all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who possess a firearm, or have the monetary means and legal ability (i.e. not a felon or insane) to obtain one are considered the militia. So technically, in April of 2010, I will be Maryland militia.

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16572325]Good fortune to you, too. In fact, by Maryland law, all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who possess a firearm, or have the monetary means and legal ability (i.e. not a felon or insane) to obtain one are considered the militia. So technically, in April of 2010, I will be Maryland militia.[/QUOTE] that's why i specified the type of militia see booksmarts aren't your thing try my idea

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16572325]Good fortune to you, too. In fact, by Maryland law, all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who possess a firearm, or have the monetary means and legal ability (i.e. not a felon or insane) to obtain one are considered the militia. So technically, in April of 2010, I will be Maryland militia.[/QUOTE] Wrong militia buddy.

I personally think that Health-Care should be run on a stately level, as most public-services are.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;16562121]Everyone who complains about Universal Healthcare is making plenty of money to pay for themselves. So they bitch and moan about made up issues like "waiting lists" and "rationing" that hardly ever fucking happen in countries with [b][u]effective UHC systems.[/b][/u] Grow up and realize that there are people with real problems in the world.[/QUOTE] The American government is notorious for inefficiency when doing anything. Just about the only thing they are effective at is war. [QUOTE=thisispain;16568184]That's the problem with you Americans. Everything is taken to the extreme. Even our Daily Mail isn't as bad as your News channels.[/QUOTE] I didn't realize California ceded from the union (look up pain's profile.)

[QUOTE={FP}ST;16568119]Socialist? Yes. Communist, probably.[/quote] You don't know what either of those words mean, do you? [QUOTE={FP}ST;16568119]Racist? High probability. He seems obsessed with the issue of race.[/quote] He's the first black president. Of course he obsesses about it. I believe Colbert was joking when he said that the best way to combat racism is to ignore it. [QUOTE={FP}ST;16568119]Born outside the US? I don't know about this one. There's just as much evidence on both sides of the argument.[/QUOTE] On one side of the argument we have a birth certificate. On the other side, we have tinfoil hats.

[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;16573413]The American government is notorious for inefficiency when doing anything. Just about the only thing they are effective at is war.[/QUOTE] well maybe we should try to fix it instead of just saying "aw fuck it, it will never be efficient" ? conservatives seem to have trouble realizing that governments aren't inherently ineffective and bureaucratic, it can vary, you know

[QUOTE=Conscript;16561248]I'm pretty sure Sam Tilgan's 'communism' is merely Keynesianism. Although all free marketers think anything that isn't unregulated is communism[/QUOTE] Not really, I'm a free marketer and I know the difference between Communism, Socialism, AND Keynesianism (hooray for IB Econ!!!!). Keynesianism:[b]This is closest to the middle of the economic spectrum.[/b]Believed that the private sector needs to be watch closely because they don't make the correct descisions. Believed that in a time of economic troubles, it is the government's responsibility to stabilize it by putting or taking money into the economy. Communism: [b]This is closest to the northwest of the economic spectrum.[/b] Operates under a one party system. [quote]From each according to his ability, to each according to his need[/quote] sums it up pretty well economically. You work, you get whatever you need to live by. The government has complete control of all imports and exports, you only can get what they give you. Socially, you are restricted by the economy. Fairly close to totalitarianism. Only thing missing is complete social control. Socialism: [b]West on the economic spectrum[/b] Commonly called Communism without the gun. Supposed to be the step in between Capitalism and Communism. The government stays out of your social life, but controls the economic aspects. Believes that the government should own businesses and strictly regulate how they operate.

[QUOTE=dot_anthem;16573777]I am wrong[/QUOTE] No you're wrong I already quoted a McCain supporter [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;16553639]Obama is actually a Socialist which "is somewhere between our democracy like we have and like, fascism like the nazis and terrorists have and communism or something" according to an attender of a McCain campaign rally.[/QUOTE] The McCain supporters know everything about anything, dude.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;16573931]No you're wrong I already quoted a McCain supporter The McCain supporters know everything about anything, dude.[/QUOTE] There are stupid people on every side you know. Hell, look at the blacks that were interviewed during the election, "So what do you think of Obama's choice as Sarah Palin for his Vice President?" "Oh yes, yes yes yes sir, she is a fine candidate and Obama made a good choice with her."

[QUOTE=Billiam;16572914]I personally think that Health-Care should be run on a stately level, as most public-services are.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except states wouldn't be able to possibly obtain such funds without help from the federal govt. [editline]11:41PM[/editline] [QUOTE=dot_anthem;16574053]There are stupid people on every side you know. Hell, look at the blacks that were interviewed during the election, "So what do you think of Obama's choice as Sarah Palin for his Vice President?" "Oh yes, yes yes yes sir, she is a fine candidate and Obama made a good choice with her."[/QUOTE] Both of you have strayed far from the main argument.

[QUOTE=billeh!;16574073]Yeah, except states wouldn't be able to possibly obtain such funds without help from the federal govt. [editline]11:41PM[/editline] Both of you have strayed far from the main argument.[/QUOTE] Fine, fine fine fine fine then. Why was it fine for Cindy Sheehan to protest outside of Bush's private house everyday? What was it fine for all of teh hippehs to protest outside of the Whitehouse lawn everyday? Why were the riots in LA justified when a black man was beaten by the 5-0? Why isn't it fine for a fuckton of old people to protest something they don't agree with? Anyone can protest, stop whining about it. I would find the quote with the "this is your mob, etc" pictures but I am too lazy..... Before I leave, chicken noose

[QUOTE=dot_anthem;16573777] Socialism: [b]West on the economic spectrum[/b] Commonly called Communism without the gun. Supposed to be the step in between Capitalism and Communism. The government stays out of your social life, but controls the economic aspects. Believes that the government should own businesses and strictly regulate how they operate.[/QUOTE] Wow you don't know anything about socialism or communism, do you? Communism is strictly an economic school. It has nothing to do with controlling a person's social life. I think you have communism confused with stalinism.

both parties were in the wrong the protester have to Assembly peacefully the town hall can not deny the right of a us citizen into its doors