Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[Starla]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

STFU you little fucking pussy...

Your last sentence describes YOU. You fucking dumbAss.

I thought so too. I was like, wtf?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

god fucking damnit can you LISTEN to what another human being is saying before you open your mouth?

Jeez...

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

Then what were you trying to say?

that democrats being pro-war isn't new and that the democratic party's problem is most definitely not that it is too far left.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Starla

The proof will be in the pudding when election season rolls around.

and what does this even mean

[The Omega Concern]

Let's see how many Obamatards here call me names for illustrating how right I am about what's to come with Obamacrap.


I mentioned Czech movies and Cuban documentaries and how in Russia, Operators would respond to emergencies by asking first, "how old is the victim?"


Over a certain age, they will just let you die.



That's what's coming to America, here's the Commie in charge of it: Rahm Emanuals brother.


Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief--Dr Ezekel Emanuel advocates minimizing care for the elderly, disabled and even infants as cost effective

In January, 2009, Dr. Emanuel published a paper in the Lancet [Persad, Govind, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions." The Lancet 373 (Jan 31,2009): 423-31]. In it he argues for the use of a "Complete Lives Systems" method of allocating care. From the abstract:

“
We recommend an alternative system--the complete lives system--which prioritises younger people who have not yet live a complete life and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”

In defending this approach against charges of ageism, Dr. Emanuel claims that because everyone was young once, prioritizing the young over the old is not discrimination:

“
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different states rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.”

This system also treats human beings as commodities, evaluating their lives as "investments":

“
Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dr-e...y-and-disabled

The aca is not communism
I wish it was
So many fucking capitalist countries have universal health care
It's a socialist program but it just hasn't like made it illegal to own a s,all business
I just don't get you
You say a lot of words that don't mean anything, you don't know what communism is and you don't know how to please a woman

Originally Posted by Eulogy

that democrats being pro-war isn't new and that the democratic party's problem is most definitely not that it is too far left.

I tried eulogy
Somehow she ignored ,y post
Even though me and Starla are buds on the book she glossed over ,y two explanations
We're fukt

Examiner is a click bait site run by people who don't even pretend to be journalists

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Aeris Hilton

I tried eulogy
Somehow she ignored ,y post
Even though me and Starla are buds on the book she glossed over ,y two explanations
We're fukt

Now its just getting childish.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

and what does this even mean

It means we will see how people feel about things with their votes.

[Eulogy]

like when obama was reelected and house democrats got a million more votes than republicans?

you think a republican will be elected president?

what are you saying

don't answer that i don't care

My post wasn't childish
I said we were buds thats friendly
If anything was childish it was you ignoring my posts where I explained what eulogy meant
And eulogy won't even add me on the book

[Starla]

I have no idea who will be elected. I think we will see how people feel with their votes after this aca debacle. That is all.

[Order 66]

when your argument is "people who don't agree with me are dumb because" you don't get to call people childish

[Starla]

I'm not the one here who gets unhinged and gets nasty because someone disagrees with me. If anything, i tend to joke about it because losing your shit and cussing people in a discussion doesnt show a lot of maturity (in reference to rbg)

[Order 66]

so you stand by your assertion that dems are just now being pro war?

[redbreegull]

I'm sorry I cursed at you Starla but I will not even begin to address issues of maturity with someone who cannot properly construct an argument that would be acceptable for a tenth grade persuasive essay.

[MyOneAndOnly]

when drunk this thread is like

whatever

[MyOneAndOnly]

cussing people

[redbreegull]

it's like that sober too

[Trotskilicious]

i got dicks bigger than both of you put together

[MyOneAndOnly]

you have more than one dick?

[redbreegull]

I heard that motherfucker had like 30 goddamn dicks

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Order 66

so you stand by your assertion that dems are just now being pro war?

This would probably sum up what I'm thinking.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02...war-democrats/

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I'm sorry I cursed at you Starla but I will not even begin to address issues of maturity with someone who cannot properly construct an argument that would be acceptable for a tenth grade persuasive essay.

If you read back through the thread, you pretty much avoided every question I have asked you, and have not discussed any link I have given you.

[Starla]

I don't really have time to construct essays for the netphorian political forum lol But I DO think when it comes to matters of war the dems of today are not the same as the ones in the past, and the way presidents are held accountable for their actions (and of course neither are republicans). The Iran contra scandal pretty much ruined Jimmy Carter, because then Americans mostly agreed that you don't fund terrorists or negotiate with them. But with Obama, he openly funds terrorists and openly admits to it and expects Americans to just accept it and people who support Obama, do. I have emails from my congress people confirming Obama supports Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda by giving money and weapons to them. This is a well known fact, congress has been briefed on that. I'm thinking the attitude toward war has changed a lot, and I still think this administration (not all of the dems) is more war mongering than past ones. We condemn Iran for their state sponsored terrorism, but look at what we are doing. Obama has so many scandals, he has over 100 impeachable offenses, but of course the response for this is he has a mandate and can do what he wants since he was re-elected.

[Trotskilicious]

democrats of the past presided over the two world wars

[Trotskilicious]

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Starla

I don't really have time to construct essays for the netphorian political forum lol But I DO think when it comes to matters of war the dems of today are not the same as the ones in the past, and the way presidents are held accountable for their actions (and of course neither are republicans). The Iran contra scandal pretty much ruined Jimmy Carter, because then Americans mostly agreed that you don't fund terrorists or negotiate with them. But with Obama, he openly funds terrorists and openly admits to it and expects Americans to just accept it and people who support Obama, do. I have emails from my congress people confirming Obama supports Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda by giving money and weapons to them. This is a well known fact, congress has been briefed on that. I'm thinking the attitude toward war has changed a lot, and I still think this administration (not all of the dems) is more war mongering than past ones. We condemn Iran for their state sponsored terrorism, but look at what we are doing. Obama has so many scandals, he has over 100 impeachable offenses, but of course the response for this is he has a mandate and can do what he wants since he was re-elected.

you do realize, don't you, that Iran Contra occured during the Reagan administrations and had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter.

the rest of your post is classic Starla BS...

[MyOneAndOnly]

Comparing today's Democratic or Republican parties to what the parties were like 40 or more years ago is pointless. There has been a massive demographic and ideological shift in both parties over the past 3 decades.

In the case of the Dems, the party base and Dem members of congress are LESS LIKELY now to endorse the use of the military overseas than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

It was 3 consecutive Democratic administrations that began and carried out the Vietnam war, for instance, with democratic majorities in congress supporting it. Compare that to the last invasion of Iraq. If Obama were to ask for congressional authorization for military force today, he'd probably have to get the GOP on board, since his own party wouldn't be able to put up a majority in the house or senate.