Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

456. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 26, 2013, 16:39 Wowbagger_TIP
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 15:21:
Prez wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 14:59:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 13:01:

My opinion is we have too many people in the US for socialized health care to ever be done in a way that's going to be affordable. Regardless of which party's plan it is. It's just not going to work in the long run doing the actual math.

Is "Obamacare" really socialized health care though? Do people in socialist nations have to pay a premium and a deductible like people do under the ACA? I always thought socialized medicine meant it was paid for completely out of tax revenues.

It is though, it's requiring everyone to pay into a service provided by the government, something that SHOULD not be allowed to happen period.
No, it's really not. It's requiring us to purchase plans from corporations, not from the government.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 15:21:
I'm all for regulating the health industry on how much certain procedures cost. What I am not for is redefining parts of the Constitution or outright ignoring parts of the Constitution to reflect mob mentality. It's a dangerous precedent.
We've been through this. It's not unconstitutional. Hell, the Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate, not those socialist Dems.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 15:21:
The same goes for the first and second amendment, Obama has talked more than once about silencing members of the media that he doesn't agree with, advocating boycotts on members of the media like a Rush, or Fox in general or the Bob Woodward case,just because he doesn't like what they have to say.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 15:21:
He's also made reference to executive orders on the 2nd amendment which is not in his power to do. The media is there, and this is ALL media, to challenge politicians in both policies and actions. We don't have that now, instead we have a media that is an extension of their own bias be it left or right.
You obviously have no idea what those proposals were. They weren't going to violate the 2nd amendment in any way, and I say that as someone who is a gun owner and supports gun ownership rights.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 26, 2013, 15:21:
We're setting a very dangerous precedent, people really need to wake up regardless of party affiliation.
Really the Zimmerman case was a perfect example of this which is why I brought it up. How many times has a president in history ever made a federal case of black on black crime, or black on white crime? When have you ever heard the terminology before the zimmerman case of "White Hispanic?" Never mind the double standard when talking about black conservatives, equating them to race traitors, calling them Uncle Toms or the like.
The Zimmerman case was an example of a bad law and a whole lot of uninformed people spewing a lot of uninformed crap all over the place. The bottom line is that since there were no useful witnesses, we don't know who started the conflict. We do know Zimmerman made some really bad, and downright stupid, decisions, but that doesn't tell us who initiated the fight. Since the law doesn't require him to provide any evidence that lethal force was required or that he was attacked, they had to acquit.
Avatar 9540
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo