justinb138

Now its time to start putting them in jail. You are a taxpayer right? They ripped off the American taxpayer... but I guess that is ok to you. If they committed a crime, then put them in jail. I'm not disagreeing with you on this, and no, ripping off taxpayers is not OK with me. Personally, I think penalties for crimes committed by elected officials are much to light.

And prosecutions are finally happening now that their protection is gone. If that's the case, then good. And as far as it stopping - I'll believe it when I see it. I'm hoping that things with the war will change, but I've yet to see anything that would make me believe that this guy is much different than the last. (By that I mean Obama doesn't seem averse to 'policing the world'). I try to be positive about this stuff, I just have a hard time seeing this administration going after anyone in the previous administration, as that opens the door for the next admin. to go after them.

So now that Bush is out all the war profiteering is going to stop isn't it?

Does Springtime for Hitler qualify since it's not a real musical?

So why all the anger? Bush is out, so all this war profiteering is going to stop now, right?

So where exactly did I said (not quote the opponent) that? Don't be shy, point to a particular post. I'm sorry, didn't realize you were incapable of counting. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3751515;#3751423

You just hoping no one is going to scroll up 7 posts ?

Makes about as much sense as saying all the obese people are republicans doesn't it? You probably need to make a note to yourself to actually look at some of the data out there before making baseless assumptions like that. Probably pretty small, but I'm not the one saying that the majority of republicans are obese - that was all you.

How come? Probably has something to do with the "see what you want to see" thing. You happen to catch the obesity rates by race? Rates for black and hispanic people (democrats by a large margin) are much higher than the rates for white people. Did you even review recent polls on voter affiliation by state?

Trust me, there's no question about the BS.

I think anyone looking to either party for morals or honesty needs to have their head examined.

1. Because humans are not infallible. People make mistakes. 2. I don't like the idea of government having the authority to kill. 3. It's much, much cheaper to imprison someone for life. I hope in #1, you're referring to juries, not criminals. As for #3, it doesn't have to be so, though it may increase the concerns of #1. Also, I wonder if the math is still true, given the rising costs of health care and prisons, and mandates that prisoners get HC that many Americans would do anything short of kill for. #1. Yes, referring to juries, witnesses, police officers, etc.. #3. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm assuming that lawyers are still much more expensive than all of the above combined.

1. Because humans are not infallible. People make mistakes. 2. I don't like the idea of government having the authority to kill. 3. It's much, much cheaper to imprison someone for life.

What success are you speaking of?

It's simple enough. If you don't create the situation that requires regulation in the first place, there's no need for that regulation.

We all see where the problems are, and it was pretty clear that you do not like the TARP. Your post just continues identifying more issues. But the question was what YOU would do, besides just identifying the problem? And the reason for it, of course, is that there is no perfect solution, and whatever you offer would introduce similar - or different - but still problems. Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets).

Where have you been?

I'll translate that: Of course not, Obama can do no wrong, even if he is doing the exact same things that Bush did.

I've heard "reduce costs" a bunch, but wasn't able to find it explicitly mentioned anywhere with a quick search. Fair enough. Why would they not want to? It would be in their best interest to reduce costs (lower costs = more profits). Being able to do this would allow them to lower their premiums and make them more competitive in the market. I'm concerned the decision of rationing care goes from individuals and the market to the government. I'm capable of making my own health care choices, and providing for my own care. I don't want that right taken away and given to some government bureaucrat who has no motivation to consider any of my interests - only his/her own. Everyone touting this plan has been saying it will reduce the deficit. I personally believe that the medicare cuts that have been proposed will be nixed as it gets closer to election time if it passes. (It's not politically convenient). How can they compete with an entity that controls ("regulates") them, one that has what would appear to have an endless supply of money? When is the last time you went to the DMV and left thinking how great their customer service was? If I ship something UPS, I go to the UPS store and give them an item and an address and they'll usually package it up and label it for me. Last time I went to the post office the lady at the counter told me i should have had the label on the envelope and ready before I got there (apparently I'm supposed to keep USPS priority mail envelopes at home). Unless of course the government made it unlawful to be a competitor. They would never do that would they? So the answer to one failing government intervention is to start another one? Again, you provide an example of a failed government action as reason to enact another one? Is "they fucked it up, why can we have the opportunity to fuck something up too?" the argument you're trying to make?

How is that structure and ideology different from the other parties? Isn't a structure and ideology what defines a political party? Should parties not care what their member's views are, and just run anyone who they can think can get their party in control? (Yes, I'm aware that's pretty much what we have now).

You're making that assumption by comparing only two states? I'd expect better from you.

It's a simple question, with a simple point. If they pass the HC bills and it's a massive failure, what will be done? You could ask the same questions about tens of thousands of bills that have been passed in the past, but right now I'm curious about people's thoughts on this one. If you have nothing constructive to say, why both saying anything?

One of those two is also illegal.

How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children.

Fixed it for you. Conservatives are very good at changing the subject ;) That's how they can fool 80% of the people most of the time. Does it hurt to be that clueless?