Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
youliar

Alpharetta, GA

#17568 Jul 7, 2013
folks like you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have friends in Canada, Italy, New Zealand and Costa Rica who say its the best thing going, ALL of them are from the U.S. Its the most common form of health care in the world, and they are all rated higher by the W.H.O. than the U.S. Keep believing the fairytale, corporate American just loves you.
You are a sorry lying ahole.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17569 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>What social policies do you disagree with me on?

2 off the top of my head.

I will post one in this post and the other in another post.
Citizens who expect others to guarantee their liberty can expect nothing less than encroachment on their liberties.

NSA = double standards by the democrats. If a repub had been president, the liberals would be screaming for an independent investigation.

Concerns about the NSA is nothing new, it has been an ongoing problem ever since its inception.

"From an October 29, 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Washington, D.C.
“We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. It has the capacity to monitor the private communications of American citizens without the use of a "bug" or "tap". The interception of international communication signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications. Indeed, as our hearings into the Huston plan demonstrated, a previous administration and a former NSA Director favored using this potential against certain U.S. citizens for domestic intelligence purposes. While the Huston plan was never fully put into effect, our investigation has revealed that the NSA had in fact been intentionally monitoring overseas communications of certain U.S. citizens long before the Huston plan was proposed -- and continued to do so after it was revoked. This incident illustrates how the NSA could be turned inward and used against our own people.”

http://news.rapgenius.com/Church-committee-in...

And where are the voices today while Obama is in office?

"From an October 26, 2007 BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL show.

But here's some background as to why so many people of different political stripes are alarmed. President Bush and Vice President Cheney espouse the theory of the unitary executive. That means the President's orders can't be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other two branches of government. He alone can say what the law means, or whether or not it will be enforced or ignored. In effect, George W. Bush says his powers must be unilateral and unchecked.

Critics claim the President has used the war on terror to put himself above the law and that he has created a secret presidency of classified decisions and orders, that approve extraordinary renditions, torture, illegal detentions, and wiretapping without warrants with the collaboration of big telecom companies. This boundless secrecy and surveillance evokes images counter to American values."

http://news.rapgenius.com/Public-broadcasting...
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17570 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>What social policies do you disagree with me on?

Obamacare;

Socialist’s medicine. When many European countries are considering ways to cut services and cost at the expense of patients.

"The worldwide recession has forced countries around the world to curb public spending — or risk defaulting on their debt.
“The United Kingdom is the latest to tighten its belt. The National Health Service (NHS)— the centralized public agency that runs Britain’s government healthcare system — is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.

In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.
Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they’ve turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes — and accepted “free”
health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.
They’ve foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones — just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

Hardly. The British healthcare system may “guarantee” access to care — but that doesn’t mean patients actually receive it.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/1...

“The Canadian supreme court struck down two Quebec laws, overturning a 30-year ban on private medicine in the province. The wording of the ruling, though, has implications beyond Quebec, and could be used to scrap other major parts of Canada's federal health care legislation.”

“What would drive the bench to such a profound ruling? Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice John Major wrote: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."”

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_week...

Why would anyone want socialized medicine when those countries who have it, have become so burdened by government bureaucracy and dysfunction and not enough tax monies to provide basic care?

Also many of those countries are looking into changing their healthcare laws (which means more will be dependent on their own in finding ways to get medical care.)

Government as baby sitter, nannie, and diaper changer will be forced to change their ways, as economies can no longer sustain the monies needed for socialism.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17571 Jul 7, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>

Just being intellectually consistent.

Now that right there is an oxymoron. lol


Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17572 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Clinton was most certainly wasn't a liberal my friend. He is the the one signed the DOMA bill into law. If Bill Clinton was anything it was a conservative Democrat. A conservative Democrat is what this country needs to get back on track. Just as we were when Clinton was in office. Ya think?

I would vote for a conservative democrat but I think they are extinct.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17573 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of us sometimes vote exactly as you. We vote for the lesser of two evils. We can see that does not work. Nothing changes except more taxes and more rules and regulations that nobody understands. The country becomes more and more socialistic and dependent on government. Wars never cease and new ones are started. The country goes deeper and deeper in debt. More and more illegal aliens invade our country. Men are marrying men and women are marrying women. What is next, legal incest?
This is what happens to a country that you have no actual difference in candidates. This is what happens to a country where you always vote for the two hand picked choice of two evils. You always end up with evil.

good post, good deduction.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17574 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>

I have always thought that only Congress should declare war. The only time the president should have the power to use military force in an act of war is if we are struck by nuclear weapons or missiles are launched against us. We then have no choice but to retaliate immediately.
I suspect there are many millions of people that feel the way I do.
The constitution says congress has the power to make war, no one else.
However, procedures and laws are in place for the President to respond in retaliation due to a sudden attack upon America.
OMTE

Rimersburg, PA

#17575 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
2 off the top of my head.
I will post one in this post and the other in another post.
Citizens who expect others to guarantee their liberty can expect nothing less than encroachment on their liberties.
NSA = double standards by the democrats. If a repub had been president, the liberals would be screaming for an independent investigation.
Concerns about the NSA is nothing new, it has been an ongoing problem ever since its inception.
"From an October 29, 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Washington, D.C.
“We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. It has the capacity to monitor the private communications of American citizens without the use of a "bug" or "tap". The interception of international communication signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications. Indeed, as our hearings into the Huston plan demonstrated, a previous administration and a former NSA Director favored using this potential against certain U.S. citizens for domestic intelligence purposes. While the Huston plan was never fully put into effect, our investigation has revealed that the NSA had in fact been intentionally monitoring overseas communications of certain U.S. citizens long before the Huston plan was proposed -- and continued to do so after it was revoked. This incident illustrates how the NSA could be turned inward and used against our own people.”
http://news.rapgenius.com/Church-committee-in...
And where are the voices today while Obama is in office?
"From an October 26, 2007 BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL show.
But here's some background as to why so many people of different political stripes are alarmed. President Bush and Vice President Cheney espouse the theory of the unitary executive. That means the President's orders can't be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other two branches of government. He alone can say what the law means, or whether or not it will be enforced or ignored. In effect, George W. Bush says his powers must be unilateral and unchecked.
Critics claim the President has used the war on terror to put himself above the law and that he has created a secret presidency of classified decisions and orders, that approve extraordinary renditions, torture, illegal detentions, and wiretapping without warrants with the collaboration of big telecom companies. This boundless secrecy and surveillance evokes images counter to American values."
http://news.rapgenius.com/Public-broadcasting...
I see your point of view, but still stand firm on my belief that the war on terror is evolving. The use of the data collected by these government agengies protect American life at home and abroad. It is a vital to combating the NEW war on terror. There will be flaws with any system in place, due to human corruption. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have these systems in place. We have to adapt to our enemies. If they are using information technology to futher attack us. Then we are stupid to not filter the information coming in and leaving the U.S. It is a right that I'm willing to let them bend, for one I have nothing to hide, and lastly I think the NSA keeps my children safe. So yeah. We disagree.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17576 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution says congress has the power to make war, no one else.
However, procedures and laws are in place for the President to respond in retaliation due to a sudden attack upon America.
I may not have been clear on that. That is what I meant to say. Good post.
OMTE

Rimersburg, PA

#17577 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare;
Socialist’s medicine. When many European countries are considering ways to cut services and cost at the expense of patients.
"The worldwide recession has forced countries around the world to curb public spending — or risk defaulting on their debt.
“The United Kingdom is the latest to tighten its belt. The National Health Service (NHS)— the centralized public agency that runs Britain’s government healthcare system — is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.
In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.
Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they’ve turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes — and accepted “free”
health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.
They’ve foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones — just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?
Hardly. The British healthcare system may “guarantee” access to care — but that doesn’t mean patients actually receive it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/1...
“The Canadian supreme court struck down two Quebec laws, overturning a 30-year ban on private medicine in the province. The wording of the ruling, though, has implications beyond Quebec, and could be used to scrap other major parts of Canada's federal health care legislation.”
“What would drive the bench to such a profound ruling? Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice John Major wrote: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_week...
Why would anyone want socialized medicine when those countries who have it, have become so burdened by government bureaucracy and dysfunction and not enough tax monies to provide basic care?
Also many of those countries are looking into changing their healthcare laws (which means more will be dependent on their own in finding ways to get medical care.)
Government as baby sitter, nannie, and diaper changer will be forced to change their ways, as economies can no longer sustain the monies needed for socialism.
I have never said I supported Obamacare.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17578 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution says congress has the power to make war, no one else.
However, procedures and laws are in place for the President to respond in retaliation due to a sudden attack upon America.
It is odd that we were at war in Yugoslavia,Iraq, Libya, and are involved in Afghanistan and Syria all without the consent of Congress.
I trust no one man to make such decisions with the life and death of this country and it's people. Are things being done for profit and others personal wealth? Could it just be a ploy to get reelected? Could it be a favor to another country or person? Could it be used to try and create war jobs? Could the president be nuts? There are just too many possibilities to have our people killed for nothing. It is too much power for any one man to command.
The president should only be allowed to act during a sudden attack from a foreign power against this country when there is no time to consult with Congress.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17579 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I have never said I supported Obamacare.
then I stand corrected.
Who

Dahlonega, GA

#17580 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is odd that we were at war in Yugoslavia,Iraq, Libya, and are involved in Afghanistan and Syria all without the consent of Congress.
I trust no one man to make such decisions with the life and death of this country and it's people. Are things being done for profit and others personal wealth? Could it just be a ploy to get reelected? Could it be a favor to another country or person? Could it be used to try and create war jobs? Could the president be nuts? There are just too many possibilities to have our people killed for nothing. It is too much power for any one man to command.
The president should only be allowed to act during a sudden attack from a foreign power against this country when there is no time to consult with Congress.

It comes from an inept congress who have let Presidents get away with encroaching upon their sworn duties as representatives of the people.

It's as if our elected reps have decided they prefer a dictator over doing their duties.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#17581 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Not to butt in, but he has. He mainly asked why are you guys so mad now at Obama for doing the same thing's Bush did. I don't understand why you guys hate Obama myself. He is not nearly as bad as Bush.(IMO) It makes one tend to believe you hate him, because of his skin color.(IMO) IO goes around his elbow to get to a$$ most of the time, is his main problem. LoL.(IMO)
I am no cheerleader for Bush, I had high hopes for him, but he turned out to be more of a "moderate" than the conservative I and most conservatives hoped for - especially fiscally. But while he disappointed me in areas, I (speaking only for myself) am convinced that he loves this country and while some decisions made in the shadow of 9/11 may, in retrospect, have been poor ones - the intent was to protect this country.
I do not have that same belief with Obama - a man whose wants to "fundamentally transform" this country and who went around the world denigrating and apologizing for this country. You cannot seriously compare Bush's actions with Obama's. Obama is out to destroy industries he disagrees with and is intent on crippling our "in home" energy production. His stated goal is to ruin the coal industry and now his administration, through the EPA , is setting ozone standards that will increase natural gas prices. He has the gall to try and claim credit for increased oil production, while somehow forgetting to mention that oil leases and permits are 40% down under Obama and most of the oil production has been on private and state lands that Obama can't stop.
Bush did not try and nationalize (and thus cripple) our healthcare system.
I couldn't care less what color Obama's skin is, I care about the ideology he espouses and the policies he has implemented and will continue to implement that are disastrous for this country. He is a liberal, and liberal policies will destroy this country - that is the "color" I despise.
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#17582 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny thing, All you seem to type over and over is Bush, Bush, Bush, and RayGun, RayGun, RayGun. His name is spelled Reagan.
That's because it demonstrates the hypocrisy of Right Wing Wackos so clearly.

They claim to be disgusted with Obama because of his policies, and so, they must must find Reagan and Bush to be beyond despicable,(their deficits and debt make Obama look wonderful- and otherwise they're all clones of one another).

Otherwise, they are simply too intellectually dishonest to be credible.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17583 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of a smart ass reply is that?
...
Obviously, if you considered the source of the post, you wouldn't need to ask this question...
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#17584 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Clinton was most certainly wasn't a liberal my friend. He is the the one signed the DOMA bill into law. If Bill Clinton was anything it was a conservative Democrat. A conservative Democrat is what this country needs to get back on track. Just as we were when Clinton was in office. Ya think?
Good point.

I agree we need a conservative - a real conservative - not a reactionary - whether that's Republican or Democrat, I am too desperate to care.

Clinton also signed NAFTA - otherwise known as the "Killer of American Jobs" for his corporate masters.

I'd really like to see a Teddy Roosevelt.
Informed Opinion

North Fort Myers, FL

#17585 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>Many of us sometimes vote exactly as you. We vote for the lesser of two evils. We can see that does not work. Nothing changes except more taxes and more rules and regulations that nobody understands. The country becomes more and more socialistic and dependent on government. Wars never cease and new ones are started. The country goes deeper and deeper in debt. More and more illegal aliens invade our country. Men are marrying men and women are marrying women. What is next, legal incest?
This is what happens to a country that you have no actual difference in candidates. This is what happens to a country where you always vote for the two hand picked choice of two evils. You always end up with evil.
Great post.
OMTE

Rimersburg, PA

#17586 Jul 7, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am no cheerleader for Bush, I had high hopes for him, but he turned out to be more of a "moderate" than the conservative I and most conservatives hoped for - especially fiscally. But while he disappointed me in areas, I (speaking only for myself) am convinced that he loves this country and while some decisions made in the shadow of 9/11 may, in retrospect, have been poor ones - the intent was to protect this country.
I do not have that same belief with Obama - a man whose wants to "fundamentally transform" this country and who went around the world denigrating and apologizing for this country. You cannot seriously compare Bush's actions with Obama's. Obama is out to destroy industries he disagrees with and is intent on crippling our "in home" energy production. His stated goal is to ruin the coal industry and now his administration, through the EPA , is setting ozone standards that will increase natural gas prices. He has the gall to try and claim credit for increased oil production, while somehow forgetting to mention that oil leases and permits are 40% down under Obama and most of the oil production has been on private and state lands that Obama can't stop.
Bush did not try and nationalize (and thus cripple) our healthcare system.
I couldn't care less what color Obama's skin is, I care about the ideology he espouses and the policies he has implemented and will continue to implement that are disastrous for this country. He is a liberal, and liberal policies will destroy this country - that is the "color" I despise.
We disagree totally when it comes to how we see Bush and Obama. I think Bush was a stupid puppet for Dick Cheney. He ignorantly caused a WAR that cost thousands of American lives and his deals that he made with his Corp. buddies collapsed the economy. Obama has spent most of the time he has been in office puttin out fires started by Bush. There is proof that Cheney LIED to the american people to start the war in Iraq. It is shameful that you would defend this criminal. He loved his country? LoL. Was that a joke? If it was, it wasn't a very good one. He was in bed with the Bin laden's up until 9/11. He had an oil company with Osama Bin Laden's brother. He gave all Bin Laden's family a ticket out of here when 9/11 happened. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all. We attacked them on the assumption they had WMD, which was a fabricated lie made up by Cheney. Bush was just his puppet that made it happen.
As for Obama and the EPA is concerned I disagree with you there as well on the bases of I believe in climate change. I believe we play a big role in the heating and cooling of this planet, by the amount of pollution we create on this planet everyday. I could put up a bunch of links to back up my beliefs, but we disagree, so what's the point. I don't think me putting up links for you to read will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine.
As for Obamacare I have stated that I don't have that much interest in it, so I don't research it very much. I think there needed to be some kind of healthcare reform, because people are dying in America from preventable diseases, because they have no health insurance. I just don't know enough about Obamacare to be a critic one way or the other. So forgive me if I believe the President over you guys on topix that it's bad for us. I really have no interest in it. I guess because I'm not old or sick really. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
As for Obama's skin color. I'm not sayin you, but I am saying that alot of people hate Obama based solely on the color of his skin. It would be ignorant not to think so. I find it hard to believe that if someone defends Bush, but hates Obama, that skin color has nothing to do with there feelings toward him. If he gives our country to illegal criminal immigrants, then my feelings will change, because he will have done more to destroy this country than Bush did.
OMTE

Rimersburg, PA

#17587 Jul 7, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am no cheerleader for Bush, I had high hopes for him, but he turned out to be more of a "moderate" than the conservative I and most conservatives hoped for - especially fiscally. But while he disappointed me in areas, I (speaking only for myself) am convinced that he loves this country and while some decisions made in the shadow of 9/11 may, in retrospect, have been poor ones - the intent was to protect this country.
I do not have that same belief with Obama - a man whose wants to "fundamentally transform" this country and who went around the world denigrating and apologizing for this country. You cannot seriously compare Bush's actions with Obama's. Obama is out to destroy industries he disagrees with and is intent on crippling our "in home" energy production. His stated goal is to ruin the coal industry and now his administration, through the EPA , is setting ozone standards that will increase natural gas prices. He has the gall to try and claim credit for increased oil production, while somehow forgetting to mention that oil leases and permits are 40% down under Obama and most of the oil production has been on private and state lands that Obama can't stop.
Bush did not try and nationalize (and thus cripple) our healthcare system.
I couldn't care less what color Obama's skin is, I care about the ideology he espouses and the policies he has implemented and will continue to implement that are disastrous for this country. He is a liberal, and liberal policies will destroy this country - that is the "color" I despise.
I have tried to make a response to you, but it keeps being deleted by the topix police. I don't know why. I didn't cuss or call you any names. I just disagreed and said why. I guess topix didn't like my post, because they won't let it appear.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) May 20 elderly abuse 34
Poll Glynn/Brantley Sex...Whats Hot!???? (Jan '10) May 19 Farrell Landon 30
Matt Jordan and Scott Hennig should resign!!! (Mar '11) May 16 A little Birdy says 23
Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr. (May '10) May 10 Whatever 1,230
News Anti-Gay Pastor Found Guilty Of Molesting Teena... Apr '17 Here is what I 7
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Apr '17 Showtime 35
News Melvin Shares Life Story in Young Stranger Apr '17 Greg B 1

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages