Earlier I chose a banana over an apple. I kinda like bananas better for some reason.

This means that I hate apples and want to wipe them off of the earth and am secretly plotting with the banana trees to kill off all the apples right?

So there couldnt possibly be any real information that is different than what the pres. says?

Were only against massive energy taxes and government control of health care because the economy is down.....you are right in a sense about republicans, they have been rejected by their base finally because they could no longer contain themselves and came out of the closet as more big government knuckleheads.

Dude I hear ya, but Im not propaganda guy. (spell it right when calling people out next time as well) Ive already done a point by point comparison of the marxist ten points quoted directly from my well worn communist manifesto and each area obama supports...and most republicans support most of it as well I might add.......so while I throw around commie and liberal I do it from a solid base of knowledge, go back and read, been sitting here icing my leg all day going roundy-round in here.

Whats a running point?

How did I belittle the black struggle and why is that the only struggle that matters to you?

I have not been to every country but Ive been to quite a few. Ive lived in LA, Chicago, Florida, and been to most other states. Everywhere I have ever been there is a natural tendency to group with your own race and pursue a common interest.

I am not trivializing it. I simply accept it. I am not trivializing death but I recognize the folly of trying to eliminate death.

The only way to eliminate racism is genocide and thats kind of a double negative.

Responsibility for what?

Health care. I dont know what kind of family you come from but I make sure mine is taken care of and I dont intend to sick the government on my neighbors to accomplish that goal.

My comment was in regards to how socialism affects charity, my statstics relate to that.

And besides, its not a myth:

􀂾 Average tax filers with $1 million to $1.5 million in adjusted gross income made annual charitable donations of $47,232. This amounted to 0.55% of their $8.5 million in estimated investment assets.
􀂾 Average income tax filers with $1.5 million to $2 million in AGI made annual charitable donations of $58,042. This amounted to 0.46% of their $12.5 million in estimated investment assets.
􀂾 Average income tax filers with $2 million to $5 million in AGI made annual charitable donations of $105,375. This amounted to 0.51% of their $20.68 million in estimated investment assets.
􀂾 Average income tax filers with $5 million to $10 million in AGI made annual charitable donations of $274,798. This amounted to 0.60% of their $46 million in estimated investment assets.
􀂾 Average income tax filers with $10 million or more in AGI made annual charitable donations of $1.83 million. This amounted to 1.21% of their $152 million in estimated investment assets.

-------so people that made 1 million gave almost as much to charity annually as the average wage in this country (about 50,000) It goes up from there. Yes as a percentage of adjustable growth income they give less but it is not a myth. If we continue down the marxist path these numbers go down across the board.

By the way, how do you sleep at night knowing you always made a profit and all those people are starving right now? Unless you gave it all to charity and live in a cardboard box Im smelling some hypocrisy here...

The family is societies safety net. Its not about responsibility at all, its a family obligation to take care of their own. If one of them becomes an irresponsible crackhead, however, you might have to cut them off.

That right there is the fatal flaw of social programs. There is no way to avoid massive fraud, waste, and abuse. This leads to eventual collapse. Then you are back to reliance on family.

Build the society around a family and there is no need for totalitarianism. Thats why so many policies of the liberal/fascist/socialist crowd have negative effects on the family, its by design to create more people dependent on govt. Once dependent on govt you are their slave. Take the black community, the left was going to help them and fix them. Prior to the great society 85% of black kids were raised in 2 parent households. By the time the liberal/fascist/socialists were done with them over 70% of them are raised without a father. Now they have a nice uneducated group of government dependents who vote over 90% left in every election. Another mission accomplished by the american leftist.

So you and mrs melody should start a non-profit and provide it for them. Get to work! Ill probably throw in (but dont tell the local republicans).

Where did I claim to know something of you?

What does your choice to enjoy ever increasing taxation for things that are unconstitutional have to do with my obligation to also accept it?

Prisoners dilemma eh, so you feel imprisoned, might as well help put bars around the rest of us?

I named your IRS agent, how bout name me one child that died because it was denied care based on money.

This is the problem with your ilk, you cannot fathom how a person could be against a government takeover of health care and yet not want little babies with crooked legs to suffer or some crap. Please, get over yourself.

What is this crap about nightmarish stuff? Is that a threat? Some allusion to one day i wont have health care? Im far more worried about dying bed ridden because the government denies me a hip due to rationing, you said you were here in the sixties, perhaps it is you who should be careful what you wish for.

Ill tell you about bells tolling:

Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:

* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.

* The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”

* “Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”

Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.

* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.

* “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”

* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks – nearly nine months – to visit an orthopedic surgeon.

* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option – for which Democrats lust – would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?

A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”

Barack Obama seconds that emotion.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”

And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?

All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
--------------

OK, hes going to legalize them first so technically you are right. You know damn well obama is not going to turn illegals away even if he didnt plan to legalize them.

Its no myth. In typical liberal fashion you assign the wrong facts to things. heres what you need to know:
------------
U.S. More Charitable Than Any Other Country
by Jon Holato on June 26th, 2007

According to an AP story via USA Today, Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charity in 2006, setting a record that even topped giving in 2005, which saw a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.

Total American donations last year amount to an estimated $295.02 billion, which is a 1% increase over the 2005 amount ($283.05 billion) when adjusted for inflation. Of the 2006 amount, individuals accounted for 75.6%, or $223.03 billion.

Not impressed? Consider it from an alternative perspective, the percentage of GDP given to charity. In this case, the U.S. more than doubles the second place country, Britain. The U.S. ranked first at 1.7%, Britain was second with 0.73%, while France, with a dismal 0.14% rate, trailed countries such as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

----------------

The point I was making, I admit I didnt articulate it well, is that when you have a giant social state it relieves people of the moral obligation to help the poor, Furthermore, because it lowers economic growth and foments social unrest, it puts people in a position they are unable to help. Ill take 2.1% of bill gates income over 4.3 percent of the local garbage mans income. Ive never been to a hospital funded by leroy the mechanic but I have been in one funded by the Dupont family trust. Hate the rich all you want, but riches bring guilt that feeds charity.

Not all problems should be solved by government. If so many people, many of them rich liberals, are so worried about the problem why not start a trust or open free clinics? Why extort your countrymen at gunpoint in this manner?

What you call deregulation is usually less regulation or different regulation.

Americans dont have a fetish about not paying taxes. Its about not paying excessive taxes. Free lunch? If you are making analogies here the proper one would be you sit down at a barbeque restaurant and get offered a 500 dollar kobe steak or a thousand dollar rare asian fish. Upon complaining you dont want either and cannot afford either they pick one and bring it to you and have you jailed and/or take your house for not paying the bill.

Then they smile and ask "what is your problem? why do you have such a problem paying restaurant bills?"

We dont mind taxes for the few small functions of government. What we dont want is a progressive income tax system ripped from the pages of the communist manifesto. We also dont want the government to invent endless new departments and force us to fund them.

How rational is it to pool risk when you know for a fact every single person is going to cash in multiple times? Thats anything but rational. At least in a pyramid scheme the early investors get paid. This smacks of a system designed to fail. Because it was. Its failure will be a perfect chance for another power grab by government...in conditions brought about by government....imagine that....

In the real world people do not work hard without a profit motive and that one simple statement sums up the failure of every combination of democracy and marxism ever to exist.

Thats funny, I know alot of libertarians who used to be in SDS and were all left wing in the sixties, now heres someone reading ayn rand in the sixties and now swings the other way. Both say the same thing, then they got out in the real world. Who was it, churchill I think, said if you arent a socialist in your 20s you have no heart but if you are still one when you are 40 you have no brain...ha!

You would have a point if blacks did not victimize whites at staggering rates. In Fl one in 3 black men is a convicted felon, so I am as understanding if people take extra precautions around them as I am about the black person who may have lived under jim crow.

Furthermore many blacks perpetuate the problem by glorifying violence, sex, misogyny, in their music, art, and dress. Regardless of race people judge you by your appearance, especially in respect to determining whether or not you are intimidating. A well dressed articulate black guy does not get that sort of treatment. I get the same thing when I am riding, big tattooed guy on a harley, but not when I have jeans and sneakers on. It certainly doesnt pain me, I tend to be extra polite actually, maybe if guys with dreadlocks and gold teeth with guns on them held open more doors we could squash the racial deal...lol...

As far as your anecdote about the kids, kids can be very cruel and impulsive. I was a white kid in an inner city school most of my life. I got cut, beat numerous times, got a nice orbital blowout and 3 skull fractures, and called every racial slur in ebonics, spanish, and asian you could possibly invent the whole time and for no reason other than my race. It would have been a wet dream for someone to drive by and yell something....well that happened but they usually threw something or popped off a couple rounds....

My point is that those people clutching purses and locking doors arent doing it because they have a certain amount of melanin in their skin. If there was a certain part of town where everyone was green where most of the rape, murder, and robberry happened and was inhabited almost exclusively by these green people, then people would fear green people. Why is it that all those little old purse clutchers are the evil racist? Why is the real problem not a group that abandons 70% of their kids and commits most of the crime.

Read this great speech by Bill Cosby, he articulates it much better and you cant call him a racist.

This is a republic, not a democracy, trust me you dont want to vote on every issue, the best policy is to not have the government sticking their nose in a bunch of issues.

A great quote comes to mind (falsely attributed to Ben Franklin);

"Democracy is when two wolves and one lamb vote on whats for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the election."

How can you think the plan is not harmful when the cost will bankrupt our country..especially when we are already going under in a few years from ssi and medicare anyways? Dont you guys get it, theres not a magical money tree out there and unless you intend them to live under an overpass your providors need to get paid.

When "letting someone have time to try his agenda" involves abolishing whats left of the bill of rights and creating a debt that will crush this country in my lifetime I am supposed to just be cool with that?

And what do the republicans have to do with it? Bush did the first bail out. Bush added the drug plan to medicare, hell he tripled the size of the government. Obama is continuing the same agenda. If we could have stopped it under bush, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, we would have (I wasnt alive for the other jokers). Obama retained some of the same people and is advancing the same policy goals, hes just adding more that piss off even more people.

I pray every day you are right about the atmosphere being inflamed enough they cant get anything done. I wish they were more like jesse ventura, he said once his goal for his term in government was the people not realizing the government was around.

Sorry to break it to you, but he has. Now they use funny word games, but the government is the major holder in a bunch of banks now and could own as many as 20 soon. As you will read below, this isnt some twisted libertarian extremist fantasy, it is the reality of our times. Do you know how much a trillion is? Nationalize or not, giving them a trillion dollars of the peoples money? WTF? You dont have a problem with that?


----------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anGxzRYhVF_Y

"U.S. regulators led by the Treasury Department announced today that the government stands ready to take bigger bank stakes in the form of shares that “would be converted only as needed over time.” To analysts including Paul Miller of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc., nationalization of some of the nation’s largest lenders appears well under way. The government already holds $52 billion of preferred shares in Citigroup, five times the bank’s market value as of Feb. 20.

“We’re already in the nationalization phase,” Miller said today on Bloomberg Television. “We already own a chunk of Citigroup and Bank of America. The problem is that the government is dancing around this nationalization issue. They do not want to do it.”

----------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022300958.html


"The Obama administration yesterday revamped the terms of its emergency aid to troubled financial firms, setting a course that could culminate with the government nationalizing some of the country's largest banks by taking a controlling ownership stake.

Administration officials said the change, which allows banks to repay the government with common stock rather than cash, is intended to give banks more capital to withstand a continued deterioration of the economy, and not to nationalize the banking system.

But in seeking to bolster investor confidence in troubled companies such as Citigroup, the government said it is willing to acquire large chunks of their shares"

I wouldnt begrudge any black who lived in the south under jim crow for having a bit of a chip on the sjhoulder, but since then they have been given every advantage and the institutional racism is now a white only affair. I was denied an officers program when in the military due to racial quotas. I had the high score, but the highest latino score got it. So are you going to now stick up for me if I hate on black people?

Thats an argument only made by limp wristed intellectuals. Blacks hate whites for the same reason whites hate blacks.

We tribalize the same way dogs form packs. Its instinctual. Its the same reason the gators hate the seminoles or green bay hates the vikings. Black racism is not a result of white discrimination and white racism has nothing to do with the mass rape and killing of whites by blacks. Youll have about as much success stopping racism as stopping people from having sex or taking a leak in the morning.

And none of it has anything to do with the opposition to obama, kerry got treated just as bad and he was a crusty old white yankee.

Kerry they all are putting us in debt. I was just challenging the statement that clinton was great for the debt. Republican and democrat are just the fascist and socialist arms of the same globalist death monster of the corporate oligarchy.