Anti Obama posters WTF?!
- Thread starter Armored Prayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you look at any of the media, you have to look at all of it to get the full picture. There's political fanboys and trolls on both sides, and then there's people who actually analyze the issues and the problems, accurately identify the source of the problems and propose solutions that can be reconciled with the problems they are supposed to solve. The latter are rare, and apparently none of them work for the government because the government is all about special interest groups vying for our tax dollars to maintain whatever power they have in industry and government and proposing solutions that pacify the people with the money and the power (like unions).
If you want to know what makes Obama a socialist, it's advocating taking citizens money and not giving them a choice. And by that I mean taking money out of people's paychecks before they get the check like medicaid and social security, and the proposed government option for health care.
When the government spends more of the people's money than the people, that's socialism. If the climate change bill and a health care bill that takes money from people before they get their check passes, the government will be spending more than 50% of the people's money. The government is supposed to empower the people, not the people the government.
If you want to understand liberty you have to know that liberty is an equilibrium between positive liberty and negative liberty - freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to affordable health care cannot compromise freedom from having to pay for the bad health of others. I'm all for helping people, that's what charity is, but charity isn't charity when it's mandatory and something seemingly good becomes bad when it's by force.
I'm not for helping those who go out of their way to put themselves at risk and become a serial patient, or people who are addicted to prescription medication, people who can afford cable and a cel phone but claim they can't afford health insurance, etc. As you can see the problem is not as simple as the idealistic and altruistic solution portrayed by the media.
As for death panels, yes they are real, but it all depends on your definition of death panel. If taxes are used to pay for medical treatment for all then rationing will and must take place to prioritize treatment and as the president's adviser said the criteria for determining whose life is more valuable and worthy of treatment compared to everyone else does come into play. An old person who has less than 10 years of life left is not going to take priority over a 30 year old when it comes to getting an organ transplant. So of course the person is going to be counseled on end of life treatment or lack thereof.
In a free market system people can pay for what they can afford, so if an 80 year old man wants to pay for a liver transplant and is able to find one the doctors don't want to give to a more viable patient that's there choice and I'm glad I don't have to pay for it. But if I did have to pay for it that 80 year old better have something to contribute for taking the funds that could be used to give birth to 50 babies. That's just logic.
As for the health care systems in Canada and the UK, those nations have 1/10 and 2/10 out population, and their systems are bankrupt according to their governments.
Don't just pick a team and side with them no matter what. Analyze the information otherwise you are just an ignorant fanboy arguing with nothing more than an emotional argument.
If you want to know what makes Obama a socialist, it's advocating taking citizens money and not giving them a choice. And by that I mean taking money out of people's paychecks before they get the check like medicaid and social security, and the proposed government option for health care.
When the government spends more of the people's money than the people, that's socialism. If the climate change bill and a health care bill that takes money from people before they get their check passes, the government will be spending more than 50% of the people's money. The government is supposed to empower the people, not the people the government.
If you want to understand liberty you have to know that liberty is an equilibrium between positive liberty and negative liberty - freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to affordable health care cannot compromise freedom from having to pay for the bad health of others. I'm all for helping people, that's what charity is, but charity isn't charity when it's mandatory and something seemingly good becomes bad when it's by force.
I'm not for helping those who go out of their way to put themselves at risk and become a serial patient, or people who are addicted to prescription medication, people who can afford cable and a cel phone but claim they can't afford health insurance, etc. As you can see the problem is not as simple as the idealistic and altruistic solution portrayed by the media.
As for death panels, yes they are real, but it all depends on your definition of death panel. If taxes are used to pay for medical treatment for all then rationing will and must take place to prioritize treatment and as the president's adviser said the criteria for determining whose life is more valuable and worthy of treatment compared to everyone else does come into play. An old person who has less than 10 years of life left is not going to take priority over a 30 year old when it comes to getting an organ transplant. So of course the person is going to be counseled on end of life treatment or lack thereof.
In a free market system people can pay for what they can afford, so if an 80 year old man wants to pay for a liver transplant and is able to find one the doctors don't want to give to a more viable patient that's there choice and I'm glad I don't have to pay for it. But if I did have to pay for it that 80 year old better have something to contribute for taking the funds that could be used to give birth to 50 babies. That's just logic.
As for the health care systems in Canada and the UK, those nations have 1/10 and 2/10 out population, and their systems are bankrupt according to their governments.
Don't just pick a team and side with them no matter what. Analyze the information otherwise you are just an ignorant fanboy arguing with nothing more than an emotional argument.
Thats just freaking brilliant.Kalezian said:tell you what, save this picture, print it out and post it underneath any anti-obama posters that you may see:
and yes, I just pulled the Goodwin Law on this thread........ why? because its FUNNY!
I don't. I think a lot of it (99%) is comeuppance to what the Left did during Bush's reign. Me, if I had to label myself, I'd say I am a mishmash of liberal, moderate, and conservative ideas, I tend to cherry pick what seems to make the most sense. I say this because I was telling a bunch of Bush bashers back about two years ago that if the Democrats win that they will experience a hell of a lot of payback for some of the stupid shit that they have been throwing out against Bush. Pictures of him as Hitler, comparing him to Curious George, Hollywood media trouncing him everywhere, etc.fix-the-spade said:
As far as the socialist claims. Well, sure, it may be silly, but I saw about as many stupid left wingers calling Bush a fascist. That doesn't mean he, or any other politician, shouldn't be criticized for the massive amounts of bailouts and stimulus packages that are riddled with pork. And healthcare... well, most people think it needs reforming, they just aren't crazy with a politician or a government that sat on its thumbs and allowed a huge economic meltdown to occur. And now we are being asked to hand more responsibility to the government? Of course they are going to go batshit crazy.
Uberelite, yeah but so was Bush wasn't he? Heck so was Clinton. I think that is the most ironic part. The fringe element comes out and make these huge claims about Clinton being a left winger and Bush being a right winger, in reality they are more moderate/centrist opportunists. In reality its the left that should ***** about Obama and the right that should have bitched about Bush, not the other way around. I mean we aren't out of Iraq, we've committed more troops to Afghanistan, he was talking about taking the public option out of the healthcare plan, on and on and on, etc. Why don't we hear the left bitching about that last part by the way? I mean, I thought that was the whole point of the reform- installing a public option. Now he's talking about how it is just a small "sliver". I think it's the left that should bash him for not having any balls.
Here's my poster:
Bush Had 8 Years To Fuck Up America.
Obama Still Has 2 To Fix It.
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ACQUIRE SOME
PATIENCE YOU UNPLEASABLE ASSHOLES.
Bush Had 8 Years To Fuck Up America.
Obama Still Has 2 To Fix It.
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ACQUIRE SOME
PATIENCE YOU UNPLEASABLE ASSHOLES.
I'm not going to go there.AgentNein said:Lets be honest here, Bush didn't deserve a whole lot of respect, president or not.DrDeath3191 said:People didn't show the same respect to Bush.Zenode said:Was it possibly this one
People have an opinion and they show it, they should at least respect the man who is running their county.
DrDeath3191 said:People didn't show the same respect to Bush.Zenode said:Was it possibly this one
People have an opinion and they show it, they should at least respect the man who is running their county.
thats because bush was a puppet not a leader
Dang.
Four pages and no one has a clue what "don't take swine flu vaccination" poster is about.
Four pages and no one has a clue what "don't take swine flu vaccination" poster is about.
Once again, I'm not going to go there.coldshadow said:DrDeath3191 said:People didn't show the same respect to Bush.Zenode said:Was it possibly this one
People have an opinion and they show it, they should at least respect the man who is running their county.
thats because bush was a puppet not a leader
I have a question:
When did the U.S. become a democracy?
As far as I know, there has never been anything approaching a "true" democracy with universal suffrage for a group over 50,000 people ever. Ever. The U.S. has always been identified as a sort of representative democracy but historically, all of our definitions of what sort of government the U.S. is has focused on how it elects people and how it administers laws. Not where it falls on the communism/capitalism spectrum.
People need to realize that any system other than a purely capitalistic or communistic system is by definition (Marx) some sort of socialism. Medicare is socialized medicine. Welfare, giving banks money, federal home/student loans, farm subsidies, tariffs, most taxes, public schools, etc all fall outside pure capitalism.
Most places in Europe consider themselves socialist democracies. Why U.S. residents are so afraid of it boggles my mind seeing as how the U.S. post 1935 has been a socialist democracy.
I mean, it's socialist policies that keep big businesses from destroying little businesses anymore than they already do.
lol
Yeah- That sounds like affordable health care coverage to me. Pay $80 a month for the privilege of paying for 100% of my health care costs (before $10k) seems like a great idea.
Oh, and if you're over 65, the site tells you to go ahead and sign up for the pre-existing socialist health coverage (medicare).
As a bit of some anecdotal evidence, my parents (54 and 65 respectively) pay about $20k a year for their health insurance to have no deductible. And, based on last year's files, it saves them about $13k over what the $80/month plan would have cost them.
So wouldn't it suck if the $80/month plan was all they could really afford?
When did the U.S. become a democracy?
As far as I know, there has never been anything approaching a "true" democracy with universal suffrage for a group over 50,000 people ever. Ever. The U.S. has always been identified as a sort of representative democracy but historically, all of our definitions of what sort of government the U.S. is has focused on how it elects people and how it administers laws. Not where it falls on the communism/capitalism spectrum.
People need to realize that any system other than a purely capitalistic or communistic system is by definition (Marx) some sort of socialism. Medicare is socialized medicine. Welfare, giving banks money, federal home/student loans, farm subsidies, tariffs, most taxes, public schools, etc all fall outside pure capitalism.
Most places in Europe consider themselves socialist democracies. Why U.S. residents are so afraid of it boggles my mind seeing as how the U.S. post 1935 has been a socialist democracy.
I mean, it's socialist policies that keep big businesses from destroying little businesses anymore than they already do.
lol
Kick your age up to 55. It's not 50-80 bucks anymore. And, more to the point, even if you select one of the low price plans for someone who is 55, the deductible is $10k. So if you have to go to the hospital, the first $10k is on you. Per year. And then if you hit the $10k mark, you still have to pay %40 of whatever goes over the $10k mark.thiosk said:
Yeah- That sounds like affordable health care coverage to me. Pay $80 a month for the privilege of paying for 100% of my health care costs (before $10k) seems like a great idea.
Oh, and if you're over 65, the site tells you to go ahead and sign up for the pre-existing socialist health coverage (medicare).
As a bit of some anecdotal evidence, my parents (54 and 65 respectively) pay about $20k a year for their health insurance to have no deductible. And, based on last year's files, it saves them about $13k over what the $80/month plan would have cost them.
So wouldn't it suck if the $80/month plan was all they could really afford?
I do. There is a conspiracy that the swine flu vaccination is the virus itself in full fledged form and will be used to either A) Sterilize or B) Kill off the young people of the population, thus cutting down on the population in America, and making things easier for the government to control. Of course, its just a conspiracy theory, like most things.Armored Prayer said:
