A Look At Sarah Palin - Page 90

08-27-2009, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Kamikaze189 wrote

Republicans who try to force their definition of life and love don't tell people how to live? At least Democrats pretend to stand for freedom, whether or not they do, but Republicans openly admit and endorse forcing opinions down others' throats.

If you really cared about people's freedoms, you wouldn't favor the republicans. They stand for the opposite of freedom.

Freshman nonsense. Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government and free enterprise.That is freedom. In fact, there is very little difference between them and the Dems, except that I don't think there are any former KKKers among the Republicans.

Your Democrat masters will force you to buy health insurance whether you want to or not, if they ram their plan through, despite the fact the majority of the US doesn't want it. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force you to buy anything? Where in the Constitution is the provision of health care named as a duty of the federal government? What other freedoms are you willing to hand over to the government? Not that you have many left.

Mog · 08-27-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Freshman nonsense. Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government and free enterprise.That is freedom. In fact, there is very little difference between them and the Dems, except that I don't think there are any former KKKers among the Republicans.

Your Democrat masters will force you to buy health insurance whether you want to or not, if they ram their plan through, despite the fact the majority of the US doesn't want it. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force you to buy anything? Where in the Constitution is the provision of health care named as a duty of the federal government? What other freedoms are you willing to hand over to the government? Not that you have many left.

Sophomore nonsense. Maybe Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, but its interesting how in every recent term where a Republican is president, we get a bloated government with a sky-high deficit. And I didn't see a Democratic president suspending habeas corpus. (And incidentally, David Duke is currently a Republican.)

And where do you get your figures that the majority of the US doesn't want a rational health insurance plan? Or even that any of the many health care plans proposed actually forces us to pay insurance? And why is it important that the provision of health care actually has to be written in the Constitution? Last time I checked, the Public School System wasn't in the Constitution either.

How much more imaginary hysteria are you going to throw at this issue, Lily? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Irreligious · 08-27-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Freshman nonsense. Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government and free enterprise.That is freedom.

Now that's some freshman nonsense for you. Limited government, my ass. Yeah, limited to helping them rob as many guillible motherfuckers as possible.

Quote:

Lily wrote

In fact, there is very little difference between them and the Dems, except that I don't think there are any former KKKers among the Republicans.

Nice hedging your bets there, because "you don't know" unless they fess up, like Sen. Robert Byrd did a long time ago. Anyway, a lot of Republican legislators sure don't make any secret of where they and the KKK share sympathies.

Quote:

Lily wrote

Your Democrat masters will force you to buy health insurance whether you want to or not, if they ram their plan through, despite the fact the majority of the US doesn't want it. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force you to buy anything? Where in the Constitution is the provision of health care named as a duty of the federal government? What other freedoms are you willing to hand over to the government? Not that you have many left.

Grow up. The government also "forces" you to buy auto insurance and flood insurance, if you live in a federally designated flood zone. The government also forces you to wear seatbelts when you're in a moving motor vehicle or you'll get fined and, possibly, arrested.

You're objecting to being forced to carry health insurance? Bullshit. You already have health insurance. Your employer pays for it. And I doubt very strongly that you would even consider going without health insurance.

No, what you object to is the government assisting those who can't afford health insurance. So you need to can it with all this obfuscating "freedom" bullshit that you're spouting, because your true motivations are quite transparent.

Victus · 08-27-2009, 05:55 AM

Did anyone notice that Lily doesn't try to provide evidence that US healthcare is of high quality and is affordable, but only now supports it on a philosphical basis. Having had her 'evidence' refuted, Lily has returned to the realm of the untestable.

Kate · 08-27-2009, 05:59 AM

08-27-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

(all retarded off-topic crap snipped)
Grow up. The government also "forces" you to buy auto insurance and flood insurance, if you live in a federally designated flood zone. The government also forces you to wear seatbelts when you're in a moving motor vehicle or you'll get fined and, possibly, arrested.

Uh. explain to me how this contradicts what I wrote.

Quote:

Lily wrote

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force you to buy anything? Where in the Constitution is the provision of health care named as a duty of the federal government? What other freedoms are you willing to hand over to the government? Not that you have many left.

Smellyoldgit · 08-27-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Victus wrote

Having had her 'evidence' refuted, Lily has returned to the realm of the untestable.

Nothing new there then?

08-27-2009, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Victus wrote

Did anyone notice that Lily doesn't try to provide evidence that US healthcare is of high quality and is affordable, but only now supports it on a philosphical basis. Having had her 'evidence' refuted, Lily has returned to the realm of the untestable.

Good Gawd what a stupid thing to say! Is there anyone in the world who doesn't know that it is the best in the world-- for the time being? Where have I argued that it is "affordable" for everyone? It is affordable for most because 235 million Americans have it-- if you accept the bogus claim that 45 million don't.

Irreligious · 08-27-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Uh. explain to me how this contradicts what I wrote.

So, do you also have an objection to being forced to carry auto insurance or being required to wear seatbelts in a moving auto? I must confess that I have not previously heard you complain about these particular government impositions.

When did you become an anarchist?

And, you know, Miss Snippy, if I "snipped" every off-topic, retarded thing you've ever posted on this forum, I'd essentially be barred from ever responding to you.

Victus · 08-27-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Good Gawd what a stupid thing to say! Is there anyone in the world who doesn't know that it is the best in the world-- for the time being?

People with access to the relevant statistics?

Quote:

Lily wrote

Where have I argued that it is "affordable" for everyone?

Where have I claimed you said it was affordable for everyone? Stawman ahoy!

Quote:

Lily wrote

It is affordable for most because 235 million Americans have it

If by affordable you actually mean "causes bankruptcy", then I agree.

Himmelstein, E., et al. (2005). Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy. Health Affairs, Supplemental Web Exclusives.

Quote:

Lily wrote

-- if you accept the bogus claim that 45 million don't.

I don't.

08-27-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

So, do you also have an objection to being forced to carry auto insurance or being required to wear seatbelts in a moving auto? I must confess that I have not previously heard you complain about these particular government impositions.

When did you become an anarchist?

And, you know, Miss Snippy, if I "snipped" every off-topic, retarded thing you've ever posted on this forum, I'd essentially be barred from ever responding to you.

And that would be a problem because ...?

nkb · 08-27-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Good Gawd what a stupid thing to say! Is there anyone in the world who doesn't know that it is the best in the world-- for the time being?

Well, if it's that well-known, you should have no problems linking us to some objective supporting evidence for your assertion.

Just to nip this in the bud, what criteria are you using to define "best in the world"? There is more to it than just having more advanced technology.

08-27-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

So, do you also have an objection to being forced to carry auto insurance or being required to wear seatbelts in a moving auto? I must confess that I have not previously heard you complain about these particular government impositions.

When did you become an anarchist?

And, you know, Miss Snippy, if I "snipped" every off-topic, retarded thing you've ever posted on this forum, I'd essentially be barred from ever responding to you.

Hmm, didn't realize that I submitted the one liner. Well to answer your other questions ...

It is up to the states, which are far more responsive to their citizens than the feds ever could be, to mandate auto insurance, not the feds. I stopped using seat belts when they added the shoulder component and now that the feds have finally been forced to allow people to disable airbags in some limited fashion and only if you beg your betters hard enough, I will do so in my next car. Why? Because one size does not fit all. If my airbag ever goes off, it will kill me. I am so short that I cannot sit the recommended 12 inches away from it and comfortably reach the pedals. Likewise, shoulder belts cross my throat--not my shoulder and chest. Apart from getting in the way of my peripheral vision, if I am ever in an accident while wearing one, it will crush my windpipe-- assuming it doesn't outright decapitate me. I do not need the feds to tell me what to do-- like the vast majority of people I am perfectly well able to look out for myself and make decisions about what is best for me in a given circumstance.

Speaking of cars, though, I find it funny that that new cheap Government Motors car with the great gas mileage and low, low price tag is being marketed for foreign consumption. It won't have any of those safety features that add about $2000 to every car we buy. Who cares about the safety of those dumb ole foreigners, anyway?

Waddlie · 08-27-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Lily wrote

I do not need the feds to tell me what to do-- like the vast majority of people I am perfectly well able to look out for myself and make decisions about what is best for me in a given circumstance.

This right here, this is exactly your problem. You're only concerned with what is best for you and you don't give a fuck that the vast majority of other Americans might benefit from some form of goverment-assisted healthcare (as one example), or from you dying horribly in a car accident (which is another.)

calpurnpiso · 08-27-2009, 08:54 AM

Lily wrote:

"In fact, there is very little difference between them and the Dems, except that I don't think there are any former KKKers among the Republicans. "

As usual your Christ-psychosis makes you think WRONG. I suggest you study the Christianity inspired KKK. Those despicable Christian retards got their intolerance & ignorance from Christianity just like Nazism did. Don't forget Repugnants are more prone to the Christ-psychosis delusions inducing disorder than the fans of Liber & popularis democracy. While one can take Republicans out of the Christ-psychosis KKK, one can NEVER take Christ-psychosis KKK out of Republican stagnant thinking, after all they are CONSERVATIVES which stands for conservare to KEEP the SAME, IOW, stagnate he intellect & never forge ahead.

I thought you graduated from high school Lily.