2012 Election

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I'm making common sense judgments. Health care is better in the US than fucking Oman, Costa Rica, the Dominican, et al. The health care "system" might not be based on the WHO's criteria, but the health care itself is.

Honestly, do you really believe you would rather have to have life saving surgery in those countries compared to the US?

Some would say Cuba.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by angry pancake

Some would say Cuba.

Would you? I know I'm not picking Cuba if I need serious care.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

I probably wouldn't want surgery in the latin american countries you've mentioned, but Europe? Sure. Canada? Yep.

Europe for the most part is pretty good, but keep in mind there are some very poor countries in Europe as well.

Would you pick Canada over the US? Or just as acceptable?

I agree there are plenty of acceptable places, but the US and possibly some of the Scandinavian countries are going to be the best quality.

Argentina and Uruguay wouldn't be terrible either.

[Beebs]

Also just noticed this:

106 Yugoslavia

Great job WHO, great fucking job.

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by angry pancake

No it's not. The premium itself $1528 x 12 = $18,336. Four years of premiums cost $73,334 at the current price. Even if the premiums were $764 that comes out to $9,168 per year. If I don't subsidize it, that's what it costs. And that is still more than the in state tuition of Baylor, Texas A&M, and almost the same for UT Houston. FWIW, UT Southwestern was $11,212 for 2008 when I looked it up. Then again the cost of premiums in 2008 was closer to a $1,000 per month.

By the way, $764 X 12 = $9,168/2 = $4,584 X 68 years = $311,712.

Yeah I did that way wrong. I was just thinking about it a minute ago, and was hoping to edit my post before anyway said anything.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Would you? I know I'm not picking Cuba if I need serious care.

I hope I never need life saving surgery. I also don't wish to be in Cuba anytime soon. I also guess it depends on what you mean by life saving. There's nothing complicated about getting a tpna drip and a shunt. The community hospital does that all day everyday. My understanding from some MDs is that Cuba has top notch medical and many from other countries go there for advanced training. A few friends of mine say that when stemcell research starts paying off, the US will have to play catchup.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is necessarily inferior, just that other places gave caught up and aren't as expensive.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Blonde, please outline which of your "questions" you'd like me to answer. I can't read your mind.

Since when do I have to choose? Why not all of them? Regardless, I didn't ask for you to answer any "questions", I asked you to respond to points. As in acknowledge them and admit that there are still some issues that need to be hammered out, or that you're okay with things the way they currently stand. But we can do it your way.

You can start with:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

THE MOTHERFUCKING KOCH BROTHERS???

Have you read this article yet? (That was a question.) I would wager to say it single-handedly turned the election from being an ignorance-fueled Tea Party bloodbath. As a very vocal proponent of the Tea Party, you really, really should give it a read.

Originally Posted by f3lix

In response to how do I know what libs would do if elected... look at Ron Paul's voting record. Look at the myriad of libs who have won on the local level campaigning on the single idea of winning the election just to dismantle the useless office for which they are running, and then doing just as they said they would.

First off, i'd like a list of these "myriad of libertarians" who dissolved their own office.

Secondly, from what I've seen, many Tea Party candidates are NOT that in-line with Ron Paul.

Let's see how much minimal government they want in regard to "defense" spending.

Traditionally, conservatives obviously support war mongering in general. I know that the Ron Paul is against this and wants to bring pretty much everybody back home -- big fan of this. However, as the Tea Party has seemed to attract much of the far right to it's cause, is that what the people want? Remember, it doesn't matter what the fuck your politicians think if the people believe differently. Long term, anyways. So is there going to be any change to the fact that 1/10 of our federal military budget for 2010 ($663.8 billion) is almost the ENTIRE federal education budget ($68.6 billion)? (that was another question.)Look at this chart of military spending by nation. That is RIDICULOUS. If you truly want a small government, I would suggest starting there.

By the way, one of your Teabaggers knocked out the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, arguably one of the biggest government infringements on personal liberty in the history of the United States, so uh, thanks.

Tea Partiers on repealing The Patriot Act. What do they think? Does it not infringe on their personal liberty?(question)

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

They say THE MOTHERFUCKING KOCH BROTHERS???

I've chilled with William Koch a few times (er, more like met). He was pals with my uncle and dad. That old dude knows more about wine and sailing than just about anyone. It's really good to have a stem in hand when he's pouring. And he hates the Koch brothers probably more than anyone.

This really doesn't have to do much with anything. I just thought I'd namedrop in honor of bloodyfart.

[Mr. Blonde]

Turns out he attended the same military academy Mistofellees and I attended in our troubled youths.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Turns out he attended the same military academy Mistofellees and I attended in our troubled youths.

LOL at this: "In 2009, Koch went to his former high school, Culver Military Academy, to give a talk about entrepreneurship as part of Culver's School for the Entrepreneur program." I can see it now.

Step 1) Have a fucking billionaire for a dad.
Step 2) Inherit from dad.

I never knew most of that stuff that was on wiki. But then I was really just name dropping. I'd not have any reason to know.

[f3lix]

The Koch article - I read the first page, saw it was 10 and stopped. I'll give it a read this weekend when I have more time.

Libs running to remove an office is something that happens at the local level. Do a google search.

I'm not going to go through and search for each of the 60 or so tea partiers that were elected to find their position on the Iraq War, but in general, they want our money to stay here and will likely unite with the far left to bring the troops home. Remember that Libertarians (I know this isn't some of the tea partiers) take the personal freedoms of the far right and the economic freedoms of the far left. They are NOT solely "far right" as many are trying to call them.

Tea Partiers will certainly fight to repeal the Patriot Act.

[Mr. Blonde]

If that is truly the case, then I will be supporting the Tea Partiers a lot more in the coming years.

[Mr. Blonde]

Last Remaining Politician Must Rebuild Entire Government Following Bloodiest Midterm Election In American History | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Mr. Blonde]

BBC News - Potential 2012 Republican candidates

[SinisterKid]

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is a staunch fiscal conservative who has won praise for his economic management. But he isn't passionate about the social issues - abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research - that can sometimes dominate conservative primaries. He called for a "ceasefire" in these culture wars.

To me Mitch is ideal (could be taller). It frustrates the hell out of me that fucking social issues will prohibit him - or anyone with the same philosophy - from winning the Presidency anytime soon.

[angry pancake]

The Indiana guy Mitch Whatshisface, seems to be okay.

The biggest bitch I have with republicans is they play lip service to fiscal responsibility and run up massive bills. They talk about small government and keeping government out of folks lives, and then do the polar opposite.

I think I like the idea of a fiscal conservative who doesn't give a shit about fags getting married or Jesiz.

[SinisterKid]

think I like the idea of a fiscal conservative who doesn't give a shit about fags getting married or Jesiz.

Yes, and I honestly believe he really doesn't give a shit about either of those things. It would be so awesome to have a leader who did not distract himself with these issues.

The biggest bitch I have with republicans is they play lip service to fiscal responsibility and run up massive bills. They talk about small government and keeping government out of folks lives, and then do the polar opposite.

Mitch has cut spending and privatized a lot of institutions in Indiana that were wasteful.

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. News - The New York Times

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by SinisterKid

To me Mitch is ideal (could be taller). It frustrates the hell out of me that fucking social issues will prohibit him - or anyone with the same philosophy - from winning the Presidency anytime soon.

You're probably right...

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is a staunch fiscal conservative who has won praise for his economic management. But he isn't passionate about the social issues - abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research - that can sometimes dominate conservative primaries. He called for a "ceasefire" in these culture wars.

... but I think those three sentences just made him my favorite potential GOP candidate (not that it fucking matters).

[heurisdick]

Jesse Ventura says he would want to be Ron Paul's running mate if Paul would have him. Would that make you guys more or less likely to want to vote for Ron Paul, and how do you think that would affect the public opinion?

[Repugnant Abomination]

It would just make Ron Paul even more of a fringe candidate than he already is. If Paul were to get elected, which he never will, his foreign policy alone would be a huge paradigm shift that would shake the entire world (in a bad way).

[heurisdick]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

It would just make Ron Paul even more of a fringe candidate than he already is. If Paul were to get elected, which he never will, his foreign policy alone would be a huge paradigm shift that would shake the entire world (in a bad way).

How would it be a bad thing?

[Repugnant Abomination]

Because he's an isolationist. He's against the US being part of international institutions, because he says it takes away from US sovereignty. Whether he's right or wrong, the post World War 2 international order is based on western liberal democracy, and the USA is the pillar of that order. The consequences of us pulling out of the UN and Nato, just to name a few, would have catastrophic geopolitical effects that would reshape the entire globe - for the worse, in my opinion. You would see a huge explosion of despots denying their people the dignity of self determination. As it stands right now those countries still exist, but they’re ostracized, rather than the norm.

[heurisdick]

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but he definitely is clear about not being an isolationist. He's a non interventionist (that might be what you meant). His foreign policy is one of the reasons I really like him. For one thing, I doubt he would yank us out of the UN leaving devastation in the wake. He might do things that get the ball rolling, but I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing. We can be a pillar of western democracy without forcing ourselves on other countries and leading by example.

YouTube - CNN: Ron Paul on Isolationism

YouTube - CNN: Ron Paul on Isolationism

[Repugnant Abomination]

There's a fine line. He's all about internationalism when it comes to trade, for sure, but I have heard him talk about pulling out of a lot of important international institutions. The US is in the very unique and privileged position to influence the world in a positive way - which it does. I think if Paul was elected some very bad governments would fill the space he'd leave behind. That said, I used to be a big supporter, and I do like some of his ideas. He's just too extreme. There's no doubt we have to be more conservative in our foreign policy - Libya is an example of a politician at least trying to (partly) do it the right way - but I think a near total pull out would be bad.

[heurisdick]

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm no authority on the subject. I do like how honest and consistent he is and I think that alone has convinced me of a few of his opinions.