Online Now 3213

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 111
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 3010
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

Liberal Fear

  • BucksinWA said...

    What's the solution? A third party? Fourth? Term limits?

    I don't agree that the two parties are two sides of the same coin, but do agree that there are elements and motivations that keep both sides from accomplishing anything noteworthy.

    I wish I had that solution!

    All I can do is operate under the premise that one should vote for the candidate that best exemplifies his/her beliefs. It should have NOTHING to do with who can "win".

    I am also not bothered in the least by those who refrain from voting in what they consider a charade, as long as one has done the research to bring them to that point.

    The two parties are much closer in thought than it is made to appear. Neither one has any real concern for stopping the predatory form of capitalism that currently runs the country.

    Window dressing is nice, but it don't mean a thing if the windows are broken.

    Unit_D

  • If Romney told you Right Wingers Shit Sandwiches were Peanut Butter,You would EAT TWO!!!

    Buck Eye

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    Your racist comments in the other thread. Also, calling people who you don't know and don't know how they did their job racists (the Florida Police Department that investigated the Trayvon martin case) is racist in and of itself. Yes Dave, you are every bit the bigot you pretend not to be.

    Hey "Warrior", do you know Al Sharpton orJesse Jackson? You must because you call them racists. And once again I will say that if Zimmerman was the one killed Martin would have been in jail. Can you possibly disagree with that?

    dave1954

  • Unit_D said...

    This is hardly compromise talk. Obama is nowhere near a progressive - he is a moderate don't rock the boat lap dog who does as he is told, all the while waiting for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, where he can get a nice gig cozying up to those he was supposedly at "war" with (see Clinton, Bill) and rake in the $$.

    C'mon now, you're not really expecting me to buy that "he hasn't been able to accomplish everything he wants yet" line of bullshit, are you? What, I'm supposed to get all damp in the loins when the Buffet Rule gets dragged out, all the while watching Gitmo stay open and drones rain down on innocent civilians in the Middle East under the guise of This Is Approved By The Bat Shit Crazy Far RIght as some kind of weapon in the "war on terror?"

    The worst thing one can do is draw ideological lines in the sand and play some kind of bizarre "my dog's better than your dog" game with two political parties that are nothing more than two peas in the same pod, save for the same fringe issues that get dragged out every four years to "prove" the differences. Think we'll ever have instant run-off voting in this country? Public funded elections? Open primaries for all candidates, and equal access? Dream on - neither party wants anything to do with that, lest they be seen for what they are.

    What we have here (on the right) is a literal insane asylum - low information voters being fed mis-information on a daily basis, and having their worst fears and prejudices stroked continuously by those who can manifest political and/or financial gain from it. Looking at it from the outside (which is quite easy to do when one's "team" has virtually no chance of getting into the game) it can be easily seen for what it is.This is why it is so troubling (to me, anyway) to hear the same bullet points repeated ad naseum by the Fox viewers who, if they made even the smallest of efforts, would see how they are being played for the fool. Instead, they rationalize this by saying they are not looking for truth, but rather a point of view that they agree with. Think about that for a minute - not truth, just affirmation. Damn.

    So, we then turn to the "left", who will (amazingly enough), justify the holes in the armor of their gods by saying - wait for it - "well, would you rather have the OTHER guy?" You see, we'll only put the gun to your head - the other guy will pull the trigger.

    Wait, it gets better! Now we have to rationalize less than stellar progressive behavior on the part of said god by using inane phrases like "we'll have to hold his feet to the fire" or "we'll just have to make sure we elect more progressives!" Okay - you're going to try and elect more progressives in a party that has about as much use for them as summer does for snow. Now, don't mistake my point - the progressives are out there, they're just running on political platforms and in political parties that Democrats want nothing to do with. Every time you stump for "not the other guy" you put another nail in the coffin of real progressive change.

    If you want true "lefty talk", my friend, then you gotta walk the walk. Obama and his ilk ain't it. Give the right credit - they want to bring the country back to the 1800's, and they're backing the clowns to do it. Their foot soldiers will chop their toes off while believing all the time that the other guy wants to chop off their fingers, and as long as they are willing to swallow the lie-infested swill their leaders could care less.

    Sorry, but that is one role model I am not willing to copy.

    No matter what animal it rides in on.

    So many incorrect statements in your post. First, how many bills have been filibustered or not given a chance for a vote? Over 100 so you are wrong about what Obama has tried. Second, Obama tried to close Gitmo and got no where because other republican Senate. I guess you over looked that.
    And you have taken the rhetoric of Fox followers by saying Libs think of Obama assume type of God. Far from the truth but the Right continuestosay this, and you too. Finally there are many definitions of"progressive". We are not Cons in that we look at issues,not all in one. There are many things I disagree with Obama on. thought he never should have allowed the tax cuts to be continued. So don't lump Libs or Progressives into the same category asCons,is just isn't so.

    dave1954

  • dave1954 said...

    So many incorrect statements in your post. First, how many bills have been filibustered or not given a chance for a vote? Over 100 so you are wrong about what Obama has tried. Second, Obama tried to close Gitmo and got no where because other republican Senate. I guess you over looked that. And you have taken the rhetoric of Fox followers by saying Libs think of Obama assume type of God. Far from the truth but the Right continuestosay this, and you too. Finally there are many definitions of"progressive". We are not Cons in that we look at issues,not all in one. There are many things I disagree with Obama on. thought he never should have allowed the tax cuts to be continued. So don't lump Libs or Progressives into the same category asCons,is just isn't so.

    Oddsbodkins man, cool off. You are doing nothing more here than parroting party line DLC bullshit that so many are sick of.

    Please understand one thing - I was, not too long ago, exactly where you are now. My candidate of choice in '04 was Wesley Clark. I volunteered for him, met him numerous times, went to several primary states on my own dime to help get the vote out - you name it, I was there. I was incensed when folks I didn't know kept telling me to dig deeper, to look at The School For The Americas, to put the pieces together. I would have none of it. Party first baby, party first. Dems need to be in the White House - lather, rinse, repeat. Anyone who didn't buy what I was selling was somehow a tool of the other side.

    Now I don't know how to break this to you, but you are not even in the same area code as a true progressive. What you've shown so far is nothing more than a willingness to excuse the behavior you don't like (as if some sort of miraculous outside force was preventing Obama from executing his true agenda). Set the wayback machine to the presidency of George The Idiot.That jackass couldn't find his ass with both hands, yet was somehow able to put into place almost all of his bought and paid for agenda, including lying the entire country into an unpaid unjust war. Now you're gonna try and make me believe Obama can't do 10% of that? That he couldn't have gotten single payer through with a groundswell of popular support? I've been around the block many times, and I know good and goddamn well that your pitiful excuses as to why he doesn't do what he promises are nothing more than the inside politics crap that websites like Democratic Underground live for.

    What you are is a party first Democrat. Not Number 1 on my hit parade, but hell, there are millions of them. If it makes you feel any better to CALL yourself a progressive, then knock yourself out. The test is this - come election time, do you vote your principles, or do you vote not-Mitt. If it's the latter (and I am sure it is), then you're a Democrat.

    The good thing is, you're halfway to redemption, as (per your own words) you look at issues. So, the next time one comes up, follow it. Don't take it for granted that just because you ride a donkey means that somehow you are on the right trail. The elephant riders, of course, are headed straight for the cliff, but more often than not it's the animals that no one allows into the circus who know the way.

    I learned that a while ago.

    Maybe you will too. I hope so - it beats having to root for the home team no matter how bad it is all to hell.

    Cheers.

    Unit_D

  • Unit_D said...

    This is hardly compromise talk. Obama is nowhere near a progressive - he is a moderate don't rock the boat lap dog who does as he is told, all the while waiting for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, where he can get a nice gig cozying up to those he was supposedly at "war" with (see Clinton, Bill) and rake in the $$.

    C'mon now, you're not really expecting me to buy that "he hasn't been able to accomplish everything he wants yet" line of bullshit, are you? What, I'm supposed to get all damp in the loins when the Buffet Rule gets dragged out, all the while watching Gitmo stay open and drones rain down on innocent civilians in the Middle East under the guise of This Is Approved By The Bat Shit Crazy Far RIght as some kind of weapon in the "war on terror?"

    The worst thing one can do is draw ideological lines in the sand and play some kind of bizarre "my dog's better than your dog" game with two political parties that are nothing more than two peas in the same pod, save for the same fringe issues that get dragged out every four years to "prove" the differences. Think we'll ever have instant run-off voting in this country? Public funded elections? Open primaries for all candidates, and equal access? Dream on - neither party wants anything to do with that, lest they be seen for what they are.

    What we have here (on the right) is a literal insane asylum - low information voters being fed mis-information on a daily basis, and having their worst fears and prejudices stroked continuously by those who can manifest political and/or financial gain from it. Looking at it from the outside (which is quite easy to do when one's "team" has virtually no chance of getting into the game) it can be easily seen for what it is.This is why it is so troubling (to me, anyway) to hear the same bullet points repeated ad naseum by the Fox viewers who, if they made even the smallest of efforts, would see how they are being played for the fool. Instead, they rationalize this by saying they are not looking for truth, but rather a point of view that they agree with. Think about that for a minute - not truth, just affirmation. Damn.

    So, we then turn to the "left", who will (amazingly enough), justify the holes in the armor of their gods by saying - wait for it - "well, would you rather have the OTHER guy?" You see, we'll only put the gun to your head - the other guy will pull the trigger.

    Wait, it gets better! Now we have to rationalize less than stellar progressive behavior on the part of said god by using inane phrases like "we'll have to hold his feet to the fire" or "we'll just have to make sure we elect more progressives!" Okay - you're going to try and elect more progressives in a party that has about as much use for them as summer does for snow. Now, don't mistake my point - the progressives are out there, they're just running on political platforms and in political parties that Democrats want nothing to do with. Every time you stump for "not the other guy" you put another nail in the coffin of real progressive change.

    If you want true "lefty talk", my friend, then you gotta walk the walk. Obama and his ilk ain't it. Give the right credit - they want to bring the country back to the 1800's, and they're backing the clowns to do it. Their foot soldiers will chop their toes off while believing all the time that the other guy wants to chop off their fingers, and as long as they are willing to swallow the lie-infested swill their leaders could care less.

    Sorry, but that is one role model I am not willing to copy.

    No matter what animal it rides in on.

    Excellent post and as a fellow progressive ICAM about snow bama.... :(

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • dave1954 said...

    Hey "Warrior", do you know Al Sharpton orJesse Jackson? You must because you call them racists. And once again I will say that if Zimmerman was the one killed Martin would have been in jail. Can you possibly disagree with that?

    But that is NOT what you said. Can you agree with that?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • I appreciate everything you said as it was very thoughtful. The only thing I can say is that voting for a lesser evil is not necessarily a bad thing especially when it keeps an idiot out of the office of The President.

    Yeah, I said it.

    shalvoy

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    Look at all the topics lately being posted by Liberals attacking Romney and the GOP. They know what is coming in November, a GOP win. So I say to all my Conservative friends on here who post regularly, relax and enjoy thier meltdown for the next several month's. Enjoy the multiple threads they start bashing Romney, bashing the GOP, bashing the Supreme Court (when they overturn Obamacare), bashing the tax code, etc....

    Sit back and enjoy the ride. We are REALLY going to enjoy Thanksgiving this year (after a Romney win and GOP majority in the Senate).

    My god BW, have you lost your mind? I just counted and in the first 15 topics there were 10 anti-Obama/dem/libs, 4 anti-Romney/GOP/cons, and 1 neutral.

    How you can act as if the board is being flooded by anti-Romney posts is beyond me. There have been many times on here when the first 20 posts were all anti-Obama/dems/libs.

    While I still think Obama will lose in November, the odds are dropping because the primaries have forced Romney to turn way too hard to the right. He will really have to shake that etch-a-sketch or he will not get the independents he needs. The question is what will he do to his base if he shakes too hard.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • shoeview said...

    Look, when it comes down to it, all politicians who have a chance of becoming president are probably scum bags.

    With that being said, the scumbag that is currently president, thanks to his "Obamacare", made what would have been a $20,000 hospital bill for the birth of my son only be about $300.

    So he will get my vote. I tend to pick the guy that makes my life better, and saving me $19,700 at the hospital did that.

    And I don't think Romney is going to win, Obama will take 2012.

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    LoudounVabuck

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    something really needs to be done about this, i had to do the same thing, i had to pay over $1,000 after insurance----for a stress test----maybe i just need to not look at TIMMY BOYS< big DAVE, and DETOX posts on here......

    minsterbuckeye ●

  • Unit_D said...

    Oddsbodkins man, cool off. You are doing nothing more here than parroting party line DLC bullshit that so many are sick of.

    Please understand one thing - I was, not too long ago, exactly where you are now. My candidate of choice in '04 was Wesley Clark. I volunteered for him, met him numerous times, went to several primary states on my own dime to help get the vote out - you name it, I was there. I was incensed when folks I didn't know kept telling me to dig deeper, to look at The School For The Americas, to put the pieces together. I would have none of it. Party first baby, party first. Dems need to be in the White House - lather, rinse, repeat. Anyone who didn't buy what I was selling was somehow a tool of the other side.

    Now I don't know how to break this to you, but you are not even in the same area code as a true progressive. What you've shown so far is nothing more than a willingness to excuse the behavior you don't like (as if some sort of miraculous outside force was preventing Obama from executing his true agenda). Set the wayback machine to the presidency of George The Idiot.That jackass couldn't find his ass with both hands, yet was somehow able to put into place almost all of his bought and paid for agenda, including lying the entire country into an unpaid unjust war. Now you're gonna try and make me believe Obama can't do 10% of that? That he couldn't have gotten single payer through with a groundswell of popular support? I've been around the block many times, and I know good and goddamn well that your pitiful excuses as to why he doesn't do what he promises are nothing more than the inside politics crap that websites like Democratic Underground live for.

    What you are is a party first Democrat. Not Number 1 on my hit parade, but hell, there are millions of them. If it makes you feel any better to CALL yourself a progressive, then knock yourself out. The test is this - come election time, do you vote your principles, or do you vote not-Mitt. If it's the latter (and I am sure it is), then you're a Democrat.

    The good thing is, you're halfway to redemption, as (per your own words) you look at issues. So, the next time one comes up, follow it. Don't take it for granted that just because you ride a donkey means that somehow you are on the right trail. The elephant riders, of course, are headed straight for the cliff, but more often than not it's the animals that no one allows into the circus who know the way.

    I learned that a while ago.

    Maybe you will too. I hope so - it beats having to root for the home team no matter how bad it is all to hell.

    Cheers.

    Your balls must be getting pretty sore from continually riding that fence. Take a stand, man.

    This post was edited by McCague on 4/19/2012 at 9:08 AM

    McCague

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    Don't know if it is or not. And I'm sorry for your unfortunute situation. Maybe you too would benefit from healthcare reform, because I don't think it is right that you pay good money for health insurance and your reward for this is having to pay an absurdly high bill. So you LIKE the way things are when that happens?

    If it makes you feel any better when Bush was in office I had a $2,300 hospital bill for a stomach scope, and I also had health insurance(not that I'm trying to blame Bush for this, I'm just saying even when I payed nearly $200 a month for coverage, healthcare still wasn't really affordable).

    So yeah I know getting huge hospital bills sucks. But again, I base who I vote for off of who makes my situation better, and all I know is under one of the rules of Obamacare, my wife, who got laid off from her job after finding out she was pregnant about a month before, was able to get on her mom's insurance for the birth of our son.

    The hospital bill was not an issue. My life never seemed to be affected by Bush or Clinton. I saw my life personally benefit from Obamacare..

    shoeview

  • Mitt Romney's flip-flopping and malleability are exactly what make him the most dangerous possible president in the race...

    Playsignature image signature image

    gessig ●

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    SAME way under Bush. Selective memory??

    Buck Eye

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    First of all, all of the parts of Obamacare that impact federal spending the most haven't even kicked in yet, so Obamacare is really not the reason that your care is either cheaper or more expensive at this time.

    Second, Obamacare has ZERO to do with anyone getting free CT scans. I wonder how you would even know they were getting them for free, of course, but even assuming you are correct, the President you can thank for anyone getting free care in this country is REAGAN. EMTALA was signed by Reagan in 1986. I am not one who solely blames the President- Congress has to pass the bill first, but for those of you who want solely to blame the President, I am happy to go with it.

    Upset that illegal immigrants get free care in this country? Blame Reagan.
    Disturbed that someone who doesn't want to work a day in his life gets free care while you pay through the nose? It's Reagan's fault.
    If you're a doctor who doesn't like being forced to work without compensation as I am? Thank the almighty President Reagan.

    What was that about hypocrites?

    Another question I wish more Americans would ponder. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, I want someone to explain to me how it should constitutional to force doctors to work for free. People are up in arms about billionaires paying more taxes, or people being forced to buy insurance, but no one cares at all that an entire segment of the workforce is coerced by the government to provide their services free of charge. On top of that, the person who pays you nothing for the service you didn't want to provide for fee can still sue you.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BucksinWA on 4/19/2012 at 10:04 AM

    BucksinWA

  • BucksinWA said...

    First of all, all of the parts of Obamacare that impact federal spending the most haven't even kicked in yet, so Obamacare is really not the reason that your care is either cheaper or more expensive at this time.

    Second, Obamacare has ZERO to do with anyone getting free CT scans. I wonder how you would even know they were getting them for free, of course, but even assuming you are correct, the President you can thank for anyone getting free care in this country is REAGAN. EMTALA was signed by Reagan in 1986. I am not one who solely blames the President- Congress has to pass the bill first, but for those of you who want solely to blame the President, I am happy to go with it.

    Upset that illegal immigrants get free care in this country? Blame Reagan. Disturbed that someone who doesn't want to work a day in his life gets free care while you pay through the nose? It's Reagan's fault. If you're a doctor who doesn't like being forced to work without compensation as I am? Thank the almighty President Reagan.

    What was that about hypocrites?

    Another question I wish more Americans would ponder. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, I want someone to explain to me how it should constitutional to force doctors to work for free. People are up in arms about billionaires paying more taxes, or people being forced to buy insurance, but no one cares at all that an entire segment of the workforce is coerced by the government to provide their services free of charge. On top of that, the person who pays you nothing for the service you didn't want to provide for fee can still sue you.

    I am completely in favor of denying free care to illegal immigrants... Please list all of the current Democrats that would be in favor of this legislation since you are blaming Reagan. I think it is painfully obvious which party is about "free" services and entitlements. Also, I am in complete agreement that doctors should not be forced to provide services without compensation and it is ludicrous that anyone who received care could sue them... Take a guess which party the trial lawyers ("ambulance chasers") favor by an overwhelming margin.

    sryan2

  • Libs will riot if they loose

    soflabuck

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    A true healthcare bill that does not have to run the Republican gauntlet in congress would have solved your problem. Republicans caused the bill to be watered down so much it is not even completely acceptable to most Democrats. You have only your conservative congressmen to blame for such a weak law. Instead of becoming invloved they sat on their hands, held their breaths, and voted no. You paid $1900 because you have insurance from an insurance company that gets to write the rules through their puppets in congress. Go ahead and keep voting for them. Elect Romney and your healthcare problems will only get worse.

    McCague

  • sryan2 said...

    I am completely in favor of denying free care to illegal immigrants... Please list all of the current Democrats that would be in favor of this legislation since you are blaming Reagan. I think it is painfully obvious which party is about "free" services and entitlements. Also, I am in complete agreement that doctors should not be forced to provide services without compensation and it is ludicrous that anyone who received care could sue them... Take a guess which party the trial lawyers ("ambulance chasers") favor by an overwhelming margin.

    You missed my point. Plenty of Democrats passed that legislation, too, but most people blame only the President for what happens during his term. Reagan did sign the legislation, so if you want to hold someone ultimately responsible, it's him. Since then there have been plenty of Dem and Rep Houses, Senates and Presidencies, and none of them has even considered undoing what I consider to be a complete injustice. Since it only affects "rich doctors," though (a laughable term), no one really cares. That's why I can't figure out why anyone would have any energy over taxing billionaires.

    So once again, we can blame one party, but BOTH parties are all about free services without compensation. Republicans have done nothing to help my situation any more than Dems have.

    I agree that trial lawyers strongly favor Dems, though, and if we want to truly reduce health care expenses in this country, we would revamp the tort system for medical malpractice.

    I am not against caring for illegal immigrants or anyone else. I am against being forced to provide that care for free. I don't want to be the one to decide who gets care and who doesn't. I just want to practice medicine. But if the government is forcing me to provide it, then I guess it should be the government who pays me to do it.

    BucksinWA

  • sryan2 said...

    I am completely in favor of denying free care to illegal immigrants... Please list all of the current Democrats that would be in favor of this legislation since you are blaming Reagan. I think it is painfully obvious which party is about "free" services and entitlements. Also, I am in complete agreement that doctors should not be forced to provide services without compensation and it is ludicrous that anyone who received care could sue them... Take a guess which party the trial lawyers ("ambulance chasers") favor by an overwhelming margin.

    Apparently it is Republicans who are about free care since they do not want to address the problem of people without insurance using the emergency room as their de facto health care provider (for free). You do know we all pay for that expensive care? And you believe that is better than trying to make sure everyone has some kind of coverage? Where is that old conservative mantra of "personal responsibility and accountablity"?

    Free care should be denied to anyone who can pay and chooses not to pay. Let them lose their homes just like many did who wanted insurance but could not get it.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by McCague on 4/19/2012 at 1:41 PM

    McCague

  • shalvoy said...

    I appreciate everything you said as it was very thoughtful. The only thing I can say is that voting for a lesser evil is not necessarily a bad thing especially when it keeps an idiot out of the office of The President.

    I think you are responding to me - if not, apologies first and foremost.

    The lesser evil is a tough argument to steer clear from. It's easier (at least for me) to do so by coming to the realization that one should never settle for a lesser evil, lest that lesser evil become nothing more than a placeholder for the next REALLY evil bastard to show up.

    Sadly, this is what the Democratic Party has become - they are merely placeholders, keeping the damage done by previous lunatics at "sea level" until the next group comes in and continues the carnage. I just can not bring myself to believe that what passes for "progress" in the mainstream political climate these days is NOT actual movement towards equality, but rather a line of reasoning that goes something along the lines of "as long as we don't f#%k things up even more." It is even sadder that there are those on the make-believe left who believe it as well.

    "We have one political party in America - with two right wings" - Gore Vidal

    Unit_D

  • LoudounVabuck said...

    Is this the same Obama care that allowed the three hispanic laborers that were with me at the hopital for C.A.T. scans get their scans done without paying anything.Then when it came time for mine and I HAD INSURANCE I HAD TO PAY $1900.00 on my credit card before I could get mine done . I guess having a job paying taxes and employing people and being responsible is not so smart. Yeah, Liberals are great until they get a taste of their own ideas. Then they become hipocrits.

    Maybe so, but at least they can spell.

    Unit_D

  • McCague said...

    Your balls must be getting pretty sore from continually riding that fence. Take a stand, man.

    OK, now THAT was funny. thumbsup

    Unit_D

  • sryan2 said...

    I am completely in favor of denying free care to illegal immigrants... Please list all of the current Democrats that would be in favor of this legislation since you are blaming Reagan. I think it is painfully obvious which party is about "free" services and entitlements. Also, I am in complete agreement that doctors should not be forced to provide services without compensation and it is ludicrous that anyone who received care could sue them... Take a guess which party the trial lawyers ("ambulance chasers") favor by an overwhelming margin.

    So how many children a year are you okay with dying because they could not get medical care in Your America because their parents are poor or in the country illegally?

    Most of you cons scream murder when a woman decides not to let a group of cells to grow in their bodies but are willing to let real children die because of the sins of their parents. Yeah, you guys really have the moral high ground, not.

    So a 25 year old woman with no children goes into surgery to have a ovarian cyst removed and the surgeon does a complete hysterectomy, the now sterile woman should have no legal recourse? In Miami doctors amputated the wrong leg - if it had been you would you think you should have no legal recourse?

    Have you never sued anyone for anything? Beside divorce lawyers, have you worked with any of these men and women who have worked hard and went into debt to become "ambulance chasers?"

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports