the new health care?

I can honestly say that I am not too surprised with some of the posts that I have read in this thread. This thing has the makings of getting out of hand, and I fear that some of us will not be able to be friends after this thread. So in an appeal to the friendly neigborhood moderator who will listen. PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!

This is not about political views, this is about "I hope Obama fails" and host of other offensive things he has said in the past. My feelings towards Rushbo shouldn't be narrowed in scope.
This is about political views. Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
HANNITY: I'm glad to.
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
HANNITY: Yes.
LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?

Perhaps it's also time to privatize the military as it is currently inefficient and sustainable to fraud. Instead of blaming the government how about blaming the fraudsters? Your argument is no different than that of people who want to ban guns because they kill people.Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

I am sorry but I can't bring myself to respect people who think this country is heading down the toilet because of the new Administration and Congress. There's nothing to respect about these people's views. Nothing! What's disappointing is that somehow you think they should be respected.
Ironic?

lib·er·al (lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Great posts Slingin Sammy !

Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

Ironic?

lib·er·al (lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.


I don't have to refute anything, I'm playing by your rules and applying the same principles with respect to military spending. As far as the gun control analogy I don't see how that's an invalid reflection on your government is bad stance. Yes, the government is inefficiencies and wasteful...that's the cost of doing business.

I am liberal with limits. I only respect the respectable. I am open minded to those ideas that are rational. You have similar stance I imagine otherwise you would be open to my take on things.

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

"George Bush doesn't like black people"-Kanye West


Wait, is the idea to write off topic remarks?

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it

This is about political views. Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
HANNITY: I'm glad to.
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
HANNITY: Yes.
LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?

With Rush the ballgame is entirely different. It's part political, part dickishness, part racist, part homophobic, part hypocrisy, etc, etc. The man is loathsome creature. Detestable to the bone due to reasons that one would hope are obvious. There's nothing to like about him that I can think of. His whole shtick boils down to this...."he's not my guy and I want him to fail. His ideas and policies are retarded. I'm for America and democrats are not."

Like Joe said, I'm a jerk just like Rushbo though I do believe my thoughts here more reasoned than El Rushbo. I could be wrong on that though and I request to be excused for not caring about this man's wellbeing.

[/b]
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it

I of course am waiting on the details like everyone else, so until we see said details it gets tough to weigh in. But I will say that addressing the increasing costs is absolutely the right answer. Giving everyone in America health coverage is a nice thought, but if the underlying costs aren't addressed, then all you're doing is cutting up the pie in different size pieces and handing them out to more people.

Addressing costs would actually take a bite out of the pie (lemon merengue, please).

That said, you have to be wary of this particular plan because it was prepared by the insurance industry. They of course are looking out for number one. They make valid points, proposing legitimate ways to reduce costs. But it's all designed to preserve their own profits.

Obama needs to listen to the insurance industry here, but also listen to physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes and all the others. They'll all have great ideas as to how to cut costs, it's just they'll all look at other parts of the industry to cut costs. Hospitals will have tons of ideas for how insurers can cut costs. Insurers will have tons of ideas for hospitals to cut costs. But nobody will volunteer to cut their own costs and put their employees out of work.

As long as Obama listens to everybody he can probably put something together that makes sense, cutting costs fairly for everyone.

I am of course very interested to hear what Obama ultimately decides to push for. This insurance industry proposal is nice, but it's just one lobbying group raising their hand to volunteer another lobbying group to cut expenses. I'm waiting for Obama's plan.