• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

i keep hearing about obama and his "far left radical agenda"......

Let me rephrase then... Obama supports a similar piece of legislation that uses a different name. Since it has no chance of getting passed in the house, it will be the next administration power grab and enforced by Obama's Chief Diversity Officer for the FCC, Mark Lloyd.
We also have this scary guy who Obama chose to be his regulatory czar.
Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and
television broadcasters:
n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether,
as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving
democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of
the First Amendment in the democratic process.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
[
M]any people all over the world have become even more concerned about the risks of a
situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another…Democracy
does best with what James Madison called a ‘yielding and accommodating spirit,’ and
that spirit is at risk whenever people sort themselves into enclaves in which their own
views and commitments are constantly reaffirmed… uch sorting should not be
identified with freedom, and much less with democratic self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007)
,

http://www.stopsunstein.com/media/pdf/Sunstein quote file.pdf
 
What would you do to fix health care? Lower taxes?

First of all, there was no crisis; that charge was manufactured by the left and their media henchmen. Pure unadulterated bull****.

Healthcare where it does have problems, is third party payment. No one knows or cares for that matter what it costs if they are insured. Medicare is rife with fraud, and now we are allowing the government to take control, when they have illustrated for decades they have no clue how to run a fiscal program.

Brilliant.
 
And how would your propose people not be bankrupted (and not always left to die) if you don't like the recent health care law?
You know what? The whole healthcare system was turned on it's head because of the spectre of people going bankrupt to pay for healthcare, yet I never saw any stats supporting that this was a major problem. Perhaps you can provide some.
 
OK. Show me where I said people are dying in the streets, or admit that you're a ****ing liar.
Hey, Einstein, my posts are here for everyone to read. I also copied and pasted your entire post. You accused me of distorting your words, which I haven't done so it seems to me you're the ****ing liar.
 
You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Blah, blah, blah...
The Affordable Heath Care legislation was filled with former Republican ideas and compromises. If you didn't know that, you need to check your facts. Stop trying to be a partisan hack for two seconds and address the issues objectively.

The President is moderate when it comes to policy.
 
The Affordable Heath Care legislation was filled with former Republican ideas and compromises. If you didn't know that, you need to check your facts. Stop trying to be a partisan hack for two seconds and address the issues objectively.

The President is moderate when it comes to policy.

A moderate president wouldn't do things like this and appoint extreme people like Berwick.

Donald Berwick Exemplifies the Obama Agenda | RedState

the White House that is playing games with the health policy of the nation and the welfare of the American people. In bypassing the traditional process through which the Senate advises and consents to nominees, President Obama is preventing Senators and the people they represent from obtaining any answers from Mr. Berwick, who has repeatedly made claims and statements that raise numerous questions about his suitability for this critical position.

Such questions would have concerned his remarks attacking private-sector solutions to health care problems, in support of “rationing with our eyes open,” and speaking of his affection for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service as “romantic.” In footage discovered and highlighted by the Heartland Institute in May, Mr. Berwick made this audacious statement: “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
 
Ahh yes. It's so extreme to point out that universal health care requires the poor to get help from people richer than themselves...

Health care, by the way, is already rationed in the US, so I'm not sure why people are so terrified of that word.
 
Last edited:
Ahh yes. It's so extreme to point out that universal health care requires the poor to get help from people richer than themselves...

Health care, by the way, is already rationed in the US, so I'm not sure why people are so terrified of that word.

Point to one government program besides our military that they do well.
Our HC system needs to be fixed. It does not need to be trashed and replaced by a system we know doesn't work.
 
You know what? The whole healthcare system was turned on it's head because of the spectre of people going bankrupt to pay for healthcare, yet I never saw any stats supporting that this was a major problem. Perhaps you can provide some.

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and
bankruptcy laws have tightened.
METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court
records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated
reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.
RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
 
Last edited:
You know you are too far [radical right], when you don't think [eliminating Medicaid and Medicare] is very far [radical right].

actually enforcing the tenth amendment is seen as radical by the new deal democrats
 
Don't confuse incompetence with being a centrist as is the emporers new clothes these days.

or that sham wow is a moderate due to any reason other than political reality. If Obama thought he could ban guns or jack up tax rates on the rich to 75% and not lose congressional seats or hurt his chances of reelection there is no doubt in my mind he would.

all this shows is that the empty suit is more worried about maintaining power than being pure
 
anyone who gives someone like Cass Sunstein the sort of Power that sham wow has given that guy is clearly a radical
 
Back
Top Bottom