BF2S Forums Republican version of socialism vs. the Democrat one.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Medicaid does cover a lot of the poorest Americans, but there are still plenty of poor people that don't get coverage. The cutoff point can be pretty low in many states.

In NY if you earn over $8,067 per year you have to pay for healthcare yourself, but you're still below the US poverty line of $10,400 per year.

Says the guy who doesn't live here.

It's not just the poor, it's the needy. There are many who qualify based on need, rather than income (mental/physical handicap, for example). The poverty line is not the only criteria when it comes to benefits.

So you're basically saying that yes I'm actually right, there are plenty of poor Americans that can't pay for their own healthcare and that aren't covered by the government plans.

I'm basically saying you're partially right.

However, if you break down the "47 million uninsured" number that keeps getting bantered around, you'll see the number of people who have not chosen to not be covered, do not qualify under Medicare/Medicaid, and cannot afford premiums is MUCH smaller than 47 million.

It's not near the "crisis" or "epidemic" or any other hyperbolic term used by the medical lobby and the press.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you really think 'Democracy' has anything to do with it?
Israel is certainly not a democracy, nor a positive influence on the region.
Israel isn't an ally either, more of a leech.

Never expected you (or a select few others) to believe that. But in the end, the truth of it doesn't really rely on what you believe.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-07 02:31:49)

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm asking if YOU really believe it.

I posted it, didn't I?

The strong implication is 'yes'...

Braddock wrote:

I also think you grossly overestimate the extent of this so called appeasement but that's not entirely your fault because the media have just basically replaced commies with Muslims and many other people besides you completely buy into it.

That's largely true. What is surprising is the fact that during the reds under the beds era, Western Policy was to stop the perceived domino effect of Communist countries rising in South East Asia and using proxy wars the combat it. The war on terrorism is being fought the opposite way, with invasion and then following the extremists across borders. A more reactive rather than proactive approach.

But there is still plenty of similarity between the two, and as you pointed out, the generator fear of Muslims as if they all want to topple the free world. Although not something pushed majorly by either political party there's certainly far right wing sources claiming it.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have never said Muslims are taking over either. What I write about, is the constant infringment on western society by outside forces that do not hold western values and morality at heart.

Isn't that the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that many Muslims have about the Western world... the constant infringement on Islamic society in the Middle East by outside forces that do not hold Islamic values and morality at heart?

You have perfectly exemplified Western hypocrisy with this statement here lowing.

lowing wrote:

I write about use of our own Constitution against us to strip us of out identity via PC, and the denial that it is happening. This is what most concerns me about our society now. The fact that you have to pay as much for gas now, that the rest of the world has been paying for years is not my priorty

I don't like PC, appeasement or special treatment for minorities either but I think our side of the problem is better than theirs... at least we're not being invaded and having our 'regimes' changed by Middle Eastern forces. I also think you grossly overestimate the extent of this so called appeasement but that's not entirely your fault because the media have just basically replaced commies with Muslims and many other people besides you completely buy into it.

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

I think you bury your head too deep in the sand and refuse to recognise just how intrusive and influential Islam is becoming on the world stage. All at the peril of western society values and morality.

Last edited by lowing (2008-10-07 17:23:34)

Lowing wrote:

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

Yes you were, military bases on Saudi soil. That was Bin Laden's primary gripe.
Since 9/11 those bases have been closed, Bin Laden achieved his objective - appeasement much?

FEOS wrote:

Yes. It is.

The question is do YOU believe its in US interests to be backing Israel in the ME, just so you can say 'look, this is what a democracy is', when they have TV and the internet and can check out the political situation in Greenland just as easily as Israel?
And do YOU believe US support of Israel has nothing to do with oil?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-08 00:09:04)

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have never said Muslims are taking over either. What I write about, is the constant infringment on western society by outside forces that do not hold western values and morality at heart.

Isn't that the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that many Muslims have about the Western world... the constant infringement on Islamic society in the Middle East by outside forces that do not hold Islamic values and morality at heart?

You have perfectly exemplified Western hypocrisy with this statement here lowing.

lowing wrote:

I write about use of our own Constitution against us to strip us of out identity via PC, and the denial that it is happening. This is what most concerns me about our society now. The fact that you have to pay as much for gas now, that the rest of the world has been paying for years is not my priorty

I don't like PC, appeasement or special treatment for minorities either but I think our side of the problem is better than theirs... at least we're not being invaded and having our 'regimes' changed by Middle Eastern forces. I also think you grossly overestimate the extent of this so called appeasement but that's not entirely your fault because the media have just basically replaced commies with Muslims and many other people besides you completely buy into it.

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

I think you bury your head too deep in the sand and refuse to recognise just how intrusive and influential Islam is becoming on the world stage. All at the peril of western society values and morality.

Lets see how far back in history we can go...
The Jews
The Christians
The Jews
The Baby-Eating Jews
The Muslims (Saracens)
The Muslims (Saracens)
The Jews AND the Muslims
The Protestants
The Counter-reformed Catholics
The Indians
The Revolutionaries
The Jews
The Free Blacks
The Chinese ("Gentleman's Agreement")
The Alcoholics
The Communists
The Fascists
The Communists
The Cuban Communists
The Communists
The Uppity Blacks (again!)
The Drug Lords
The Liberals (Gays, Abortionists)
The Muslims

All of these going back about 2000 years were supposed to bring about the end of civilization and pose a serious threat to white/christian supremecy of the world.  It didn't happen.  It won't happen.  Nobody is coming to put a damned burka on your boyfriend's head, chill.

I love how nobody every actually says what "Western values and morality" is...like what are "small town values" or "Christian values", or "American values".  Can you list them out?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

Yes you were, military bases on Saudi soil. That was Bin Laden's primary gripe.
Since 9/11 those bases have been closed, Bin Laden achieved his objective - appeasement much?

FEOS wrote:

Yes. It is.

The question is do YOU believe its in US interests to be backing Israel in the ME, just so you can say 'look, this is what a democracy is', when they have TV and the internet and can check out the political situation in Greenland just as easily as Israel?
And do YOU believe US support of Israel has nothing to do with oil?

Not appeasement, Saudi Arabia, after the fall of Saddam, didb't need the US for protection anymore so they basically kicked us out.

lowing wrote:

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

What?

Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.

ATG wrote:

Islam forbids banks charging interest on loans.

Sounding better and better to me.

You can get a interest free loan if you buy a Toyota in the US on selected models, must be Mooooslim car dealers across the pond

mikeyb118 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

What?

Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.

Jesus Christ! I was referring to the "invasion".

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

Braddock, we were not in the ME on 911.

Yes you were, military bases on Saudi soil. That was Bin Laden's primary gripe.
Since 9/11 those bases have been closed, Bin Laden achieved his objective - appeasement much?

FEOS wrote:

Yes. It is.

The question is do YOU believe its in US interests to be backing Israel in the ME, just so you can say 'look, this is what a democracy is', when they have TV and the internet and can check out the political situation in Greenland just as easily as Israel?
And do YOU believe US support of Israel has nothing to do with oil?

Not appeasement, Saudi Arabia, after the fall of Saddam, didb't need the US for protection anymore so they basically kicked us out.

hold on there slick.

They didnt kick you out. Saudi became surplus to requirments because you have a brand spanking new base in the ME ....its called Iraq.

lowing wrote:

Try reading the Constituion of the United States, in it , you will find all of our rights and freedoms that Islam does not adhere to.

I've even named my two kids after guys that wrote it

That's exactly where I'm confused though.  The right-wing has done the most absurdly un-constitutional things in the last 8 years in power.  Torture, invasion of privacy without cause or warrant, "free speech zones", Supreme court deciding elections, partisan use of executive power and privelege, "the Cheney Branch", voter disenfranchising, purely executive war-making power, military tribunals in civilian cases without due process...

Go back to St. Ronnie's constitutional overthrow in the name of the War on Drugs.  At least when Nixon did it, he knew he was breaking the law and doing the wrong thing.  The current crop of assholes actually thinks this is all their god-given right.

So which rights and freedoms does Islam not adhere that the Christian right or corporate right or neocon doctrine adhere to?