one reason people are fucking stupid

[zoombwaz]

Why didn't you quote my most recent post? too devastating you can't bear to see repeated. I understand.

Real polls show nobody wants your dogshit plan.

I didn't quote it because i hadn't seen it. Having seen it now, I'm amused that you think it is devastating. You haven't disproved anything I posted. How do you figure your non-argument is devastating? What constitutes a "real poll"? How about a little logic or factual specificity? I see neither in evidence in your laughable response.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Anyone who believes an unregulated market leads to more competition, despite the fact that this has never happened in history, is stupid. It is false to say that we don't believe in markets at all. False AND stupid. Markets are absolutely necessaryn for the movement of goods and services, and a requirement for a robust national economy. However, we realize some things the delusional self-styled "fiscal conservatives" such as yourself don't. First, we know that you are in no way a fiscal conservative, but are instead a regressive corporatist, blindly swallowing the bilge being poured down your throat by the special interests, their lobbyists, and their whores in congress from both parties. A true fiscal conservative would never have supported the illegal war in iraq, which all of you corporatists did. A true fiscal conservative would also never support a wasteful, profiteering healthcare system like the one we have, realizing that the rapidly rising cost of our insurance (which has nothing to do with tort reform...the states that have limited jury awards have subsequently experienced the same increases in insurance premiums they had prior to the "reform,"which is no more and no less than corporate America's ploy to evade legal responsibilituy for their unethical actions), is an unsustainable drag on our economy, such that Honda recently decided they could no longer continue opening factories in the US, because our health care costs add $1500-$1800 to the price of a new car built in the US, making any vehicle built in the US uncompetitive. This is a company that has historically jumped at the opportunity to build their products here, using American labor and materials. Every Honda Gold Wing motorcycle sold worldwide is made in Marysville, OH by American workers, using American steel and DuPont plastics, creating good jobs here. But they have realized they can no longer afford our health care costs, and have decided to open new plants in Canada. So why are you, as a self-styled "fiscal conservative," blindly supporting the profiteering from the insurance sector, which creates exactly zero high-paying manufacturing jobs, when it is clearly not in our national best interests to do so? I maintain that it is because you are exactly as stupid as we think you are.

Second, we realize that no market, regardless of how necessary it is to the smooth functioning of a national economy, can be allowed to exist in an unregulated state, because of one simple fact: In EVERY competitive arena, there are cheaters; those who think the rules don't aply to them. The technical term for these individuals is "sociopath." They have always been with us, and they always will be. That is the reason we need police to enforce criminal law, and why we need referees to enforce the rules of sports. There is no such thing as a self-enforcing rule or law, and no entity that can be trusted to police itself, which is why for example, the NCAA enforces the rules and hires the refs, and not the individual schools. The market has no mechanism for enforcing rules, and anybody who says it does is either a cheater who is anxious to loot the market unhindered by agents of enforcement, or an idiot and a sucker, just begging to be ripped off.

By the way, your moronic little talking points post neither refuted my point nor added anything meaningful to the discussion. It was nothing more than an unfounded, false (and yes, stupid) accusation, a lame attempt at an ad hominem argument made to discredit my argument without actually addressing it. In short, your post was nothing but bullshit, and despite your apparent conviction that any piece of crap you post deserves serioius consideration and respect, such is not the case. Only serious posts deserve replies. I will respond to bullshit only once, and this reply is your once. Any substantive post from you will be answered thoughtfully, honestly, and as completely as I am able. However, any further crap rom you like the post quoted above will be ignored.

Sometimes deregulation DOES increase competition, but not always. In the case of insurance, it would definitely increase competition to allow out of state sales. A bunch of state cronyfied insurance cartels is a situation begging for deregulatioin.

my MAIN point is that the government is not a legitimate provider of fair competition. It's pockets are too deep, and it has regulatory capture.

Given the above, the government option is bad; breaking the state by state insurance cartels is good.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Our totalitarian fascist government has been aching for control over life and death for quite a while now. Government healthcare is granting fascists full control over our lives.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

regressive corporatist

a new buzzword. I'd almost forgotten that the liberal way was to label anything not 'progressive' as regressive.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Zoombwas has shot his load. That will be it from him. He had about two big paragraphs inside. That was it.

 

[zoombwaz]

Sometimes deregulation DOES increase competition, but not always. In the case of insurance, it would definitely increase competition to allow out of state sales. A bunch of state cronyfied insurance cartels is a situation begging for deregulatioin.

my MAIN point is that the government is not a legitimate provider of fair competition. It's pockets are too deep, and it has regulatory capture.

Given the above, the government option is bad; breaking the state by state insurance cartels is good.

The public option is bad? Based on what criteria? The private sector is inherently incapable of providing the least expensive healthcare to the public as a whole. It violates their legally mandated fiduciary duties to their stockholders. Suppose you tell me what role the private insurance industry plays in delivering health care to the public. If the goal is delivering healthcare at a reasonable cost to the widest segment of the population possible, single payer universal healhcare is the only answer. The private insurance companies have shown exactly zero ability to do so in the sixty odd years it has been on the table. Why do they deserve another opportunity to gouge the public?

BTW, name one instance where deregulation has increased competition. Just one where the public didn't end up taking it in the shorts.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The public option is bad?

Yes.

Based on what criteria?

My knowledge that the government tactics of strongarming and price fixing will only result in the degradation of the quality and amount of care available.

Glittering generalities, and big wish lists are easy to wish for, harder to actualize.

The private sector is inherently incapable of providing the least expensive healthcare to the public as a whole. It violates their legally mandated fiduciary duties to their stockholders.

But shareholders understand that products must be sold according to the price/demand curve. So shareholders do, In fact, understand that goods must be priced with some notion of affordability and value return.

A better cost cutter would destroying the state by state insurance cartels.

Suppose you tell me what role the private insurance industry plays in delivering health care to the public. If the goal is delivering healthcare at a reasonable cost to the widest segment of the population possible, single payer universal healhcare is the only answer.

It's not the only answer.

We have;

1. Tort reform
2. Breaking state by state cartels
3. decoupling health insurance and employment, so health care bargaining is not between bigwigs on a golf course, but between individuals and providers.

The private insurance companies have shown exactly zero ability to do so in the sixty odd years it has been on the table. Why do they deserve another opportunity to gouge the public?

The state by state cartels are still in existence.
Tort reform has not been done.
Employment and health insurance have not been sufficiently decoupld.

We should do all these before throwing us all in the morass of government dysfunction.

BTW, name one instance where deregulation has increased competition. Just one where the public didn't end up taking it in the shorts.

Talk radio. removal of the "fairness doctrine".

The telecom industry. Any monopoly busting is good for the consumer.

 

[uscitizen]

Fascist!

 

[zoombwaz]

Zoombwas has shot his load. That will be it from him. He had about two big paragraphs inside. That was it.

In your dreams, you pseudointellectual pissant. At least i have a load to shoot. You couldn't answer a single one of my questions, or back up a single one of your unfounded allegations. You're a fucking lightweight, and if you expect any further responses from me, you're going to have to actually post something substantive. I hate to break this to you, but the non sequiturs you've been posting may wow your classmates in the third grade, but those of us who actually understand logic see them for what they are: the cheap, desperate debating tactics of a loser who has neither facts nor logic on his side.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

In your dreams, you pseudointellectual pissant. At least i have a load to shoot. You couldn't answer a single one of my questions, or back up a single one of your unfounded allegations. You're a fucking lightweight, and if you expect any further responses from me, you're going to have to actually post something substantive. I hate to break this to you, but the non sequiturs you've been posting may wow your classmates in the third grade, but those of us who actually understand logic see them for what they are: the cheap, desperate debating tactics of a loser who has neither facts nor logic on his side.

Your questions are tedious.

"Name one innovation developed in the private sector?" Just shut up, fool.

I've defeated you thoroughly. Your simplistic bromide of "false dilemmas" and emotive ignorance will not succeed here.

 

[Topspin]

The public option is bad? Based on what criteria? The private sector is inherently incapable of providing the least expensive healthcare to the public as a whole. It violates their legally mandated fiduciary duties to their stockholders. Suppose you tell me what role the private insurance industry plays in delivering health care to the public. If the goal is delivering healthcare at a reasonable cost to the widest segment of the population possible, single payer universal healhcare is the only answer. The private insurance companies have shown exactly zero ability to do so in the sixty odd years it has been on the table. Why do they deserve another opportunity to gouge the public?

BTW, name one instance where deregulation has increased competition. Just one where the public didn't end up taking it in the shorts.

2 thinks, do you know your picking on a guy who was outsourced 3x. You bully.
3. Where did you go to college, the private sector is the one providing healthcare you moron.

 

[zoombwaz]

Your questions are tedious.

"Name one innovation developed in the private sector?" Just shut up, fool.

I've defeated you thoroughly. Your simplistic bromide of "false dilemmas" and emotive ignorance will not succeed here.

Defeated thoroughly? With non sequiturs and red herrings? Those are logical fallacies, and you don't defeat anybody with those, thoroughly or otherwise. BTW, "Just shut up, fool"??? Brilliant riposte! You are in the third grade, aren't you?

Simplistic bromide of "false dilemmas" and emotive ignorance? WTF? Oh, did mommy and daddy give you a shiny new Roget's for your birthday? Isn't that special? Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Apparently not, since your posts are shot through with them, and the only "simplistic bromides" and "emotive ignorance" on display here are your own insurance industry-approved talking points.

You're in way over your head, junior. Not only did you bring a knife to an intellectual gunfight, but it's a rubber knife to boot. Buy a clue, learn to think critically, and until you do so, you might want to STFU before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

Step one: look up "jackanapes."

# An impertinent, presumptuous person
# A conceited or impudent person.
# A mischievous child.

It's you.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Defeated thoroughly? With non sequiturs and red herrings? Those are logical fallacies, and you don't defeat anybody with those, thoroughly or otherwise. BTW, "Just shut up, fool"??? Brilliant riposte! You are in the third grade, aren't you?

Simplistic bromide of "false dilemmas" and emotive ignorance? WTF? Oh, did mommy and daddy give you a shiny new Roget's for your birthday? Isn't that special? Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Apparently not, since your posts are shot through with them, and the only "simplistic bromides" and "emotive ignorance" on display here are your own insurance industry-approved talking points.

You're in way over your head, junior. Not only did you bring a knife to an intellectual gunfight, but it's a rubber knife to boot. Buy a clue, learn to think critically, and until you do so, you might want to STFU before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

Step one: look up "jackanapes."

# An impertinent, presumptuous person
# A conceited or impudent person.
# A mischievous child.

It's you.

I told you what I thought about healthcare.

1.Tort reform
2.decoupling from employment
3.and breaking up state insurance cartels

We need to try all these before letting the government completely fuck it up.

Do you have any comments on the substance of the thread?

 

[apple0154]

I told you what I thought about healthcare.

1.Tort reform
2.decoupling from employment
3.and breaking up state insurance cartels

We need to try all these before letting the government completely fuck it up.

Do you have any comments on the substance of the thread?

Perhaps it's time to take a different approach/view.

Again, we come back to the fact dozens of governments supply health care for it's population. France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden....the list goes on and on.

Every country with "socialized" health care started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Every one of them and not one has reverted to the old way of doing things. Not one.

To hold the opinion the US government can not offer health care to it's citizens does not mean governments are incompetent. It means one believes the US government is incompetent. Not governments in general. It means the US government is the exception out of dozens of countries.

From where does that belief arise? Is it due to one believing their system of government is inadequate? Is there a systemic fault in the Constitution? What causes people to feel the US is incapable of doing what dozens of other governments do? Governments of rich countries and governments of poor countries. Governments of large countries and governments of small countries. Governments of capitalist countries and governments of Socialist countries.

What do people believe to be the innate ineptitude of the US government that will result in catastrophic failure should it become involved in health care? And as a follow-up question, "Should Obama make substantive changes to how the US government operates?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Perhaps it's time to take a different approach/view.

Again, we come back to the fact dozens of governments supply health care for it's population. France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden....the list goes on and on.

Every country with "socialized" health care started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Every one of them and not one has reverted to the old way of doing things. Not one.

To hold the opinion the US government can not offer health care to it's citizens does not mean governments are incompetent. It means one believes the US government is incompetent. Not governments in general. It means the US government is the exception out of dozens of countries.

From where does that belief arise? Is it due to one believing their system of government is inadequate? Is there a systemic fault in the Constitution? What causes people to feel the US is incapable of doing what dozens of other governments do? Governments of rich countries and governments of poor countries. Governments of large countries and governments of small countries. Governments of capitalist countries and governments of Socialist countries.

What do people believe to be the innate ineptitude of the US government that will result in catastrophic failure should it become involved in health care? And as a follow-up question, "Should Obama make substantive changes to how the US government operates?

Those other sytems suck. And they depend on the american market driving innovation.

All governments currently are run by people indocrinated with an anti human population control agenda. They want to get their hands on healthcare strictly so they CAN deny it. OR use it as a means to control those they keep alive.

Obama should flush himself down a toilet.

 

[apple0154]

Those other sytems suck. And they depend on the american market driving innovation.

All governments currently are run by people indocrinated with an anti human population control agenda. They want to get their hands on healthcare strictly so they CAN deny it. OR use it as a means to control those they keep alive.

Obama should flush himself down a toilet.

AHAHAHAHA. I have to admit I find your last comment humorous. I'm sure someone will design a "smiley" showing Obama standing in a bowl.

I always preferred the old fashioned depiction of a toilet with the water tank mounted high on the wall. I'm sure gravity greatly improved the flushing action which reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where George wanted to stop at Grand Central Terminal on their way to an event so he could use the washrooms.

Anyway, on a more serious note government run medical does not interfere in the way some people portray it. It is not anything like how an insurance company is run.

People with private insurance have their claims individually scrutinized. As has been documented by countless investigative programs the idea is for the insurance company to save money. Treatments are subject to review. Coverage is subject to legal interpretation.

You may have seen policies that exempt injuries caused by certain actions. For example, you may not be covered if you fly your own plane or if you have taken medication not specifically prescribed by your doctor. And, from what I understand, the medication does not have to be a prescription med. It can be an over-the-counter drug. The point being there are conditions placed on whether or not one is entitled to coverage.

That is not the case with universal medical. If a certain procedure is covered everyone is covered regardless of how the illness/accident occurred. That is why the idea of "death panels" is so bizarre.

If an 8 year old is entitled to certain resuscitation procedures then an 80 year old is entitled to the same. There is no one the doctor need contact. There is no interpretation required.

I think that's where the problem lies. In fact, I'm sure that's where a large portion of the problem lies. People believe a government run medical insurance plan is like a private plan only run by the government. It's not. It's completely different. The closest one could say is it's like purchasing a private plan that covers everything every other plan on the market offers and the citizens, through their representatives, decide on what will be covered.

Because a universal plan has to cover everyone the person living in suburbia is covered for the same illnesses and accidents as a person living in a high rise and the person living in a remote mountain location and the commercial fisherman and the person living in Arizona.

That is the beauty of a universal medical plan. It's not just the lower cost. It covers more illnesses and accidents and procedures than any individual medical plan on the market.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Anyway, on a more serious note government run medical does not interfere in the way some people portray it. It is not anything like how an insurance company is run. .

It doesn't exist yet, you stupid cunt. So you don't know what it's like. I stopped reading after that.

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't exist yet, you stupid cunt. So you don't know what it's like. I stopped reading after that.

My goodness, you're one dense individual. I was responding to your post where you wrote,

All governments currently are run by people indocrinated with an anti human population control agenda. They want to get their hands on healthcare strictly so they CAN deny it. OR use it as a means to control those they keep alive.

That does not happen. Let me repeat. That does not happen.

Countries with universal medical plans are nothing like you describe. You have no idea what you're talking about and as far as one not yet existing in the US we come back to what I mentioned before.

Why would the US have a plan so substantially different than the dozens of countries that already have a plan? And if, by some bizarre twist of fate, the US did implement a "let's kill the people" plan the people would vote in a new government and have the plan changed.

For the love of all that's good and decent, AssHat, educate yourself. Start by throwing away your copy of Soylent Green (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296155071179146825#docid=5285622734416601605)

Pick up a book or do a Google on the health plans of other countries. Learn, AssHat. Learn. At least give it a try.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

My goodness, you're one dense individual. I was responding to your post where you wrote,

That does not happen. Let me repeat. That does not happen.

Countries with universal medical plans are nothing like you describe. You have no idea what you're talking about and as far as one not yet existing in the US we come back to what I mentioned before.

Why would the US have a plan so substantially different than the dozens of countries that already have a plan? And if, by some bizarre twist of fate, the US did implement a "let's kill the people" plan the people would vote in a new government and have the plan changed.

For the love of all that's good and decent, AssHat, educate yourself. Start by throwing away your copy of Soylent Green (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296155071179146825#docid=5285622734416601605)

Pick up a book or do a Google on the health plans of other countries. Learn, AssHat. Learn. At least give it a try.

That does happen. Let me repeat. That does happen. Stop being a liar. People die on waiting lists all the time in the countries you hold up as a model.

 

[zoombwaz]

My goodness, you're one dense individual. I was responding to your post where you wrote,

That does not happen. Let me repeat. That does not happen.

Countries with universal medical plans are nothing like you describe. You have no idea what you're talking about and as far as one not yet existing in the US we come back to what I mentioned before.

Why would the US have a plan so substantially different than the dozens of countries that already have a plan? And if, by some bizarre twist of fate, the US did implement a "let's kill the people" plan the people would vote in a new government and have the plan changed.

For the love of all that's good and decent, AssHat, educate yourself. Start by throwing away your copy of Soylent Green (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296155071179146825#docid=5285622734416601605)

Pick up a book or do a Google on the health plans of other countries. Learn, AssHat. Learn. At least give it a try.

Sorry, Apple. Nice try, but that one is too stupid to learn. He/she/it has swallowed too much of the Reaganite Kool Ade ("Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem," possibly the single most dangerous thing said by any president, because it is also among the stupidest things ever said by any president. Armed with that precious piece of bullshit, Reagan and the GOP took the US from its perch as the #1 creditor nation in the world, and drove it over the cliff to its current position as the #1 debtor nation in the world via "Reaganomics," the moronic position that a country can cut taxes, increase military expenditures and balance the budget simultaneously. A moderately bright 4th grader could have told them that wasn't going to work, and in fact, George H.W. Bush accurately described the notion as "voodoo economics" until the GOP bought his silence by nominating him as Reagan's running mate. Ever since, the kool-ade for lunch bunch have insisted, against all evidence to the contrary (ie, the most basic accounting principles) that tax cuts do not lead to deficits, only excess spending does, and that cleaning up government waste would balance the budget (dear God, what a bunch of cretins). Then they compounded that error by giving huge budget increases to the most wasteful department in the whole freaking government: the DoD, who have absolutely no idea where their tax revenues ultimately go. The DoD is the black hole of funding...once tax dollars cross the DoD event horizon, they are never seen or accounted for again.

Those benighted dipshits controlled the executive branch for 20 out of the next 28 years, and controlled one or both houses of congresscongress for 26 mout of those 28 years. The Democrats held the presidency and both houses of congress for a whopping two years out of 28, and yet everything that has gone wrong is somehow their fault, as the GOP is ever blameless for the negative results of their asinine policies.

If the U.S. government is truly incompetent, it is nobody's fault BUT the Republicans'. What the hell do voters expect to happen when they elect a party that doesn't believe in government to run their government? Excellence? Competence?

Why would anybody with half a functioning brain expect that? The party that tells you goverrnm,ent is the peroblem CANNOT POSSIBLY SHOW COMPETENCE AT GOVERNANCE, BECAUSE IT SHOWS THEIR ENTIRE BASIC PHILOSOPHY IS WRONG. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE RIGHT, GOVERNMENT HAS TO SUCK.
THEREFORE, AND I WILL TAKE THIS SLOWLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE YET TO FIGURE OUT THE INHERENT AND PAINFULLY OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS SCENARIO, AND BY THAT I MEAN ANY PINHEAD WHO STILL THINKS A GOVERNMENT-FUNDED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS BOUND TO BE STUPID AND CORRUPT (yes, i'm talking to you, Asswipe, and all the other mental midgets who hold that benighted view). EVERY SINGLE TYIME YOU ELECT A PARTY THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT INTO POWER, THE ABSOLUTE BEST-CASE SCENARIO YOU CAN EXPECT IS BENIGN NEGLECT. YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET GOOD GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THAT PARTY TO GIVE YOU WHAT THEY SAY CANNOT EXIST.

Got it? Of course not. If you had, you would have run the GOP out of office years ago. Since the best-case scenario is benign neglect, what is the worst-case scenario? IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU GOT FROM 1981 TO 2008: INCOMPETENCE, STUPIDITY AND CORRUPTION, ALL OF WHICH ARE INEVITABLE WHEN THE PARTY IN POWER IS APPOINTING INDUSTRY HACKS TO RUN THE AGENCIES OVERSEEING THOSE INDUSTRIES. YOU GOT EXACTLY THE GOVERNMENT YOU VOTED FOR AND DESERVED..

Unfortunately for the rest of us, we had to suffer under the scum you voted into office, and then were forced to listen to you chowderheads complain about the incompetence and corruption you should have realized were inevitable BEFORE YOU VOTED THE LYING, CHEATING, CORRUPT HOSEBAGS INTO POWER, BUT WERE TOO GODDAMN STUPID TO SEE (NOT TO MENTION SCARED SHITLESS BY THEIR TERRORIST BOOGEYMAN, ALSO BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUTT-IGNORANT TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT WE COULD EVER BE TAKEN OVER BY AN "ISLAMIC CALIPHATE.")

EVEN WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THE GOP STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION, AND WITH INCONTROVERTIBLE STATISTICALPROOF THEY STOLE THE 2004 ELECTION IN OHIO, YOU INNUMERATE CRETINS INSISTED THAT WE WERE JUST WHINING BECAUSE WE LOST. IDIOTS. LEARN TO ADD AND SUBTRACT. Just like you now are falsely complaining that we are politicizing healthcare, because you aren't capable of grasping the numbers, you falsely accused us then of politicizing the election results for the same damn reason: because you couldn't grasp that the change in the results from what was posted at 2 am election night to those posted the morning of the day after was mathematically impossible, and that the changes in the exit poll numbers posted at the same times were statistically improbable past the point of real-world impossibility (and by that I mean that while there is always a numerically expressable probability that some event will happen, there comes a point in the real world whee we admit the odds against are improbably high, and therefore virtually impossible. Yes, you can express numerically the odds that you can sucessfully throw heads a million times straight in a coin toss, but we all know it ain't gonna happen. Those same odds were in play that the changed exit poll numbers could have occurred without cheating on the part of the GOP, and the fact that all the alleged anomalies went in Bush's favor was equally improbable, but since your understanding of math, statistics, and logic is no better than it was in 2004, I have no expectation of anything other than continued willful ignorance, and more right-wing bullshit (like: "that election's over, get over it." Yeah, that's right. we should all get over the screwing we got in 2000 and 2004, regardless of what the evidence shows, just like you guys accepted the ass-whuppin' you received in 2008, and got over those stupid pre-election complaints you made, like about ACORN, Obama's citizenship, and his being a secret Muslim, all claims for which there was no evidence, and the ludicrous allegations that he is simultaneously socialist, communist, and fascist, which is logically impossible by definition of all three terms, and factually ridiculous, like claiming Bill Clinton, a center-right, corporatist politican if there ever was one, as a leftist. yeah, it's so nice to see that you guys manned up, accepted the evidence, and abandoned that childish and/or racist bullshit...oh, wait...you didn't give it up after all...in fact you're still whining about imaginary election fraud by the dems while ignoring the evidence showing with metaphysical certainty that your party stole two presidential elections...and you morons are still worried about the country beginning an inexorable slide into Socialism under yet another center-right, corporatist Democrat. One more time for the retarded right-wingers (yeah, I know that's redundant, but they don't): OBAMA IS NO SOCIALIST, NO COMMUNIST, AND NO FASCIST/HITLER/NAZI. HE CAN'T BE ALL THREE AT ONCE (and don't try to run that "Nazi stands for national socialist party" crap by me, unless you are prepared to argue that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is both democratic and a republic. The Nazis were not socialists, and Obama is neither fascist nor socialist nor communist. Only a person totally ignorant on the subject of political science believes that, and ignorant and/or stupid people need to STFU.