You just took the words out of my mouth, and I'm American. lol

Most places in America have better weather, though ;D

You mention the healthcare issue as if it's problem that we don't have it, and yet you inferiorize us for already having an extreme amount of debt (which Obama, who everyone and their mother seemed to love [in america and around the world], has hiked up an extra $2 trillion and is trying to get the debt limit pushed even higher)...but what about the amount of extra debt that the proposed health care is supposed to impose on this country?

I would agree that something needs to change with our health care (i think our system is the best anywhere, but the people controlling it just suck), but not if they're gonna try to fine me if I don't want it or if they are gonna control the system. I would oppose any public option no matter how quaint or small because it will almost inevitably lead to single-payer, which is disgusting and stupid.

I do not mind paying higher taxes for things that are helpful, but paying higher taxes so the people who are already abusing my taxes with the system we have in place now to just keep (and possibly moreso) abuse my taxes seems ridiculous. Why would I agree to that?

Again, something does need to be done about insurance companies and maybe a mandate or suggestion or rule can originate from the gov't, but the gov't needs to stay out of our privately owned businesses.

Govern: to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
A right given to it by the PEOPLE. When the people say no, that takes the right of authority to say yes AWAY from gov't.

Control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate.
Government does not control our nation, and should not. It should govern, by the authority WE give it. And the bottom line is: the majority (according to every poll I've read or seen or heard about) does NOT want it. There are alternate solutions, I'm sure. We should spend our time figuring THAT out and not trying to force the people to accept what they do not want.

The Right has been going on and on about the debt, yo, but I would rather have good, affordable health care paid for by raised taxes, which should have been raised in the first place to cover the debt, not lowered because our previous president didn't give a shit about it, than hiking over big money to private insurance companies who don't care about you, the debt, or your health insurance.

The government has stepped in and saved privately owned businesses before. How about US mail? UPS? Some of the utilities down south? Government intervention is not a new thing, and I would rather pay the government for health insurance than private companies who don't want to help me. This creates jobs. If taxes go up slightly, or at least to what they were before W., then the economy will compensate for it.

You're also going on about government domination, but this has nothing to do with that and you know it. The people don't decide how the government runs its services. I don't understand this new phenomenon of people saying the government is getting too much power... by providing health insurance. This isn't about socialism or power plays. The "people" (which are actually not the people of the USA, just the "right") you are referring to were bitching about the bill when it had a public option. Now that the democrats have pussied out of a public option and catered to the people who are never going to cooperate no matter WHAT they say, we have a bill that forces people to fork over money to corporations. THE REPUBLICANS did this. Obama has no power to put anything into effect, Congress does. With THEIR votes.

America is not a democracy, and I wish people would stop thinking it is. The people don't make any decisions. We decide who gets to vote, not what comes into play.

Proposition 8 is a very good example of unconstitutional shit that gets put to vote, then challenged. That goes to supreme court, gets overturned, the people get all pissed off that they don't get to see people get treated unfairly under the constitution.

The people of this country have proven time and time again that they have no idea what they want or how to run a country outside of their own selfish, narrow minded ideals.

Proposition 8 is a very good example of unconstitutional shit that gets put to vote, then challenged. That goes to supreme court, gets overturned, the people get all pissed off that they don't get to see people get treated unfairly under the constitution.

Just to clarify, I meant that this is the kind of thing these people feel they have the right to vote on when they really don't under the constitution. It's why it's getting challenged.

Yes, the gov't has before..but it hasn't helped us in recent bailouts, has it? Banks are still closing down, the car companies still went bankrupt and we still have the debt. Not to mention that, apparently, some people aren't even trying to pay back the bailouts.

How would it create jobs? It might create jobs in one place, but if it's going to make people lose jobs elsewhere, then how many jobs does it "create?" Even still, tell me how it creates them, I'll listen.

No, it is not. It is a republic. And we put the people into power who do get to vote. If we don't like them, we get to vote them out. Which is why they are supposed to listen to their constituents, but they are not. This is why Massachusetts went the way it did.

Also, why shouldn't we have a right to vote on things like Proposition 8? From what I understand, it is not mentioned in the Constitution. And if it is to be added to any law or constitution, then it should be voted on. Right?

Yes, the gov't has before..but it hasn't helped us in recent bailouts, has it? Banks are still closing down, the car companies still went bankrupt and we still have the debt. Not to mention that, apparently, some people aren't even trying to pay back the bailouts.

The bailouts were an experiment. Even though it backfired, the economy improved, we're recovering, and the stock markets are looking good. And who gives a shit about the debt? We should worry about the debt when we get things covered. China isn't going to do shit about the debt until our problems are dealt with. Stop mentioning the debt, it doesn't matter.

How would it create jobs? It might create jobs in one place, but if it's going to make people lose jobs elsewhere, then how many jobs does it "create?" Even still, tell me how it creates them, I'll listen.

The public option? We've been over this - companies drop health insurance, employees pick up the public option, company makes an extra few million a year, depending on how many employees they have. Especially retail. Plus a higher demand for doctors = more health jobs. For government intervention? That's a silly question... companies on the verge of going out of business get saved and regulated by the government. It sucks, but government control > no company.

No, it is not. It is a republic. And we put the people into power who do get to vote. If we don't like them, we get to vote them out. Which is why they are supposed to listen to their constituents, but they are not. This is why Massachusetts went the way it did.

Er, I agree. I'm glad Massachusetts turned out the way it did. Should have given the Democrats a swift kick in the ass that things don't run in one direction effortlessly.

Also, why shouldn't we have a right to vote on things like Proposition 8? From what I understand, it is not mentioned in the Constitution. And if it is to be added to any law or constitution, then it should be voted on. Right?

Actually, it is in the constitution. "All men are created equal." This applies to giving one group of people rights that other groups of people don't have. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the people shouldn't have the right to vote on other peoples' rights.

It obviously does matter, else people from both sides of the spectrum wouldn't make a big deal about it.

I disagree, gov't control is not better than no company. That's what bakruptcy is for. If the company can't hack it themselves, let them fail. Another one will come up in it's place. The demand for whatever that company offered is still there, the consumers will find another company. Maybe that company will do better.

Yes, all men are created equal. And homosexuals are equal. They have the same right not to marry a man as a heterosexual has. I am heterosexual and cannot marry a man, either. So how is a homosexual any different from me?

Yes, all men are created equal. And homosexuals are equal. They have the same right not to marry a man as a heterosexual has. I am heterosexual and cannot marry a man, either. So how is a homosexual any different from me?

Do you even know what a "right" is? Are you seriously this stupid? Like, I've run into some dim people over the years here on Bloop, but goddamn. That's got to be the stupidest thing I've seriously ever heard on Bloop.

I disagree, gov't control is not better than no company. That's what bakruptcy is for. If the company can't hack it themselves, let them fail. Another one will come up in it's place. The demand for whatever that company offered is still there, the consumers will find another company. Maybe that company will do better.

Except when a major company fails, it's not just the company that gets the shit end of a stick. It's the customers, the stock holders, and the economy in general. Say GM goes out of business. How many millions upon billions of dollars do you think gets sucked out of an already-weakened economy?

You say it is stupid, yet you offer no rebuttal. I have the same right as he does. I can marry a woman just as he can. And I am not allowed to marry a man, jut as he is not. How are we unequal?

I do not know how much money that would be because I am no expert in that. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Show me some numbers.

You say it is stupid, yet you offer no rebuttal. I have the same right as he does. I can marry a woman just as he can. And I am not allowed to marry a man, jut as he is not. How are we unequal?

That's a pretty narrow-minded, and quite frankly sexist point of view. You are sitting there with your fingers in your ear pretending homosexuals don't exist as a group of people. Allow me to break it down for you.

Group A consists of people who are allowed to get married.
Group B consists of people who are not allowed to get married.

No matter how you twist it, this is not equal.

I am sexist in no way. Explain to me how that is sexist? the only gender I mention is male, merely because I can somewhat associate with a male homosexual. I am well aware that female homosexuals are not allowed to marry each other, either, just as well as female heterosexuals are not.

Group B can get married like those in Group A, but they choose not to.
Group A cannot get married like those in Group B because they can't either.

You want me to see them as equals, yet to segregate them into two groups of people of different sexual orientation? How is that equal?

The dichotomy you've created between argumentative segregation and equality is false. I'm not making them use separate fucking bathrooms. Using weasel words like "segregation" isn't supporting your point nor is it making my point any less valid. The fact is that there are two groups on opposite sides of an argument here. Homosexuals and heterosexuals.

As far as choice, I'm not going to sit here and explain to you about the relationship between choice and homosexuality. I could get carias or T.A.I. in here to do that for me, because I wouldn't be able to explain that to you properly - I am not a homosexual. However, you have no right to tell someone that they made a life "choice" when they're telling you it's not a choice they made. They're not lying to you for shits and giggles, or bragging rights.

Er, that's not to say that a few companies never went out of business anyway. They were failing, shit sucks, but hey. Shit happens and people make mistakes.

The Congress approved this bailout, which, by your logic, the people did by proxy.

Hence why I approve of voting them out, yes? :)

Anonymous Source has said exactly what I wanted to say about the debt issue, but said it much better than I could have.

And to my mind it IS a problem for a country if people are unnecessarily going without healthcare... if people (including children) are unneccessarily dying. How can that NOT be a problem?

And as someone who has their healthcare provided by a 'single-payer' system (the inverted commas are because it's not really that simple) AND works within that healthcare system, I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing about it which is disgusting or stupid. I can see whatever doctor I want the next day, I get (and provide) very good healthcare and I pay for it through my taxes. I get the healthcare I NEED, not the healthcare I can afford or which an insurance company deems necessary.

What IS disgusting is people who NEED healthcare not getting it because either they can't afford it or because their greedy rich insurance company has found some way of wriggling out of paying for it.

The ONLY reason people are against this issue is because their favorite news stations make up false reasons for being against it. There is literally not one other single reason. They think of death panels, raised taxes, and socialism, three made-up things the right-media has spewed out over the past 10 months in order to rally support AGAINST the issue.

They have no fucking subtlety or shame, and that's why I hate this country.

Everything that made this country great went out the window by the time the Republicans were landing their final blow in '07, and the Democrats have absolutely no intention of telling them to fuck right off and passing the bill with the SUPER-FUCKING-MAJORITY they had in Congress, but they wanted "bi-partisan support."

They should have stopped caring about the Republicans when they started using disgusting, filthy, smear-campaign, LYING bullshit in order to weaken Democratic support. The democrats were IN POWER and could have passed the bill and shown everyone that this would have been a great bill instead of attempting to suck Republican dick under the guise of being "fair."

And, as I said: there are things wrong with the insurance companies and the system we have in place. Those can be changed, provided that we start thinking of a solution to that, not an alternative.

I am against gov't health care because it takes from the ones who are paying taxes for it and gives it to those who don't give a flying fart about anybody but themselves, who don't pay taxes, who don't do anything for the community. It takes from those who do have money (any amount) and pay their taxes and redistributes it into a system that allows anyone to use it, even if they aren't helping pay for it.

Also, to tax the wealthy even more to help pay for it? Since when is that equality? Since when did it become the obligation of the few to pay for the rest? That is wrong.

And they are not going unnecessarily without health care. They don't have it because they choose not to. We have a welfare healthcare system in place already. And, just to add: I know more people that abuse that system than who don't. It would be much worse to make it okay for people to do that by passing healthcare, in my opinion.

It takes from those who do have money (any amount) and pay their taxes and redistributes it into a system that allows anyone to use it, even if they aren't helping pay for it.

Which is part of redistribution of wealth..which is an idea of socialism. So it may not be socialism in and of itself, but it definitely leans that direction. And that is what I don't like.

So? Why does socialism automatically equate to EVILCOMMUNISTRUSSIATERRORIST?

Because, according to Karl Marx, socialism leads to communism.

Do you even have an example of a country that practices Communism? Because it surely wasn't Russia...

Currently? yes, here's a list: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. (source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933874.html)

Previously? Yes.

Formerly Communist countries (by current name):

•Formerly part of the Soviet Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
•Other Asian countries: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen.
•Soviet-controlled Eastern bloc countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany (East), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia.
•The Balkans: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.
•Africa: Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Mozambique.

(same source)

And I do know that I do not agree with communism. The opinion (which I have heard nothing to say this opinion is wrong) that socialism leads to communism leads me to disagree with any form of socialism. Is this thinking wrong?

China, Cuba, NK are all Authoritative Oligarchies which only lead to a diluted form of communism not explained by Karl Marx, ruled by an elite group of people, designed to make these people richer by force. I don't know too much about Laos and Vietnam.

The only problem with the USSR is that we were in an arms race against them. They weren't inherently evil because of communism.

I don't think you know anything about communism or socialism. Proper comm/soc. anyway.

Then enlighten me. Communism is a society in which all things (everything) is controlled by one political party (probably some form of totalitarianism or dictatorship is happening in place of 'political party'). It is then given, or distributed, among the people how that party sees fit. In a perfect world, communism is the best gov't. but in a world of greedy people, it is the worst.

Socialism is just a watered-down version of communism. Where all things are said to be owned by everybody, or something like that, but a government gets to decide, or govern, what to do with it.

And even though I was tempted to go to dictionary.com, that was right off the top of my head. Tell me how I did? As well as to what was wrong, and tell me how and why and then please tell me what the real answer would be.