ariscus99

They were philibuster proof what about it was amazing?

I agree with much of what you said, especially about us being greedy and dishonest, and it definitely goes for both sides of the aisle. Something needs to change, and it may already be too late. What I don't agree with is the China statement. While China is emerging as a super power I don't think they will take over as "the" super power that we once were, the Roman's were that the British empire was for a long time. China is a very strange country in that while many people live well in that country and much of it is very nice comparing to the US in many ways, there are still over 100 million people living in poverty in the country. Loose statistics show about 10% living in poverty and with a population of over 1.5 billion, you do the math, thats a lot of people. Many are put in labor camps similar to what the nazi's did. However thats not to say that there isn't great things happening in that country and they are on the upswing, only 5 or 6 years ago that number was over 500 million. They remind me of the US about 250 years ago. I think we will go along time without a defined super power, we have many nations that are emerging as great, China, India, Israel, etc. and we aren't completely out of it yet.

It seems unless your muslim and trying to prove a point. Trump offered 25% more then they paid for the building and they said no.

I very clearly stated numerous times that the government has no business deciding this, what I meant was that our pathetic government is pushover in general, we have a president going around apologizing for no reason at all like the world is a damn high school popularity contest that he has to win. We have some of the most inept people in history at the helm in this country on both sides of the aisle and it makes me sick to stomach all the time to think about. And yes obviously someone is selling the land to the muslims in Holland, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the Dutch people agree with or are happy with it. The muslims are taking over all over Europe not just Holland, I've vacationed there a few times and disheartening to see area's that were so rich with Judeo-Christian history at one time being completely taken over by the muslims and these people act as tho the law does not apply to them. It's sad. And it'll be happening here soon enough.

They can put whatever they want in the thing, it wont matter, people don't like it, it doesn't sit well with millions and millions of American's. If they want to show what a tolerant religion islam is they would build somewhere else. There are hundreds of things that can be put in that building other then another mosque. It's a slap in the face to many people, and it's what the muslim people are doing worldwide. Some people like cm don't see it that way, but many more do. I know you want to make it all about fox news and whatever other BS your spewing, to many many American's they could care less what any news organization has to say because it's something they live with everyday, they do not want this hear. Many NY'ers are still suffering from PTSD from 9/11, and seeing something like this will do nothing but hinder them. I know that it is not sitting directly at ground zero, but it's close enough to make millions feel uncomfortable. Why have we become a nation that sees something like this where millions and millions of people are uncomfortable but still push on for the benefit of only a small few? Especially when the benefit can be gained in the exact same way by moving this thing a couple miles or even a few more blocks. Where is their tolerance? Why should only the majority be tolerant? The city that I'm a firefighter in has a sister city in Holland, that we do a firefighter exchange with several times a year, last shift and threw the 9/11 weekend we have 5 Dutch firemen working with us, while talking to one of them who was riding out at my station we got on the subject of the ground zero mosque as 9/11 is fast approaching and it's a probably quite a bit bigger of a deal to us as firefighters than it is to many others, and he couldn't understand why we would let them build the mosque there. I explained that it's not a matter of letting, because they are doing nothing illegal and the last thing most of us want is government interference in a private matter, it took him a minute to wrap his mind around that, but once he did he started talking about the muslim take over of of Holland and much of Europe and how the Dutch are just about sick of it, and while they also practice freedom of religion there is quite a movement stirring in Holland to stop allowing the building of any more mosque's. It was quite interesting to get the input of someone not from this country and who is dealing with muslims on a grander scale then we have to, with a government that is even a bigger push over then ours.

From Gallup. GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

What if your a really short man?

Your avoidance makes it pretty clear that you would not want the American way it's all it's wonder in charge of the fate of these people, because there is a chance they could just walk free. So I'll take it that your answer to my question you refuse to answer is that if something like that were to happen we'd do something unconstitutional to ensure they don't go free, because the "American way" can't always be trusted for the outcome we want. So was it the best course of action? Of course not, now your talking military strategy, and we had the same problem with the war in Iraq as we did with the "conflict" in Vietnam, we tried to nickel and dime our way to victory and it didn't work. It couldn't work. What we should have done in Iraq is what we should have done back then; a very large insertion is what was needed. For example if we had calculated that to win this war we needed 100,000 troops we should have immediately sent 200,000 and we would have been in good standing for the take over. One of the other major problems in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the overly tightened rules of engagement that were enforced on us. Ask your nephews about it, I have several friends in the fire service who spent time over there and that was one of their biggest complaints. In some instances for example, they were not even allowed to return fire without the okay of a commander that was not with them. So imagine your in a foreign country where everyone hates you already, and now people start firing on you, with machine guns, sniper fire, mortars, and all you can do is sit in your humvee and radio for permission to return fire. That is, once again as we say in the fire service, junk. Had these two issues been dealt with from the very beginning we would have had a much different outcome, and a much different timeline as well.

You are offering quite the what if scenario, so that is all I'm offering back to you. It happens quite often, and had we done this, these guys would have had a slew of ACLU attorneys turning every stone. While it is a remote possibility it is one. And I'll ask again, had all this happened and there was some technicality and they were to be let off, would you be okay with it? Your statement is you wanted them captured and brought to trial, because that's the American way. Well technicalities where killer's and rapist's walk free is also unfortunately part of that same American way.

So what would have happened had we done what is bolded and underlined there, and lets say, something happened paper work wise, as is so common in our legal system, and these people were to be found not guilty by some technicality. What then? Would you be okay with them walking free and going about their lives, as that is the way it works here?

If you cut out the unnecessary fox bashing(which is the most watched news station on tv today, so they must be doing something right), this post was mostly spot on. The tea garden at Pearl Harbor I'm gonna say there are still probably enough people who fought in WWII around who would think that is a terrible idea. It was actually a comparison made by my neighbor when we were talking about this(he was B-17 pilot in WWII) and he's still quite uncomfortable with anything Japanese being placed around Pearl Harbor. But that is just the opinion of one old man.

Are you serious? Thats almost un-American. Our 26th president of these United States Theodore Roosevelt. The quote is actually; "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

So we should do nothing unless we are attacked on our soil? That is your stance? You realize that here in 2010 and into the future war will not be fought like it was 20-30-40 years ago, with people on the ground. When we are attacked (and without any preemptive move on Iran and possible N. Korea it is when not if) it will be a nuclear attack, it won’t be a little ICBM or an F-15 dropping some free fall bombs. It will be a nuke, and IT WILL KILL MILLIONS. So after this, is when we start to fight is what you’re saying? Sacrifice millions of American lives for some "dream" of world peace. World peace is a beautiful thought, but has never and will never happen. You cannot look back through history and find one single point since the existence of humans where there has been peace on earth. Healthcare won’t mean much after a nuclear attack on US soil. The healthcare system will be so overwhelmed if you aren’t there for some sort of problem related to the bombing you won’t receive much care, and that will probably go on for some time. So all this work done by obama and the dems will be for not. Again, I challenge you to find one point in history since the time of man, that there has been peace on earth. It’s not human nature, unfortunately.

I don't know what state you’re in, but I've been in emergency medicine for about 8 years in CA and have been called to testify 7 times in 8 years. Never about service's I've rendered one time was a comment that was made in very poor taste by a paramedic from a different agency that I happened to be working alongside. Another was about a doctor who tried to take control of an emergency scene on a traffic collision and refused to release care of the patient and it slowed the patients arrival to the hospital, the other 5 were complete and utter BS, brought by scourge of the earth type people who I'd ran on literally hundreds of times and they were trying to get rich. That’s in 8 short years. Why should we limit them? Well let’s say the doctor does something atrocious. Let’s say you go in for appendicitis and you leave without your foot. Now you sue. And you get an extremely liberal jury who decides that your pain and suffering is worth 250 million dollars. Would you have ever made anywhere near that amount of money in your life? No. Is your pain worth a lot? Absolutely, but 250 mil? Now most likely a judge would throw that out and make his own ruling and assign a more reasonable number. But that is the sort of thing that can and does happen. One of the trials I testified in the person was asking 50 million dollars from the ambulance company because the medic never started an IV or hooked up a heart monitor. Now in this persons past trips they had almost always been hooked up to a heart monitor and had an IV started. They asked the medic why he didn't do it, he told them that the vitals were stable and it wasn't needed. The patient demanded he do what he was told by the patient, and the medic refused. And was being sued for 50 million dollars. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Another was a person who wanted to be seen in the ER they "the fastest" way in was by ambulance complaining of chest pain. However they didn't know that we had a no nonsense medic working with us and a equally no nonsense triage nurse and PA waiting at the ED. So in route the patient was attached to a 12 lead that showed nothing, BP was normal, skin's normal, resp rate normal, the only thing abnormal was the patients pain scale which when we asked they very calmly said it was at least a 10 out of 10. I've never experienced what I would call a 10 out of 10 pain wise but I have been in so much pain I was on the ground in tears, I'd call that about a 9. To have someone look me square in the face and say 10 usually to be honest makes laugh a little inside. So needless to say we arrive at the ED we've already made base contact informed them we would be bringing the patient in threw triage as they were not critical and didn't need a bed right away. The patient felt otherwise and sued the ambulance company, my fire department, the hospital and the doctors group that the PA worked for as well as the triage nurse. And he only wanted a cool 25 million for his "pain and suffering". If we stop these we stop a lot of wasted money. Two examples of my short 8 years in the medical service. There are probably thousands and thousands more.

A.K.A muslim extremists. The imam is the guy who, 15 days after the attack said we brought it on ourselves and deserved it. I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist of what he said. IMO that = an extremist.

If reasonable amounts of money are placed on individual malpractice suits it will make them not as afraid of their patients, first of all, not as many people will be hopping on the lawsuit bandwagon hoping to be the next millionaire the "American way"(having someone give you the money). Thats not to say that if you go in for a knee replacement and come out with an amputated arm you shouldn't get a healthy amount of money to compensate you. But, frivolous lawsuits are what is doing all this to the healthcare industry. Will a doctor not order a CT scan to look for cancer if he's not as scared? No. Doctors in general love what they do, love their patients and love to beat the illness. Are there some lazy ones who could care less? Yes thats what lawsuits are for. But if a doctor does due diligence and finds nothing, then six months later cancer is found, nowadays, the patient will find some ambulance chasing lawyer to find some minute obscure outrageously expensive test that "could" have been done, and then will sue for 100 million dollars. So, now the doctor will run that test, and every other unnecessary expensive test, in order to not get sued, and they still might miss the cancer. Medicine is a practice. Mistake's happen. They shouldn't be a way for people to become rich.

Who's asking for the government to step in and shut this down? Most of what I've heard is them wanting the guy who owns the place to reconsider, no one is debating whether or not it's constitutional, it is, what people are saying is it is grossly insensitive and should not be put there. Strippers didn't kill 3000+ American's and 343 of my brothers and sisters on 9/11 radical muslims did.

You don't seem to have a firm grip on all of the repercussions of a lack of tort reform. Doctors don't necessarily charge more per hour or per procedure due to high liability ins cost, but the real cost and waste in money comes from what many have coined as "defensive medicine". Which basically is all the test's that doctors will run that aren't needed just to please a patient who is threatening to sue them. Most estimates have the cost of "defensive medicine" into the hundreds of billion's of dollars a year. Think of the good that could be done with that money. Here's an article that touches on "defensive medicine" and tort reform.

:biggrin: I agree

Yes I'm conservative about many things, spending is a big one. I don't like to think that I work my butt off while others do nothing and get to benefit from me. I donate a pretty substantial amount of money to charities every year, that's the only way I want my money redistributed, by my choice. I'm also pretty liberal about things that would make many "conservatives" cringe; abortion, and gay rights to name a couple. Your statement there is pretty sweeping. Do I want medical care for everyone in America? Of course, but I don't think that I should have to pay for your medical care, nor should you pay for mine or any one else's. If you read the article I posted on the first page you will see a pretty clear example of how I feel about handouts. The article is titled "healthcare is not a right" but talks about many handout programs and is pretty spot on with how I feel. I've been in the medical field for awhile now and am getting deeper in it now, but I have to say in my experience, you are the exception and not the rule in the medical field. The vast majority that I've met(and this only goes for in the state of California because it's the only place I've worked) in hospitals up and down this state are against obamacare and any form of socialized medicine, from nurses to doctors, to admitting staff, to the custodial staff, I try to talk to as many people as possible and like I stated the vast majority do not feel how you feel. You say you work for an HMO? Talk about capitalism at it's "finest". I recently spent two day with my cousin who is an gastroenterologist with kieser, a large HMO, and was shocked and disgusted at what she has to go threw and the hoops they make their customers jump threw. My cousin told me she has never been so miserable but had signed a contract with them in order to pay off much of her student loans and she had to finish the contract, but the day it was up, she'll be leaving and never coming back. If the government wants to run my healthcare anything like an HMO I don't know what I'd do. You say "this is America and we can afford it." Based on what? We're how many trillions of dollars in debt? How big is a our budgetary shortcoming? And I know it's all Bush's fault. But we're here we need to really fix it, not by showing fake numbers of unemployment going down, because we all know very well that the numbers that are reported are only of those claiming benefits and as benefits expire these people fall off of the spectrum and the dems then say they went back to work. I enjoy how it went from "jobs created", to "jobs saved", to what they're calling it now "lives touched". The real unemployment rate in this country is higher then ever, but there's no proof because the government only tracks people who are actively collecting unemployment benefits. The best fix for healthcare, IMO, still would have been insurance reform. Now I know that because cm thinks I'm a conservative that that means I want no government whatsoever and no government regulation whatsoever. For some reason she can't see that there is a happy medium somewhere along the line. Had we made some strict regulations for ins companies, got rid of the pre existing conditions restrictions, and had some MAJOR tort reform, most of this could have been fixed.

Of course we can cut and paste articles, I don't expect people on here to write huge articles for that purpose. The article I posted is just something that was recommended to me by some doctors I've been working with. As far as taking medicare patients? I am most interested in going into emergency medicine(working in an ED) so we must take all patients, most of the doctors I've been shadowing are ED doctors, so they have no say, and by law, do not know what ins. their patients have. But of the other doctors I've worked with(an endocrinologist, a radiologist, a dermatologist, and quite a few internists) would much rather not treat people on medicare because of the pain that it is with everything, from billing to getting procedures approved, to dealing with all the red tape, doctors in general(those who I've been around) despise medicare. And doctors after taxes, and paying insurance premiums for malpractice, since there is no tort reform those ins premiums keep going up and up, the amount that most doctors make is not as much as most people believe. And when you consider most doctors come out of medical school with in excess of 100,000 dollars in student loans it takes awhile before they become "top earners".

The republicans vote no based on what they believe(some of them, some vote no, to obstructionist). Not everyone in this country, believe it or not, thinks that the answer to everything is a handout. To say that because they vote against handouts means they have contempt for the middle class is, once again, naive, none of these people can be who they are without the middle class and believe it or not, most of them know it. I started back to school again this semester working on my second degree this one in science, in hopes to become a physician sometime in the not to distant future. And along with attending classes, I've been shadowing several different physician's in my area, a couple who are friends, a cousin, and some that I don't know, at several different hospitals, and I find it interesting to listen to what these people have to say when it comes to politics, because like with most things they go above and beyond what most people do in their research of topics and the thought process behind their beliefs can typically be more eloquently expressed. And I have found that just about none of them want anything to do with the democratic side of things, they mostly feel that all obamacare is going to do is restrict the medical practice, and I've actually been teased a great deal for trying to go into medicine at this point in time. I've also been given a great deal of literature to read in my off time to try to better see where they're coming from. One such article, tho it's old I have been told to read by about half a dozen doctors is this one from 1993 when the last fight for socialized medicine was going on, it's worth a read cm if for nothing more then to get a better idea as to the mindset of MANY republicans. It's only a 5-10 minute read but gives good insight even if you disagree with the basis.

Ok I'll give you that you didn't say every republican, you did say leaders. But you've failed to prove that, and you've also failed to prove that they said they just don't care if America fails so longs as obama fails. is how you put it. Same thing basically. And you failed to prove this. I don't expect video of everything, I will expect real proof of outlandish statements like the ones you made tho. Just as you would.

You can prove everything in this statement correct? I'm really curious to see the transcripts and or video's of every republican representative saying these things. If you can in fact show proof of this outlandish statement you just made I'll vote for obama in 2012.

Who the hell is talking about foreign policy? This is not a conversation about bush and Cheney. It's about putting a mosque the building that the people who attacked America and killed thousands of YOUR fellow countrymen worship at. And now their going to put up a place of "worship" because some Muslims died there? Give me a break. What is the percentage of Muslims that died in comparison to none Muslims? I will go ahead and say that if it's even close to the same then I'd be okay with them maybe putting a plaque o something there but not a mosque. And they aren't talking about a little remodel and a coat of paint, this is quite the undertaking that is proposed. You talk about how the right blames bo for everything, well you just took a conversation that had little to do with any president and somehow were able to spin some Bush bashing into it. Do you feel better now? Congrats. Now back to tue topic. Why would these Muslims who KNOW how angry this is making many, many people all around "their" nation, want to continue this? It's the disgusting uber liberalism of this country that every little group should get what they want no matter what or who it angers as long as the minority is happy. As we say in the fire service this is JUNK!