• 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!

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

Every single one of those countries has been able to defend itself except for Japan. In Japan's case, they aren't legally allowed to have a real army, so not really unreasonable. In case you haven't noticed, Canada has no nearby enemies and Britain has a powerful military and nuclear weapons.



LMAO. The Chinese are going to attack Europe? The Soviets had to intention of attacking Europe, and even if they did our nuclear program was the only thing that mattered to them.

Before you laugh your ass off too much, click this link then come back and we can talk about the US subsidizing other countries defense/health care.

Link: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures]List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Before you laugh your ass off too much, click this link then come back and we can talk about the US subsidizing other countries defense/health care.

So what? Canada doesn't have any enemies. They could have no army at all at it wouldn't matter. You can't invade Britain because they have nukes and a navy. The U.S. military is expensive because we deploy it all over the world in offensive actions. Just defending a small countries borders doesn't cost much at all.
 
You can't invade Britain because they have nukes and a navy.

Sorry,but both are so small that they would'nt matter.

The U.S. military is expensive because we deploy it all over the world in offensive actions. Just defending a small countries borders doesn't cost much at all.

Not only for Offensive actions,but also defensive positions in areas that no longer need our defence.
 
Sorry,but both are so small that they would'nt matter.

The only country with a blue water navy stronger than Britain is the U.S. And if you think 201 nuclear weapons wouldn't matter, you really have a lot to learn in this world.
 
The only country with a blue water navy stronger than Britain is the U.S.

The Royal Navy isnt large enough to last more than 5 minutes against the US Navy


And if you think 201 nuclear weapons wouldn't matter, you really have a lot to learn in this world.

201 warheads and at least half of them could be shot down.The prospect of any of them being used is extremely small.
 
So, you believe the 'safety nets' we have in this country for families with low incomes and the indigent population should be done away with?
Should people be forced to provide goods/services for free? No.
Should people be forced to pay for goods/services they did not receive? No.
Based on that, the answer to your question is yes.

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.
It should be pretty clear.
 
Ooooh, some lefties don't like this, not one bit at all.

Michael Brenner: The Health Care Reform Debacle: Obama's Coming-Out

Particularly apt:

It is Barack Obama who is to blame for this. For months, he stayed aloof from the out-of-control Congressional maneuvering based on a strange belief in some kind of bipartisan collective will emerging by osmosis. He never leaned the weight of his person and his office to elements of reform that has been touting as candidate and then President. He deceived the country by pursuing secret talks with the very lobbies who are the heart of disgraceful national health care situation. He entered into deals that were weighted heavily in their selfish interest rather than the national interest. In short, we have gotten from him the antithesis of what we were promised and expected -- in the substance and process of policy both. We have instead a conventionally minded politician overly respectful of the status quo and deferential to those who control and profit from it, A man with no apparent fixed convictions.

Ya think?
 
Ooooh, some lefties don't like this, not one bit at all.

Particularly apt:

Ya think?
This, friends, is the "change" you voted for.
Hope you enjoyed the kool-aid.
 
President Obama is a pragmatist. The public option was always just that.

I'd like to see the public option at least be preventive services in public health--restored to say--how it was in the late seventies.

If we had prevention services, it would help. How about tax incentives or educational benefits for weight loss, quitting smoking, overcoming an addiction?
 
If we had prevention services, it would help. How about tax incentives or educational benefits for weight loss, quitting smoking, overcoming an addiction?

So if you're already a fit, non-smoking, drug-free citizen, you get nothing?

Man, I wish I was a fat crack addict. I could buy me a new car with that tax savings!!

No, how about government stay as far away from the healthcare industry as possible. They can't even reimburse auto dealers for the cash for clunkers debacle, and now they want to take on the moster that is healthcare?
 
Back
Top Bottom