Republicans planning false flag terrorist attack!?!

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
put on your tin hats fellas, maybe Kathaksung is on to something:


US pollsters today put John McCain's chances of overtaking Barack Obama in the final weeks to win the White House as extremely remote given the leads he has built up, the most recent putting him a staggering 14% ahead. ..

"You are more likely to be killed by a meteor dropping on your head than McCain becoming president," said Professor Michael McDonald, who specialises in polls and election number-crunching at Virginia's George Mason University.

Polling experts expect the gap between the two to narrow as election day, November 4, draws closer, and some caution against a landslide win for Obama. But they regard the contest as effectively over barring some dramatic national security crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/15/uselections2008-barackobama2

so what do you think it'll be? airplanes are sooo 2001, perhaps attack from dirigible? co-ordinated unicycle attacks at strategic military bases throughout the US? trained monkeys on handgliders throwing anthrax laden squirrels at hapless americans? we hav'nt had a good ole manure laden mini van explosion in quite some time but they're pretty shitty at causing mass chaos, no what they need is something big, something big enough to put the fear of terrorist jesus into the hearts and minds of god fearing gun toting americans
 
Why would they need to have a terrorist attack? Ohio and other battleground states are voting on electronic machines with no paper trails. Much cleaner to steal it that way, as we found out in 04.
 
ya but a terrorist attack is like the gift that keeps on giving ..iran tommorrow, syria the next, france and canada soon after ..all terrorist supporting tyrannies just waiting to be liberated by uncle sam (he's like the uncle that butt raped you when you were a kid)
 
Well if it means we get to invade Canada I'm all for it. We can steal your universal healthcare, hopefully it will be a lot easier than stealing Iraq's oil.
 
hahahahahah we fooled you! we mixed all of our oil with sand making it tar, have fun separating that!!! ...oh wait, that's not much of a consolation
 
no he hopes republican piloted airplanes dont smash into the sides of buildings silly
 
I don't care about your oil, as I said, I want your healthcare. Kind of sucks being in your 20s and not being able to see a doctor. Instead you have to come to hl2.net's lounge and ask about that thing that just popped up on your balls after a crazy night. I can't live like this, you non-americans simply can not understand our struggles.
 
I have a hangnail ..time to see the surgeon general and demand expensive pharmaceuticals to combat the pain/sell on the street
 
What? I'm sure he just means he'll become an astronaut.
 
I don't care about your oil, as I said, I want your healthcare. Kind of sucks being in your 20s and not being able to see a doctor. Instead you have to come to hl2.net's lounge and ask about that thing that just popped up on your balls after a crazy night. I can't live like this, you non-americans simply can not understand our struggles.

I find it amusing in a sad depressing way that Americans will go apeshit if you try and take their guns but they don't want universal healthcare for all?????...

I cant figure that one out TBH.


Oh, and boo Republicans. :)
 
I find it amusing you don't know both sides to the story of socialized healthcare.
 
That's a very deep question concerning ideologies about capitalism, free market, and the benefits of private health care. It says a lot about nurizeko to suggest that we ought not to be concerned about giving away our rights declared so by the Constitution, but that Americans should let Congress control healthcare (and banning or otherwise discouraging private hospitals and health care, which have the benefits of being independent facilities that succeed based on competitive strength). Congress already has too many responsibilities as it is, which is why lately they've been portioning more control to the states over many social services like prisons, welfare, and education.

You think of universal healthcare like the government can actually afford and control it effectively. If you can argue NATIONAL benefits (I'm not looking for anecdotes, people) and average prosperity of that country's citizens, then I'm all ears.
 
care to enlighten us?

Here, I'll take a crack at it for him. The talking point goes something like this. You have absolutely no right to lower the quality of healthcare for rich people even if it means everyone can be insured. It's much better to leave 47 million people (such as myself) uninsured so those rich people can get luxury healthcare.
 
Ah, the popular argument used to rile the uneducated masses. You wouldn't happen to be biased, would you, No Limit?

Socialized health care is a noble goal and all, but it, like many other social ideologies, have huge inherent flaws because they don't take in human nature as a factor.

Quality of healthcare will ultimately deteriorate because incentives to improve hospital conditions are minimized. Doctors will flock to privatized countries to pursue more lucrative corporate health facilities. Research is no longer driven by investors, but by government grants (ultimately being subject to the whim of politicians and their constituents). In the end, the citizen pays for universal health care through taxes.

Like all markets, there are higher and lower ends of service quality, No Limit. It is the patient's fault for not finding ways to pay for medical insurance. You can't **** up and then ask private companies to pick up your apathy.
 
Right, because the rest of the world is doing such a piss poor job with their health care. :rolleyes:

What I said above is your argument, right? Under no circumstances should the quality of our care go down, even if it means leaving 47 million uninsured?
 
Also - a nationalised health care system doesn't preclude the existence of private health care.

The NHS in Britain is great. The government's underfunding of certain hospitals in poorer areas is criminal, but the principle and general implementation is sound.

The fact that our government burns money that it should be using to maintain standards on bureaucrats and waste-of-space consultants does not even come close to being an argument for the abolition of the NHS entirely. As far as I can see there are two main reasons why the US hasn't got a healthcare system along those lines. One is the attitude that No Limit mentioned, which is a corruption of the libertarian ethic that an individual should have the freedom to determine their own fortune in every area - and tends to be espoused only by those individuals who have the cash to afford to. Another is this wrongheaded conception that is prevalent in the States, that any kind of state intervention in an issue is tantamount to communism.

Of course that same Republican ethos doesn't at all stop the state interfering in issues of morality, privacy, civil liberty, or indeed from buying billions' worth of stakes in private banks when their useless laissez faire pretensions cause the market to assplode.
 
There are huge problems with current US health care programs (mostly due to government interventions and stupid regulations).

If there are 47 million uninsured citizens in the US of A (a number which has drastically risen over the course of a few years, stemming from both population growth and economic recessions), that means that 75% of the US population has medical insurance of some type. Now, last time I checked, all 75% of this nation's population isn't the "elite rich". You're a smart guy, No Limit, I'm sure you can find a job that pays well enough to afford insurance.

If healthcare was completely privatized (which has a lot of inherent problems, also) there would be very few people that couldn't afford basic health insurance because, like other product and service companies, the whole thing would be driven by competition. I'm not suggesting a totally private program, as there needs to be smart regulations which prevent monopolizing the industry (as well as price gouging the already sick).

In any case, there are a lot of problems with whatever direction you go, and I definitely don't have a strong specific solution. But for christ sake, look at the UK's healthcare. Patients receiving terrible care because of poorly paid staff, doctor shortages, and policy driven research and development. Only recently has privatized health care been introduced into the country, but I fail to see the incentives for citizens to pay money dollars along with existing taxes for insurance.
 
But for christ sake, look at the UK's healthcare. Patients receiving terrible care because of poorly paid staff, doctor shortages, and policy driven research and development.
I'd take certainty of access to healthcare mixed in with low risk of poor treatment, over uncertainty, expense and... more or less the same risk of poor treatment, any day. My girlfriend over there has paid out the arse for treatment towards potential melanomas, and the process has been plagued by ****-ups and screwovers all the way, including repeated use of materials she's allergic to. In fact at one point when she asked whether her next excision would suppurate and cause a big scar like the previous one, she was told she'd need a plastic surgeon (which her insurance didn't even come close to covering) to do it. That's an example of how tiered quality of treatment exists regardless of whether you have a nationalised system or not.

The NHS is underfunded. However, it's not just that it's underfunded, but that the money gets swallowed up by countless layers of unnecessary management before it reaches the front line. Yes there could be improvements - my dad was recipient of particularly shitty care which almost killed him. However that was caused by negligence, the eradication of which isn't as simple as a percentage wage increase. The flaws in our system are fixable ones, and are neither exclusively inherent to, nor an argument for the abolition of a nationalised health service.
Only recently has privatized health care been introduced into the country, but I fail to see the incentives for citizens to pay money dollars along with existing taxes for insurance.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about. The option to go private has been there since at least the 50's with BUPA, probably longer. Unless you're talking about America, which would still be confusing.

Edit: fskn typos out the proverbial.
 
I have actually been wondering to myself if there will be some sort of "coincidental" terrorist attack that happens shortly before the election that suddenly gives McCain the "bump" he needs.

It would be so incredibly fishy to me, I would be highly suspicious of domestic evil intent.
 
I dont have anything real do add, but I noticed Pesh said money dollars again.


I like that phrase. I'm gonna steal it. More money dollars for me!
 
I have actually been wondering to myself if there will be some sort of "coincidental" terrorist attack that happens shortly before the election that suddenly gives McCain the "bump" he needs.

It would be so incredibly fishy to me, I would be highly suspicious of domestic evil intent.

I swear there was a Daily Show episode where an McCain Aide unwittingly said that a Terrorist Attack would be very good for John McCain's presidential ambitions.
 
John McCain also unwittingly called Americans "fellow prisoners" in a recent speech.

Coincidence?
 
Laivasse said it way better than I ever could.

If there are 47 million uninsured citizens in the US of A (a number which has drastically risen over the course of a few years, stemming from both population growth and economic recessions), that means that 75% of the US population has medical insurance of some type. Now, last time I checked, all 75% of this nation's population isn't the "elite rich". You're a smart guy, No Limit, I'm sure you can find a job that pays well enough to afford insurance.
Right, they have "medical insurance of some type". A lot of it isn't very good. Even with health insurance most people would not be able to afford a medical emergency as they would have insane copays. I know you probably don't like Michael Moore, but have you seen sicko? The shit in that movie happens all the time where the insurance company refuses to pay for life saving treatment for some bullshit reason.

In addition, my sister's fiance had some health problems as a child (dont recall specific name) which our system calls "preexisting conditions". He can't get health insurance, period. So under our system he's shit out of luck.

I have a very well paying job for my age, unfortunately it doesn't provide health insurance, they simply can not afford it. For me to buy insurance privatetly it will be around $100 a month, for a single guy in an apartment I don't have $100 to spare, so I'll just have to hope for the best. But as a kid I remember having my mom's insurance from the company she worked for. All the things I mentioned above still applied. If I ended up in the hospital even with health insurance it probably would have bankrupted my family at the time because of the high copays. And from what I recall she was paying around $300 for this plan to cover 2 adults and 3 children.

How much do you have to pay under your healthplan if you end up in the hospital because of an emergency?
 
Health care in Canada is gay. Every single doctor I go to prescribes me something different for this skin problem I have, which I have to tell them about even though it's on my god damn chest, but the ****ers won't actually give me a look-over unless I tell them specifically where to look, god forbid they waste people's tax dollars on unnecessary and trivial things like a proper checkup. They're supposed to assume you don't know what the hell is wrong with you, aren't they? Also, my brother's friend accidentally got shot straight through his femur by a nail-gun and the amazing universal health care doctors kindly obliged to look at him after he waited a mere 9 hours in the emergency room, over night. I could go on and on about my dad's kidney stone tortures, my friend's dad's heart problem that almost ended in tragedy (thank god his new American employer offered to pay for his treatment in an American hospital before it was too late), etc etc.

Oh yeah, and free my ass - you still have to pay for health insurance. In Poland I went to a doctor, paid $15 and got a full - PROPER - checkup within an hour.

IMO there should be BOTH private health care AND universal health care, that way you could choose between spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a heart transplant and waiting 3 years for it. Although I'm not sure either of those options would be there anymore since having both systems would create competition and private health care would have to be made cheaper while public health care would have to be made quicker.
 
Research is no longer driven by investors, but by government grants (ultimately being subject to the whim of politicians and their constituents).

At least governments don't have a vested interest in producing treatments rather than cures...
 
Health care in Canada is gay. Every single doctor I go to prescribes me something different for this skin problem I have, which I have to tell them about even though it's on my god damn chest, but the ****ers won't actually give me a look-over unless I tell them specifically where to look, god forbid they waste people's tax dollars on unnecessary and trivial things like a proper checkup. They're supposed to assume you don't know what the hell is wrong with you, aren't they? Also, my brother's friend accidentally got shot straight through his femur by a nail-gun and the amazing universal health care doctors kindly obliged to look at him after he waited a mere 9 hours in the emergency room, over night. I could go on and on about my dad's kidney stone tortures, my friend's dad's heart problem that almost ended in tragedy (thank god his new American employer offered to pay for his treatment in an American hospital before it was too late), etc etc.

this is the exact opposite of my experience with canadian healthcare ..where do you live? ice station zebra? sure there are waiting periods at ER but that's no different than any other country in the world ..it works on a triage system where wait times are dependent on your severity. Obviously your friend hand a hangnail because waiting 9 hours for a nail through a bone is completely unrealistic again in my experience ..and this comes from having elderly parents, in laws, children of my own with frequent hospital care needs including several near death experiences requiring several months stay and I can honestly say that while it needs improvements here and there it is by no means what you describe

Oh yeah, and free my ass - you still have to pay for health insurance. In Poland I went to a doctor, paid $15 and got a full - PROPER - checkup within an hour.

obviously you have no idea what you're talking about because you dont pay a cent for a check up in canada ..the health "insurnce" you say you pay for (more accurately your parents pay for) is for specific things not covered by healthcare: dental, glasses (eye checkups yes, pay for glasses no) and pharmaceuticals (I think certain ones are exempt, not positive)

IMO there should be BOTH private health care AND universal health care, that way you could choose between spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a heart transplant and waiting 3 years for it.

try millions, my son's 2 1/2 month stay at the nicu would have cost an uninsured american over $300,000. ..that would have pretty much ruined any chances of getting a mortgage, getting a loan, purchasing a car etc. Privatizing healthcare puts that sort of pressure on families at their worst time of need because it's basically a two tier healthcare systemwhere the people with money have an advantage over those without completely contrary to why universal healthcare was institued in the first place.

Although I'm not sure either of those options would be there anymore since having both systems would create competition

yes and what happens when companies have to compete? they cut costs in order to compete and lower prices meaning something has to go by the wayside; quality of care. All of the sudden insurance companies are picking which proedures they'll cover, which doctors will perform it and at what hospital/clinic... they'll jack up premiums whenever the hell they please while cutting the services they cover because that's what insurance companies do: stick it to the insurer


and private health care would have to be made cheaper while public health care would have to be made quicker.

the only way it can be cheaper is by undermining the entire healthcare industry. I work for a medical supply company, we supply instruments and equipement to hospitals around canada ..would you rather we sold the hospitals precision instruments handmade in germany or generic instruments made in shady companies with lower quality standards in india, or pakistan or taiwan etc ..remember all those people who were tested for HIV and hepititus because they had been in contact with improperly cleaned instruments?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070320/alta_superbug_070321?s_name=&no_ads=

it took the government to ensure proper procdure was followed ..how likely would that have happened had the hospital been privately owned? would we even have known about it? doubtful; they have their stock holders and business interests to protect

what about things like neo-natal respirators, electrocardiogram machines, kidney dialysis machines etc? these are precision equipment that costs 10s of thousands of dollars, would you rather they came from somewhere where manufacturing standards arent up to canadian standards? The UK sells an examination table that is second to none in quality even for their economy model ..it's more expensive than ones made in pakistan however lasts far longer ..we cant give the pakistani ones away as they kept coming back for repair

the government isnt in the business to make money, it's in the business to provide healthcare, period. To turn a profit you need to trim costs, trimming costs means trimming workstaff, trimming quality of care, trimming high standards over cost effective ones ..is this what we want? our health turned over to people who's ONLY concern is to turn a profit? really?




how did this thread turn into a debate about healthcare anyways?
 
For however many health care horror stories there are in Canada I will bet you money you will find just as many of those stories here. Here is the most recent one that comes to mind which got national attention:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/hospital.death.ap/index.html

Esmin Green, 49, had been waiting in the emergency room for nearly 24 hours when she toppled from her seat at 5:32 a.m. June 19, falling face-down on the floor.

She was dead by 6:35, when someone on the medical staff, flagged down by a person in the waiting room, finally approached, nudged Green with her foot and gently prodded her shoulder, as if to wake her.

The staffer left and returned with someone wearing a white lab coat who examined her and summoned help.

Until the staffer's appearance, Green's collapse barely caused a ripple. Other patients waiting a few feet away didn't react. Security guards and a member of the hospital's staff appeared to notice her prone body at least three times but made no visible attempt to see whether she needed help.
 
I dont have anything real do add, but I noticed Pesh said money dollars again.


I like that phrase. I'm gonna steal it. More money dollars for me!


It works really great with a song called "Workin' for the Yankee Dolla".


Say it.

Workin' for the Money Dolla.
 
Back
Top