Quote from: SarahFaceDoom on April 27, 2010, 03:36:58 AM
Beck is more like a for real version of Stephen Colbert.

---

Post Merge: April 27, 2010, 02:40:05 AM

---

Oh and Obama is nowhere near as liberal as FDR was.  FDR wanted universal single payer healthcare, which Obama has never advocated for

Modified later thusly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE&feature=related#

Note that even in this he says we can't "immediately" or "rapidly" transition...and implies that over time we end up with single payer.

So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

Would you mind addressing the rest of my post?

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 04:02:32 AM
So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

This is one point where I seriously disagree. I think single payer health plan would be the biggest mistake this nation could ever make.

Quote from: LordKAT on April 27, 2010, 06:57:26 AM
This is one point where I seriously disagree. I think single payer health plan would be the biggest mistake this nation could ever make.

...because you don't know the first thing about our country's miserable healthcare system and the 10,000 ways in which it is a) miserably broken and b) jaw-droppingly expensive because it's miserably broken.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
...because you don't know the first thing about our country's miserable healthcare system and the 10,000 ways in which it is a) miserably broken and b) jaw-droppingly expensive because it's miserably broken.

DO NOT EVER presume to know what I do or do not know. I know plenty about how and why it is broken. That doesn't meant that single payer is the correct solution. I understand that you think it is. I do not. Both are opinion, not fact.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 27, 2010, 04:02:32 AM
So he said at some event at some point in the past that he wanted single payer. Yawn.
The fact is that he has not advocated for or achieved really substantial healthcare reform, let alone single-payer.
I hope he's right. I hope we end up with single-payer over time. We probably won't.

Would you mind addressing the rest of my post?

Respectfully, Ireally don't see the point. We see the world in two different ways, and we'd just end up frustrating each other.

I could take an hour and run down your list (like pointing out, for instance, that Gitmo isn't open because Obama WANTS it open but because he's finding out what Bush already knew - there's no other way to do what is being done there. Liberalism very often has the failing of being a nice ideal that actually won't work in real life) but, just as you no doubt categorically disagree with my last sentence, so all that writing would accomplish . . . nothing.

Frankly, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen without animosity or bloodshed, I'd love to see the political map of North America rearranged so that people with your worldview were able to live under the government you approve of and folks with mine were able to do likewise - and I say that admitting I'd probably have to live in your country because of being on the wrong side of LGBT issues.

It troubles me that we spend so much time in this country yelling past each other both sides convinced the other CAN'T be too "stupid" to see what is so obvious to them.

Ovr the years I've learned that sometimes a discussion gets to the point where all you can do is agree to disagree and talk about baseball (or whatever) instead.

Yeah, you're right, of course. I think that Gitmo actually harms our national security interests by providing something terrible that hardcore Islamists can point to and say "Look! The US really IS the Great Satan!" I also think that it is morally inexcusable under any circumstances.
No surprises there.

I often wonder if breaking up the United States wouldn't be such a bad idea myself. The problem is that we'd end up with a sandwich -  the United States of Diversity And Free Hugs on the coasts, and the Loose Confederation of Minimally Governed Freedom-Lovers in the middle.

The San Francisco Bay Area could secede, but how could we go up against the Pentagon? The closest thing we've got to military material are riot-savvy anarchists and the Earth Liberation Front. You can't take down fighter jets with Molotov cocktails and tree spikes. The dip->-bleeped-<-s over in Berkeley would spend all their time being useless and meditating for peace, and Mayor Newsom would spend all his time getting sworn at vehemently by Chris Daly and combing his greasy hair.

...
On the subject of traditional American values, you know what American tradition I value? Damned fine domestic architecture.

The J.P. Donnelly house, Mt. Dora, Florida. Queen Anne style, 1893.


The Heck-Andrews house, Raleigh, North Carolina. Second Empire style, 1870.


The Rotch house, New Bedford, Massachussetts. Gothic Revival style, 1845.



Because drool-inducing bargeboarding and scrollwork is a non-partisan issue.

PanoramaIsland if we were to split up the states it should probably be right down the middle. If the conservatives had control of the middle of the country could you imagine the horror of traveling through their territory. Of course being GLBT would be against the law. There would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

QuoteThere would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

There would be no open game if people respected the culture of the land they are in.

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 28, 2010, 03:12:49 AM
PanoramaIsland if we were to split up the states it should probably be right down the middle. If the conservatives had control of the middle of the country could you imagine the horror of traveling through their territory. Of course being GLBT would be against the law. There would be no civil rights to protect the LGBT community so we would be open game.

Point of order: if you were doing a 50/50 split it shouldn't be DOWN the middle but ACROSS the middle.

But in reality, there is no straight line division which is practical.

My suggestion, based on election results, goes like this:

Draw a line Eastward extending from the southern border of Iowa...
Draw a line north from the westernmost point of DC...
Continue until those two lines intersect...

Everything directly north and East of those lines (and East of the Potomac River) can be ceded to Canada, along with the coastal counties o the Pacific Coast as far south as LA

In return, the southernmost populated areas of the plains provinces can vote, by local option but all as one unit, to join the remaining US or stick with Canada.

Thus, if you were afraid to travel through "Jesusland" (as one blogger derisively put it) then you could connect through Edmonton or some such.

That said, i scoff at the idea that the remaining states would suddenly become a killing field for LGBT people (at least, to any greater extent than any place is now)

But yeah, getting recognized and protected in law would be a few more generations in coming. Conservative folks more and more are learning to separate economic conservatism from social conservatism, but it's gonna take time.

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 29, 2010, 12:59:47 PM
Point of order: if you were doing a 50/50 split it shouldn't be DOWN the middle but ACROSS the middle.

But in reality, there is no straight line division which is practical.

My suggestion, based on election results, goes like this:

Draw a line Eastward extending from the southern border of Iowa...
Draw a line north from the westernmost point of DC...
Continue until those two lines intersect...

Everything directly north and East of those lines (and East of the Potomac River) can be ceded to Canada, along with the coastal counties o the Pacific Coast as far south as LA

In return, the southernmost populated areas of the plains provinces can vote, by local option but all as one unit, to join the remaining US or stick with Canada.

Thus, if you were afraid to travel through "Jesusland" (as one blogger derisively put it) then you could connect through Edmonton or some such.

That said, i scoff at the idea that the remaining states would suddenly become a killing field for LGBT people (at least, to any greater extent than any place is now)

But yeah, getting recognized and protected in law would be a few more generations in coming. Conservative folks more and more are learning to separate economic conservatism from social conservatism, but it's gonna take time.

Have you ever used the term "take our country back"?

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 29, 2010, 02:41:39 PM
Have you ever used the term "take our country back"?

I HATE that term!

Most of all because both sides like to use it whenever the other side is in power. It has no real meaning at all.

Quote from: Laura Hope on April 29, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
I HATE that term!

Most of all because both sides like to use it whenever the other side is in power. It has no real meaning at all.

Good. Thanks.

Getting back to the OP, by the time Americans finish talking about it, the couta will have moved through three different countries.
The Israelis or the British would have simply bumped him off and not said a word about it.