patrick.net

drfelle says

Here’s a novel idea, How about the “slackers” help pay for these services?

You can't get blood out of a turnip. How do you propose making a welfare recipient without so much as a high school education 'pay'?

freddy22122 says

Here is decent article on the issue: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/29/canada-private-clinic-controversy/

Decent? I do not think it means what you think it means.

drfelle says

Blame it all on the libs. This forum seems to polarize (by a few) rather than offer thoughtful discussion.

This forum has never attempted “thoughtful discussion”; and it’s very disingenuous for you to suggest that it has.
Your definition of “thoughtful discussion” is stating your opinion and everyone else agreeing with you.
I have a feeling Patrick doesn’t mind the “few” that offer polarizing opinions (although they’re contrary to his own) because it helps keep the discussion interesting and his forum going strong.

I have no problem with people agreeing with me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with people who blame everything on the liberals, the conservatives, the democrats, the republicans... It detracts from the issues we're discussing.

But I have no problem if you want to agree with me. That would be very cool.

I don't like soci-alism too.

So please get rid of Medicare that so many of the "conservative" old leeches are relying on. Medicare is the BIGGEST soci-alism leech ever with dying people spending easily millions of my tax money. If they are so damn financially "conservative", why do they want to waste my money by visiting doctors and clinics for free and using hospital for free room and board?

I am all for keeping the existing system if we can just abolish Medicare completely. If we keep the leeching Medicare, then I want to get some same leeching privilege myself as well.

All of you who are arguing against the government-run medical system, please direct your fire right at the existing Medicare, the largest government run healthcare in the world. If you hate the government run healthcare so much, why not get rid of the existing systematic tumor instead of fighting against something that doesn't even exist yet?

OO says

I don’t like soci-alism too.
So please get rid of Medicare that so many of the “conservative” old leeches are relying on. Medicare is the BIGGEST soci-alism leech ever with dying people spending easily millions of my tax money. If they are so damn financially “conservative”, why do they want to waste my money by visiting doctors and clinics for free and using hospital for free room and board?
I am all for keeping the existing system if we can just abolish Medicare completely. If we keep the leeching Medicare, then I want to get some same leeching privilege myself as well.
All of you who are arguing against the government-run medical system, please direct your fire right at the existing Medicare, the largest government run healthcare in the world. If you hate the government run healthcare so much, why not get rid of the existing systematic tumor instead of fighting against something that doesn’t even exist yet?

AMEN!!!!!!
I wish I could write that in neon green with a huge font, because I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I just use too many exclamation points.

Bap33 says

a well known, but silent (thanks to the state run media), push for state med is from the deviant liberals who entertain themselves by performing sex acts that are known to spread disease and cause unwed prego-ness.

Wow, you mean those deviant sex acts can cause prego-ness? Amazing!

Bap33 says

I never agreed to the gov taking my money and giving it to anyone else.

Ah good now we are getting somewhere. You are a tax abolitionist that would enjoy living in warlord countries. There's a long list of these idyllic spots on the planet.

Good luck with implementing it here. Many seem incredibly opposed the idea of not having huge government programs, they just have a different idea of which ones they should be. For some it's a military deployed all over the world. For others it's an interstate road system. All sorts of "waste" you could cut if only we made you Emperor.

Facts:

1) Almost all developed countries have some nationalized health care.

2) They pay for it.

3) They have not collapsed of insolvencty, nor are their populations dying of disease.

4) People in England, Canada and the gentleman in Scotland (see above) seem happy enough with the nationalized system.

5) The systems aren't perfect and are rationed. Their rationing works by rules. Ours works by economics.

6) No country has voted to go from nationalized back to private-only health care.

Basically, the folks who are saying we can't do this are saying that Americans are too corrupt, stupid or otherwise impaired to do what countries like Canada, England or Cuba are able to do.

I have yet to meet ONE conservative old fart that wants to take a stab at the Medicare. When it concerns their own interest, they are suddenly soci-alist, when they are dealing with other people's welfare, they are suddenly "conservative".

I urge everyone who is against soci-alism to devote their energy to doing away with Medicare first. You love your grandparents and parents right? Please do not make your love my burden, and pay for your loved ones out of YOUR pocket, I don't love them nor do I care for them, and don't make me, the conservative advocate to pay for old farts' cumulative fuck ups in life.

After you do away with Medicare, please then do away with Social Security. Just these two alone can help us, the true conservative workers, save 7% of taxes.

Tude says

Wow, you mean those deviant sex acts can cause prego-ness? Amazing!

Clearly he thinks that heterosexual intercourse is a 'deviant sex act'. Not surprising considering the sex acts preferred by so many so-called conservatives as of late.

drfelle says

I answered this. “I” pay taxes. Most taking advantage of Socialized Medicine don’t!

Who are these people 'taking advantage of socialized medicine'? We don't even have 'socialized' medicine in this country, and the closest thing we have to it is Medicare.

The last time I checked, everyone who works pays for medicare, to the tune of almost 3% of gross pay. Are you implying that most current medicare recipients didn't pay for it already? That's absurd -- the US has had a sub-10% unemployment rate for almost the entire duration of medicare's existence. At best, 10% of recipients haven't paid into it.

drfelle says

The majority of people in this great country have opportunities to do great things. Men and women alike have a responsibility to plan / prepare to take care of themselves and their families. This is done by education, fiscal responsibility, and unselfish hard-work. You can tell me all day long about some people not having the opportunities that others have. Or how some people hit a string of bad luck that’s no fault of their own. Listen, every decision that you make in life has consequences. I’ve made bad decsions in life, but I don’t look to the Gubbermint for a hand-out or to take me by the hand and start balancing my checkbook for me. People will survive on their own if you give them a chance to be self-sufficient. If you bail them out because of their piss poor planning they become unreliable to themselves and their families.

So you don't think adequate childhood health care is an unfair advantage? You don't think being afflicted with horrible diseases due to not getting vaccines, or losing limbs, eyesight, or your life due to inadequate medical care are disadvantages?

You mentioned education here. Why is education important but not health care? Do you honestly believe that everyone gets an equal education?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to succeed in life when you have an unstable home life, poor diet, poor education, and no health care than when you have a stable home life, good diet, good education, and good health care. It's a LIE to claim otherwise.

But nobody ever said that life was 'fair'. This isn't about 'fairness', it's about what is BEST for the future of the country, and substantial overhaul of the medical system is what is best for the future of the country. We CAN NOT AFFORD the current system.

I don't really offer much, but you can see the vultures (ie bottomfeeders) beginning to creep out of the woodwork here. The complete over analysis regarding basic human rights and the utter lack of compassion, it just, well I really don't care. I'm ready to see people beaten to death for lack of health care coverage due to a glitch in the insurers system.

I think that Jesus Christ is watching people who act like they are bourgeousie, and judging them. And all I've felt for the last 2 years is mud slapped in my face, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to kick your ass as soon as I can.

But regarding health care and 70% not covered, or 70% realizing that it isn't actually government controlled, ( same 70% finding out the banks aren't actually the gov't), or what the hell, we all gotta duck when the sh** hits the fan...

It seems that a bunch of smart people are squallering around trying to put some sense to all that is happening right now. And the other ones, smart as they are, are saying we're obviously f***ed! by some consortium of evil f***s.

And I'm just caught in the middle looking to shine for the one that comes out on top and say... Hey! I just want to do the best I can.
But no doubt, I'll set myself up to get f***ed.

Sad, as I said before.

I really like your posts and all, but it's become so desolate for the construction indusry which is the precursor to whatever business you are in... I'm feeling it and the preducursor is in:

My opinion was that if things didn't pick up by March or April '09, that it's going to Hell in a handbasket.

Health Insurance is going to be the least of your worries, put your money in the church before paying the A'holes, know what I'm sayin'.

The whole concept of "replacing government handouts with charity" is utterly bogus.

First of all, healthcare is not a handout. Second, there is no way it can be replaced by charity.

More generally, the idea that charity can replace real programs with real funding is just a Republican pipe dream. Or rather, it is a cynical ploy to avoid taxes by invoking a charity fairy that does not exist and will not work.

It makes about as much sense as replacing police service with vigilantes and fire service with volunteer bucket brigades.

drfelle says

Quit confusing my opinion on Nationilizing Health Care as me not being compassionate.

I never said anything about being "compassionate", so I don't know where you pulled that comment from. I'm not a compassionate person myself, I'm a rational one. I don't really care that much that poor people don't have insurance, I care about how that lack of insurance is harming everyone else. There will always be people who get a shitty lot in life.

The current health care system is too expensive and is putting too big of a burden on the economy -- it needs to be massively overhauled for the good of the people as a whole. The ONLY reason why we even have nations is for the betterment of the members of the nation. The decisions made must ALWAYS be in the best interest of the people as a whole, not select groups. The current system is not in the best interest of the people -- it is in the best interest of insurers.

I do, however, take great issue with everyone who says that everybody gets an equal opportunity. This is just a lie. Some of us are born blind, or poor, or mentally retarded, or ugly. This isn't fair. Being born with eyesight, or middle class, or of average intelligence is a competitive advantage. That's life.

Excuse my ignorance, isn't charity also run by bureaucrats? I have a friend who is a senior management at a large non-profit charity, and the kind of waste and boondoggle I saw there is no less shocking to government. There are plenty of charities that spend as much as 50% of the donations they accept on admin (read: compensation and benefits to employees).

Or, when we talk about charity, we are all referring Mother Teresa? There are definitely more child-molesting fathers than Mother Teresa in the world, I am sure.

We have our present medical system to tie us to our jobs.

Our real estate system works exactly the same way with everyone forced to take on a massive amount of debt in order to buy a house. And the mortgage interest deduction only adds to this since when you lose a job you lose the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction.

Apparently this was all shoved down our throats by a news media dominated by corporations.

Hopefully with the internet Americans will finally see how stinking stupid we are to tie our lives to all this stress.

Off-topic Kook Alert:

Sarah Palin goes off the deep end.

I think anyone should be able to get heart surgery for free. As long as they didn't ignore at least 3 warnings from Big Brother that they were ordering unhealthy meals, AND that their implant chip has not been tampered with, AND that they have been available for work and actively looking for work during the past week.

"Now, there's just going to be a few forms to fill out, and then we're going to move forward with that CPR, mmkay?" I don't think the government will be that bad. No entity could be worse than the insurance companies that have evolved over the last 25 years. Flo from Progressive and that f***ing gecko are costing us twice what we would otherwise pay for car insurance, just so we can pay to watch commercials.

Overall, the system or machine is too big to comprehend. If you put it in terms of there being a fixed amount of money in the world and you need to fight for your share, then it shuts down. Nobody will pay for anything. If you let things expand and say people are generating money (from where I don't know) then you scratch your head and wonder what they were doing the last 10 years or so to make that work.

I think 70% of Americans DO want government run health care because at least they feel there is a chance of controlling the monster. Maybe they could speak up about costs and vote someone in to fix it. Not be at the mercy of a corporation that can send you a bill and leave it up to you to hire a lawyer to dispute it. Not worth it if they say they're just not going to cover your $500 visit. Total life devastation if they say they're not going to cover your $100,000 visit.

I just don't want to pay for TenPoundBass to have his head examined.

See what I mean.

Just put doctors on good government salaries based on the number of patients they have and be done with it. Doctors would deal directly with the patient, and if the patients don't like them, they go to the good doctors that do a good job. This eliminates all the money going to insurance companies paying executives salaries in excess of 10 million a year! And you just pay it in tax that comes out of your paycheck so you can still budget and not really feel it in the form of a bill that needs to be paid. They're doing that already with your paycheck if you have a job. It's just a question of do you want your "health insurance providers" to be held up to public scrutiny or not?

It is not surprising that 70% of Americans want a public health care system. In fact, I'm a little surprised the number is not higher. Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States. And, all true Christians know they are to try their best to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus says, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (John 15:12). Who among us believes that Jesus would deny health care to anyone? The fact is, Jesus would not deny anyone health care. He spent much of his time healing: the leper, the blind, the dead, even the servant who arrested him.

Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus withheld healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus demanded payment for healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus worries about the "cost" of healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus worried that some people might wrongfully benefit if he healed someone?

Perhaps, I missed something either in church or in reading the Bible. If there are any true Christians out there who can point me to a passage where Jesus turned his back on the sick, I'd be more than willing to read it. If not, I am a little saddened as to how low the 70% number is. I pray that Jesus forgives the the other 30%.

Special emergency care would not be based on the number of patients, but I'm sure that can be figured out. There is left the question of what if Joe Doctor just doesn't feel motivated to come in and perform that middle of the night emergency surgery because it isn't going to pay him another dime.

Then there's the medication, those pills that replace marijuana. You look at pills, housing, insurance, tv, and cell phones, not to mention credit card rates... and then you have to listen to the economists in charge like Greenspan was telling you they're doing what they can to control inflation... unbelievable.

Exactly Ryan, and there is a nice cross over here we've got picked out just for you, just need you to carry it to Capitol Hill and...

chrisborden says

If I am forced to buy health insurance at $500 a month (I’m sure it will cost at least that), I will go broke within two years, as I have only $25,000 in savings and earn $400 a week and live on it since being laid off and am unable to find a job at 54. Guess I’ll just have to start withdrawing what’s left of my “retirement.” I CHOOSE not to buy because I STAY HEALTHY and do not worry about catastrophe (why?). Yet the socio-Marxist Obama thinks he knows what’s good for me. I CHOOSE to live MY way. If some disaster were to befall me, I take full responsibility for the cost; if I go bankrupt, so what? Life will go on somehow. That is how I want to live. I do not want the government telling me what to do with my money. It is a risk I am quite willing to take. And yet, I will be penalized either way. We cannot win; the deck is stacked against us, folks, courtesy of your “savior” in the Black House.

If we had a single payer system such as laid out in detail in HR676 you would be better off.

Here is how it would be funded according to the proposed law.
A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

(2) System savings as a source of financing.—Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of—

(A) vastly reducing paperwork; and

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).

(3) Additional annual appropriations to USNHI program.—Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

chrisborden says

CHOOSE not to buy because I STAY HEALTHY and do not worry about catastrophe (why?). Yet the socio-Marxist Obama thinks he knows what’s good for me. I CHOOSE to live MY way. If some disaster were to befall me, I take full responsibility for the cost; if I go bankrupt, so what?

If you go bankrupt, you put the burden on everybody else. When a hospital writes off your medical bills, who do you think pays? That's right, the tax payers who are now footing the bill for the write off.

What happens if you get hit by a car tomorrow? Who's paying that bill? By your own admission, you couldn't possibly afford it, which means that the hospital will be writing off your expenses, which makes the whole process MORE expensive than if there was either a single payer or a public medical plan.

You can't just 'choose' to stay healthy your entire life. If that was an option, we wouldn't have intensive care units.

The market will not solve the health care issue on its own without government intervention. The simple fact is that all will have to pay for health insurance whether the government runs the plan or simply enacts laws that requires that people have health insurance just like it is illegal to drive a car without insurance. Then the "choice" kicks in for those that can afford a higher level of service just like you have to meet the minimum car insurance but you can buy more.

Everyone has to pay for insurance either directly to private insurers or via a government tax. There is no other way. This is the reality of the situation. The debate over whether or not the government should run a plan itself just bogs down the path to solution. Even the government could do a better job that they way things are now.

For those that think that they should be free to NOT buy health insurance then they might as well debate having to have car insurance or paying any tax at all. That is silly.

Even those that have insurance through their companies are living with a false sense of security. Take for example a serious health care issue such as a heart attack that might cause a $150,000 hospital visit and stay. If you work for a big company, then they can absorb this but for companies with 50 employes or less, you might be suprised that "insurance" doesn't actually cover everything. The small company may be liable for part of the expenses after a threshold. So if your company is small or you lose your job you can become exposed to expenses that will ruin you financially.

The recent Fronline episode Sick in America(?) opened my eyes to the problem of not having to buy insurance. The problem is that the insurance companies haven't been collecting premiums from those that don't buy yet we are supposed to help them when they get sick. That is the flaw. Simple, isn't it?

So to protect themselves from these freeloaders who try to join only when they get sick, the private companies hunt for "pre existing conditions" to block those folks. Problem is once you have a pre existing condition then you are effectively banned from the health care system until 65.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we have to enact laws or at least a system that makes people contribute to health care via insurance premiums. As mentioned by Kevin, letting these folks that choose not to buy, get emergency care, and then when they can't pay just go bankrupt, is unfairly putting the burden on the responsible people.

Sound familiar? This is the exact problem with the housing crisis. People wanted the "freedom" to buy houses with no money down. The government was not regulating anything properly. And now the responsible people have to bail out the people who are walking from homes and what is even worse is bailing out the companies who participated and enabled the mess.

"Freedom" is not free. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. Just as responsibility means not spending more than you earn it also means contributing to the health care system via premiums (either mandated from private insurers or via tax for the a government plan) so it can be there when you or one of your loved ones need it.

Yea - companies look for pre-existing conditions even if they were undiagnosed or undisclosed to the patient. They're in the biz to make money. Healthcare shouldn't be optional.

tb says

The recent Fronline episode Sick in America(?) opened my eyes to the problem of not having to buy insurance. The problem is that the insurance companies haven’t been collecting premiums from those that don’t buy yet we are supposed to help them when they get sick. That is the flaw. Simple, isn’t it?

So to protect themselves from these freeloaders who try to join only when they get sick, the private companies hunt for “pre existing conditions” to block those folks. Problem is once you have a pre existing condition then you are effectively banned from the health care system until 65.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we have to enact laws or at least a system that makes people contribute to health care via insurance premiums. As mentioned by Kevin, letting these folks that choose not to buy, get emergency care, and then when they can’t pay just go bankrupt, is unfairly putting the burden on the responsible people.

Sound familiar? This is the exact problem with the housing crisis. People wanted the “freedom” to buy houses with no money down. The government was not regulating anything properly. And now the responsible people have to bail out the people who are walking from homes and what is even worse is bailing out the companies who participated and enabled the mess.

“Freedom” is not free. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. Just as responsibility means not spending more than you earn it also means contributing to the health care system via premiums (either mandated from private insurers or via tax for the a government plan) so it can be there when you or one of your loved ones need it.

Yes, that seems like a good summary of the situation to me. Buying insurance only when you're already sick is like placing your bet after the roulette wheel has already stopped. It's freeloading.

We do pay for medical care for the freeloaders, so we're all screwed because we don't have a national plan. Everyone's insurance rate could go down if everyone had to buy (or pay taxes for) insurance.

It does scare me though if the government starts mandating you have to buy from private insurers. The private insurance companies will rape us all without mercy if they possibly can. So I like having an optional cheap government plan to keep them in line.

Bap33,

Yes, but HOW MUCH more do the rich give to charities. Put a number on it, and see if it matters. Look at the level of giving as a percentage of income.

This whole idea that rich people would give away more money to charity than they would otherwise pay in taxes is just lies and propaganda. I find it astounding that anyone could truly believe otherwise. I think nobody on the inside of the Republican party really believes this is true. It just makes for good propaganda.

Progressives pay their taxes gladly, and likely they pay more taxes than the rich who cheat on taxes with their left hand and give less to charities (loosely defined, often politically non-neutral charities) with their right hand.

No, sorry, I know enough about charitable organizations (read: particularly the pedophile churches) that I do NOT donate one single cent towards their legitimate pedophile causes or their internal orgy parties. I insist, there are certainly MORE child molesting priests than Mother Teresa, and there is so far only one Mother Teresa.

Churches are not different governments. They take your money and run a business, and worse than government, I don't even get to elect the head of the church, or head of the local church. There is absolutely no check and balance with churches, and I believe this person who has the same earthly needs as mine to represent GOD, f*ck that. It is one thing to go to Sunday schools, and it is entirely another to put these priests in high places expecting them to have extraordinary morals. No, priest is just a job category for which it is paid for, and history has proven the professionalism of priests is often not as good as janitors'.

PS. I am not ignorant about the church, because I went to a Catholic school, and I have a relative who became a priest. I have seen some of the dirtiest church tricks up close and personal.

mickrussom says

Think: how does the USA compete with India and China where healthcare isnt even a glimmer?
If you want to work, you best think about what entitlements did to GM and how they could strangle the USA to the point of second world living.

Don't know about China, but an MRI costs about $12 on India, an X-ray goes for about $5 - which incidentally is about what a gallon of gas costs in India (~$5).
There are also clinics called 'Government Dispensaries' where you can go get your cough/cold looked at or minor cuts/bruises bandaged for free or a token fee.
Most Doctors charge between $2-5 for a doctor's visit (again, compare to the cost of a gallon of gas in India).
In India, you get what you pay for - and I don't' think that is a bad model. If the US were to follow that model, you'd have the 'government' clinic where you'd have to wait for a couple of hours to get your cough syrup or you'd shell out some more money (private plan) to have someone take a look at you (relatively) immediately.

I cannot believe that there are people that are actually happy with their health insurance that they now have. The only possibility must be someone that has a very secure job at a very large company.

But even if you work for a large hospital and you have excellent health insurance, you best not get an illness that forces you to lose your job if you plan to live a long time. After a while the benefits run out and you are scrambling. And in many states if not the whole country, there is a gap between when the insurance lapses and elgibility for cobra kicks in.

I am really not understanding how anyone can possibly support the status quo.

drfelle says

I cannot believe that there are people that are actually happy with their health insurance that they now have. The only possibility must be someone that has a very secure job at a very large company.
But even if you work for a large hospital and you have excellent health insurance, you best not get an illness that forces you to lose your job if you plan to live a long time. After a while the benefits run out and you are scrambling. And in many states if not the whole country, there is a gap between when the insurance lapses and elgibility for cobra kicks in.
I am really not understanding how anyone can possibly support the status quo.
Contrary to popular belief, most people are responsible and have thought about their future.
However, nobody here has suggested they are happy with the current system (it’s still a welfare system). Some just say the Nationalizing Health Care is a bad idea. Libs just can’t see any other alternative than to let the government hold their hands!
What I think is funny is this is a housing crash forum where everyone is bitching about the government helping out irresponsible home owners, banks and Wall Street. But they are the first one in the welfare line when the Government decides to Socialize Medicine.

I am paying my health insurance money to a company on Wall Street that pays its executives and shareholders hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. The profits and executive salaries of these companies do not go to health care.

Now what does this have to do with our system being a welfare system? I do not see your point at all.

And by the way I am completely against the homeowner and Wall Street bailouts but I am strongly in favor of single payer health insurance as proposed in HR 676.

StillLooking says

And by the way I am completely against the homeowner and Wall Street bailouts but I am strongly in favor of single payer health insurance as proposed in HR 676.

Oops, that should have read single payer health care as proposed in HR676.

drfelle says

Most claim they’re worried about the poor and pathetic lower-middle class. But I bet not one of them have sprang for a hot meal for a bum or helped their family members out of a financial jam. They want cheaper insurance so they can spend their money on one of the many other Government Programs now available(i.e. Real Estate, [GM] Auto Sales, etc.).
They don’t give a damn about the poor and needy. If they did they would’ve already been charitable - instead they find excuses and accuse charities of being corrupt.

I want universal socialized medicine to take this industry away from the for-profit phamo-medical machine, as well as get away from us being job/health insurance slaves. I would like to possibly start a small business, or go back to school, without having to be worried about being bankrupted by the insurance and/or medical industry.

I'd restart the conversation with:

If they're sick, shoot 'em in the head. If you don't want to do that, what is your suggestion?

BTW, I'd like to go ahead and get shot in the head, before I get sick, or have to deal with these people.

The dollar isn't dropping and your post is just beyond interpretation.

Even in my most drunken state, I stuck to a simple solution... Put people to work by rebuilding the inner-city trash.

But you've got me hooked... What is Barry's Revenge?

Is Barney Frank a sodomite? That's kind of a reach isn't it? And his band of liberals?... where is this coming from?
There is more evidence that there is going to be a solar flare on July 7th, with a warning from crop circles. SunSpot activity today and a 2-3 day travel period point to some actual news. John Ensign cheats on his wife, and that is apparently factual... but Barney Fife being a Sodomite is speculative, he's obviously from Gomorh.

You must respond! I get really enthused with this Hitler 2.O comment. I'm really bored with the history channel and all that crap, but you might be interesting here!!!!

If you don't respond, there is going to be sanctions, assbreath!

You right-winger Bap33 couldn't conserve your way out of a conversation. No? Ha? Not funny? No you are a Conservatist, which means that you like the things like they used to be, no? The older you get the less resistant to change right? You must back up this Hitler 2.0 comment or I am just going to go Hog wild on this site. I'm so bored with the lack of entrepreuneuriship in this era.