@tyrannosaurusinf14 as opposed to the consumate Democrat: "tough shit; he doesn't have his, give it to him, fuck you..." If we are goign to oversimplify we might excel at it right?
You smug holier than thou cocksucker. What you and every other liberal out there faill to realize is that these bastards diving this country into the dirt work for us, the American poeple. And guess what you are not doing your job so YOU ARE FIRED. Get your shit and get the hell out.
You will not take this country from us. We will not go quietly into the night. we will fight and you will see that the giant that you have awaken is extremly pissed off.
Democrats are great at crying about unjust wars and once in power maintaing the UNJUST WARS. Democrats are great at spending trillons of our tax dollars with no remorse.
yeah. 50 years or so, its about 44. since like regan they've been looked at alot more which i know must have been less than 50 years. i dont know just google it.
I totally agree with you Turk, remember a couple of weeks ago, Michael Steele all but guaranteed a victory in the election in up state New York and the GOP lost another seat....GOP in exile? We report you decide......HAHAHAHA
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yet the Democrats are giving billions of tax-payers money to "bail-out" banks and companies who deserve to fail for spending to much and making to little. Where is the video "the democrats have no clue what they are doing?"
That was actually Bush's idea, remember? And, what happens when the banks fail? If we let the banks fall, the United States economy would collapse due to a lack of Commercial Line of Credit and business investment. Even though they deserve to fail, we can't let them, because the economy will be dragged down as well.
Republicans have yet to bottom out they still heading downward. Ive never seen a party in such disaray. Most Americans dont like them and during the elections they alienated their base (conservatives and whites) and they voted for Obama. This is similar to when the Federalist were swept out of power because of poor leadership.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yeah conservatives are coming back and when we do it will be a much better America, but first we have to get these nuts out of our government Obama and all of his jokers, along with the weak republicans, who are so corrupt you dont know what side they are on. The government is to corrupt, it is time we as American's stand up and demand, new government figures, Obama is not change he was the same tired old liberal agenda, and of course the Republicans werent too much better.
of course....that's all we need.....some conservative religous looney tunes in power again....Turn america into a Christian Kalifate....The White Taliban
This is so true. WE republicans need to move closer to the center and show America we are more toleratant. Im sorry but conservatism does work anymore. The center is the best place because u can stay mostly conservative with some liberal views. Becauase they are not doe
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let's see here: cheap beginning animation, absence of theme music or jingle, a few gray panels and underthought logos, and a desk. Not counting your wardrobe and...comic (?) delivery I could recreate this "show" in less than 100 bucks. And from there adopt the ideas and morals of one rediculous, biased, unfortunately generalized political party and blindly take jabs at the other rediculous, biased, unfortunately generalized political party without missing a beat! Set idea: hang Colbert poster?
Well sure. But you have to take into consideration that TYT is really a radio show, so most of the time they could just show up in their sweat pants and t-shirts and not have anyone give a damn. Plus, it's not like Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media are any less rediculous, biased, angry, or poorly funded than TYT. Why don't we just scrap the entire media and start over again.
I agree. I am a dyed in the wool conservitive...but then there was Bush, then there was Palin, then there was all of the jackasses following them just blindly in the party. The longer all of that went on, the more I realize I am a moderate!
Yeah, really. What happended to the "smart" Republican party? McCain was Ok, but Palin screwed his reputation, Mitch McConnell and David Boehner are just mindless GOP puppets controlled by Limbaugh, Bush was a dumbass from the begining, Jindal is humorously similiar to Kenneth the Page, Michael Steele is a clueless dork who is unequal to his task, and 90% of the other congressional republicans have been perverted beyong repair by Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity. What happended to Lincoln's party?
@WhiteBull You are a real Republican that is willing to look at the issues of the day with some sincerity. Kudos to you for looking at your party in an honest way. We need people in government who want to govern not just people who want their ideology to WIN. Again, kudos to you.
@WhiteBull Actually you still are a dyed in the wool conservative. What changed, is that the current GOPers are far-right corporate crooks with a few insane talking heads thrown in the mix. You dindn't change. They did.
Please, Professor, would you re-read my paper & consider giving me a higher grade?
Professor
What you've written is the most insanely idiotic paper I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent statements were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Anyone who reads your paper will be much dumber for having read it. I must award you an F- and may God have mercy on your soul.
hawtdog: .. if they can document that they have worked here in the United States year round for ten consecutive years, then guess what .. they *are* entitled to Social Security benefits 'cuz they worked just like everybody else .. you xenophobic Republicans still don't get it .. do you?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nancy Pelosi is the worst person in politics. She's worse than any republican nowadays. She is for censorship and would love to Democratic party turn into a facist party.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Obama will be no better thats what you need to see. They are both horrible because they do not have the peoples best interest at heart, they support big business first not you.
Add delusional, stupid and incompetent. Else somebody would have had some ideas to oppose Obama's. Simply say NO didn't work for Nancy Reagan then and it is not going to work for the GOP now.
The Republican party is dead, they just haven't realized it yet. There like ghost wondering around trying to have an effect on the material world when they're nothing but apparitions. Bumping and knocking on things in order to get people to pay attention and take them seriously.
Conservatives say they want to progress yet they go for the Republican party. As for democrats they're nanny state bolstering bubble boys who shouldn't be taken seriously either. Republicans and Democrats = Two losers screaming and making accusations at each other, realizing little who identical they are to one another. As for this guy he's just a smug partisan pendehoe.
Why do I have to offer a solution every time I present my opinion? Oh that's right, you're just sneering. If I don't offer a solution that makes the Democrats and Republicans, parties of progress which we should keep supporting. Another appeal to authority bullshit argument.
Not being able to provide a basic opinion or even a tiny solution to perceived problems with government preempts your reasons for criticism. You may not like Dems or Reps, but at least provide your reasons for not liking either. Just simply saying that you don't like authority hardly solidifies your position on anything. I'm not sneering, I'm just calling it like I see it. For example, I had a friend who claimed to be an anarchists, but he couldn't identify the "machine" he was raging against.
Democrats have always had a pro gun control stance, pro big government and safety net funding. It's not only what they do but what they don't do. They haven't repealed the Republican's Patriot Act (Which Obama supports), TSA, or drug war. As for Republicans, Benjamen Franklin's quote applies to them: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.". Republicans are also a bunch of religious wack jobs who pork it out like the Dems.
Okay there we go. Now you're making some great points. As for the Patriot Act as it pertains to Democrats, that is a far-reaching policy that is hard to reverse in the beginning of a presidency. Rest-assured, much of the secret mandates of the Patriot Act will be opposed because they go against Obama and Democratic policy. I see no problem with gun control. The drug war is something that will likely be turned into a state issue... As for the Republicans, I totally agree with your assessment.
I do see a problem with gun control. Without going into the meticulous details it's identical in its failure to the drug war. When I say Drug War though I don't think drugs such as Meth and PCP should be sold or trafficked.
The problem with the gun control issue is that people in the suburbs and rural communities can obviously handle guns with responsibility. They go hunting and protect their expensive homes. Typically these areas have no issues. The gun control that I want to see pertains to the obvious gentrification of the ghettos of America. There are gun stores and liquor stores on everyone corner in urban communities; this is an obvious problem that needs to be controlled.
I've seen it take place in Australia and Canada which just like the Drug War, screws over the citizens and makes the criminals happy with glee. I can't stress how retarded gun control is in Canada for one obvious reason that I'll let you guess what it is. Times are getting tough and there will be a revolution of some sort. When people lose everything they have nothing to lose and they lose it. Then gun control is obviated.
I'm not familiar with his position on the war. I'm against the way however I do want victory for our troops. To be honest, I care more about the Afghanistan situation. I feel that it has more implcations related to global terrorism. At least from what I know.
He's for it and goes into meticulous detail about it. The failure of Hans Blix of the course of the decades, inspecting Iraq. WMD program found during the Iraq War. How it was inevitable and that Saddam broke these four condition more than once: Genocide, WMD fooling around, harbouring terrorists, and unwarrented invasion of other countries. The only self criticism he made was that he didn't get the nuke before invading Kuwait. It was either dealing with him now or later.
Well I do recognize all of those things. I just don't feel it was worth it to go to war in Iraq considering the huge tasks we still had yet to complete in Afghanistan. The war was obviously a huge cost to the American people, and was part of our economic tailspin. It also strained our relationships with some key allies. Plus, you can't say that other countries weren't just as much of a threat if not more of a threat to the U.S. Iran/Syria for instance harbor terrorist and have weapons.
Yeah but Iraq had broken those four conditions over and over again. Al-Qaeda has been destroyed and discredited in Mesopotamia and Saddam is dead. We have to focus on America. Though at the same time I share the Shiva philosophy in which chaos must occur in order for prosperity to spring up. Delaying natural selection with bail out for dead beat banks and home owners isn't progress. Prison system needs serious reform and fighting gangs needs to be a top priority.
Iraq was a huge mistake, except for Cheney's friends at Halliburton/KBR, they made out like bandits. Funny how that worked out after he pushed for us to go in there, then handed them a huge no-bid contract. No WMD, evidence of no WMD suppresed by Cheney, no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded but he kept trying to revise history and say there was up to the very end. I hope every republican up for re-election loses.
I guess it must be since every time a Democrat/Republican rubbed the wrong way by someone they accuse them of being Republican/Democrat. I'm sure you can agree that both sides are the epitome of asinine. How can you not when you spew lies such as there not being any Saddam terror connection. Credulous fool.
We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.
Actually, all that was debunked, Cheney lied repeatedly and still does. Iraq had nothing to threaten us with, but they do have oil. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan has nothing but terrorists and sand, which is why we largely ignored it after invading for revenge, even though most of the 911 guys were saudi. Naturally we played down the Saudi connection due to the oil.
If you want some real fun with Republicans. Check out the video and comments section in the link I'll send you on your profile. Look forward to turgid abuse of Godwin's Law.
As for drugs, weed needs to be legalized, it is less harmful than alcohol. People are generally calm and relaxed when on some good buddha. But then again I love weed. PCP, Meth, Heroine Cocaine, etc etc have no business being legalized. They are waay to dangerous and addictive. People will abuse those substances excessively if they are legalized.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cenk, I'm sorry, you and your show is moronic. The democratic party spends and spends and spends, and then they blame it on the republicans. Democrats are just plain liars.
They did on the issues of abortion and increased welfare. That happened and our taxes went up TREMENDOUSLY.
Same with farm animals. The LIBERAL congress came up with propositions to increase hospital bonds, build a highspeed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and a farm animal proposition that will put small chicken farmers out of buisness and double meat prices.
Guess what? They passed with flying colors.
And Guess what else? California is now on the verge of going bankrupt.
They "owned" the house and the Senate? How large was their "majority" in the Senate in 2006 again? One seat! Oh yeah, and who threatened to veto anything a Democrat had touched? Oh yeah, that's right - Bush. Who was spending trillions in Iraq while keeping the cost off the books? That's right - Bush. Shall I continue?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They had it 51 to 49, which means they owned the senate.
And, if you knew your branches of government, you would know that the senate can overturn the presidents veto. And Universal Healthcare is going to cost 3 times as much as the war in Iraq, WHICH OBAMA SUPPORTS.
The war in Iraq is not a bad thing. It is much better than the alternative..
Again, a 1-vote majority is not "owning" the Senate, especially when you have to kow-tow to the President - Repubs threatened filibusters many times, and you need 60 votes to overcome that - the Dems didn't have that. Then, of course there is the veto - you need a 2/3rds majority to overcome that, meaning the Dems would have needed 15 Repubs on the veto - not going to happen. Finally, Obama "supports" the Iraq war so much that he is withdrawing - and he was one of the first to speak against it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What difference does it make. The democraps have total control of the senate and congress with that one vote advantage. Do you not know the definition of own?
And the congress is owned by the democrats and they control the economy. They did so much for the economy by supporting abortion, welfare, etc.
And Obama supports universal healthcare, not the Iraq war. I was not refering to Obama supporting the Iraq war. And whats wrong with the war. It only helped our contry by eliminating a threat.
I do know the definition of "own', and it isn't a one-vote advantage when you need at least 60 votes to stop a filibuster and 67 votes to overturn a veto - did you even read what I typed earlier? CAN you read? What does abortion and welfare have to do with the economy? Those aren't their economic solutions - do you have brain damage or something? Finally, please provide PROOF that healthcare would cost three times as much as the Iraq war - fact is healthcare is cheaper in other countries.
(cont'd). They may get the insurance at a reduced price due to a group plan, but sometimes that is still too expensive, therefore they decline it and even though they are working, do not have health insurance. Also, studies have shown that the nationalized healthcare you can find in other countries actually costs less than our system today.
I don't know where my previous comment disappeared to, so I will try retyping - "Abortion facilities" are private and therefore do not take "our money". Welfare reform was pushed through by Clinton, creating work for pay programs, and has nothing to do with giving money to drug addicts. There are many who work but do not get health insurance as a benefit, they still have to purchase a plan - which can be too expensive for them. You obviously have mental health issues,
Nationalized healthcare would cause lazyasses who cannot pay for health insurance to have the ability to go into any doctors office and be treated- for free. It costs money for the hospitals to pay for these people, thats why they charge us whenever we see the doctor. Cancer treatment is a ton of money for doctors offices, and these lazy bums will get it for free. And maybe if the people who cant afford healthcare stopped smoking crack, maybe they will be able to afford it.
Uhm - you are freaking CRAZY -the cost is not going to be on the hospital, since the hospital will have its cost defrayed by the government - instead of having to FIGHT the insurance companies - THAT is why "they charge us" whenever we see the doctor - because of the insurance companies, you freakjob. Did you just NOT read what I typed, you freak of nature? People who WORK (not smoking crack - perhaps YOU have done too much of that) still cannot afford medical treatment.
The government has no money. How will they be able to pay for it. Spontaneously?
"freak of nature"- Better than a liberal wimp. And I am only preventing the most idiotic thing Anerica could ever do, so call me whatever you want.
And people who work can afford health insurance. They have paychecks for a reason smart one. Healthcare is the number 2 priority behind food, and if they can't afford that while working at the same time, then theyy are just liars- simple.
Obama has already set aside a "down payment" towards the health care fix, getting out of Iraq will save billions, he will increase taxes on the top 5% slightly, and once the economy gets going again, that will help move us forward again. Their paychecks aren't always enough to cover rent, food, other items AND thousands in healthcare costs. Just because you believe that a paycheck magically takes care of everything doesn't mean it's true.
We still have war in Afghanistan, which contributes to a lot of the 600 billion you said earlier. And the governmet would still be in debt, regardless of the Iraq War. And you said they need to pay for other items. Like what? What other items would be more important thaan healthcare.
We have no money, so Obama starting a downpayment (which is BS, he never did), would be coming out of our money
Fact: Every single thing that the government spends on comes out of our paycheck. Simple.
"the government would still be in debt, regardless of the Iraq War". Funny how Clinton left Bush a budget surplus, and Bush continued to run deficit after deficit after that - yet the government would still be in debt? When you live in NY, rent and food can eat up your paycheck real quick - might also need to buy a few clothes so that you are not walking around in torn rags. Not every paycheck is going to cover everything - don't know why you can't understand something so simple.
Forget clothes. Healthcare is far more important than clothes. Working at McDonalds can get you a healthcare check. Joining the army can earn you a healthcare check. You can have just about any job and earn enough to afford healthcare.
lol - please do tell me how someone making $5/hour can afford hundreds (if not over a thousand) in rent, god knows how much in food, car payments (or public transportation), etc. Clothes aren't important? You walk around in clothes with huge tears in them? LIke I said, just food and rent can eat up your paycheck.
2. If you work 12 hours a day at minimum wage, you make $102 a day. Work 6 days a week, you make $612 a week. There are four weeks in a month, sp thats $2448 a month.
You could move in with a friend to save the rent issue.
Food is about $1000 a month.
And public transportation is about $600.
That leaves enough for healthcare.
Like I said, healthcare is the most important responsibility to have. I've got my own healthcare to pay for.
Bahaha - even with your inflated bs, it STILL doesn't make it. First of all, exactly how many people are working 72 hours a week, which is what you claim they would do? I'm talking about the normal, 40-hour work-week - say you make $10/hour, that would be $400 a week, $1,600 a month, not enough under your rubric even if you have ZERO rent. And again, how many live free with their friends? Renting a room in an apartment - $800/month - one bedroom apt would be over $1,000.
So say you DO work 72 hours a week and make 2448 a month - your rent would be at least $800, food $1,000, public transportation $600 - still wouldn't be enough. Get rid of public transport and how would you get to work?
And doctors get paid by people who can pay for healthcare. It will increase our taxes by 50%. Not only that, how do you think the hardworking doctors feel who spend 8 years in school and want to get paid for their works will now work for a free clinic and anyone who walks in can be treated. Fact: If any person got off their ass and worked, then they should be able to afford healthcare.
BTW: Why don't YOU tell me where you got the fact that the Iraq war costs trillions.
Give up, you're not witty or funny. OOHOHOH LOOK HE DISAGREES WITH ME OR MAKES A VALID POINT THEREFORE HE WATCHES FOX NEWS. Partisan hacks, left or right, form of debate. I'm sure we should all tune into MSNBC or some other partisan hack network.
Fox is the only network that is not liberal biased, and you complain about it .
CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are far more biased than Fox, and are filled with lies and liberal scum on their network. Liberals think they are going to bring down terrorism, but they can't even face Fox News. How sad.
First of all, doctors get paid by the insurance companies, and they have to FIGHT the insurance companies right now to get money. With nationalized healthcare, they woudn't have to fight anyone, and also they would NOT be forced to work in a free clinic - they will get their salaries (doctors in England do pretty well) and not have to fight the insurance companies for every claim. Check out National Priorities Project - real time cost of the Iraq War - in the 600 billion range
There are 45.7 million people in America who don't have healthcare. Say the average person pays $5000 for healthcare per year. Do the math, that is $237.5 billion per year we will be spending for these people. We have payed roughly 600 billion, you say, for the Iraq war. Okay, so we have payed about 100 billion per year for the Iraq war.
Yeah your right, its not 3 times the amount of the Iraq War, but who am I kidding. 2.375 times the amount of the Iraq war isn't a lot, right.
First of all, people are allowed to continue on with their plans, therefore it is not necessarily a fact that every single American is going to be on the government plan. Thirdly, you have no basis for claiming that the cost, under the government plan, will be $5,000 a year for every single person.
It can be even more than that. And your job includes healthcare, so they pay for the healthcare. You think that there is no money involved if your job pays for healthcare, don't you?
You are pathetic. Change your age from 29 to 12, and maybe people will actually understand why you act the way you do.
"your job includes healthcare so they pay for the healthcare" = in fact, there are many jobs that DON'T offer it is a benefit - i.e. they will NOT pay for it for you - you COULD buy into a group plan at a reduced price through your employer, but many decline this option because it is too expensive even at the reduced price, and end up going without healthcare. There was just an article the other day on young 20-somethings not getting healthcare through their WORK.
(Cont'd) Finally, I never said the cost of the war was in the trillions, YOU said that it was a third the cost of healthcare, which is complete bs - I provided my statistics, now you provide yours that it is a third the cost of healthcare - by the way, some DO say that the cost could easily rise into the trillions, as the cost is over $300 million a day. Finally, you freak of nature, Obvious Troll is obvious, so go play somewhere else.
"Who was spending trillions in Iraq while keeping the cost off the books? That's right - Bush. Shall I continue"- You are a pathetic liar. I don't even have to try to proove this one. But then again, all you left-wing idiots are the same.
I apologize - I had gone back to try and look at my comment and misread it - wasn't trying to "lie". In any case, my point stands that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war while our country is crumbling around us, while Obama is spending in order to try and alievate some of the harm that Bush has caused through his policies.
There was no immediate threat, and in fact it is now a perfect recruiting tool. Better than another 9/11? There is no indication that another 9/11 would have occurred if we had not invaded Iraq, since there is no link between Saddam and 9/11.
Iraq had several thousand Al Quida members/supporters in Iraq. A lot of them fled before we invaded.
And it doesn't matter if there were ties to 9/11 or not. Fact is, Iraq had been threatening us, so we went to war. And several people supported the war when we invaded, and I find it funny how that has changed from people watching CNN
Please provide evidence that Al Qaida was a force in Iraq prior to the invasion - fact of the matter is that Saddam was a secular ruler - and Osama didn't like that. How exactly was Iraq threatening us? Oh yeah, and the only reason people suppoted the war was because of the false yellow-cake and WMD allegations - once people found out that there were no WMDs, and Bush started JOKING about not being able to find them, THAT is when they stopped supporting the war.
Why do you keep telling me to provide evidence when you have contributed nothing to your cause.
And there are members of Al Qaida in Iraq, just like any other middle eastern country. You think that members of Al Qaida just avoided Iraq, even though there are members all around it, and that it is smack dab in the middle of the middle east. That just takes common sense to answer. But then again, liberals have none so that doesn't surprise me.
I keep asking you to provide evidence because you keep throwing bs out there, bs that has been disproven several times over. Yes, there ARE (currently) members of Al Qaida, but Al Qaid was NOT a FORCE in Iraq prior to the invasion. You think Saddam, with his iron fist, would have let them have major influence in his country?
Yeah, just like Obama starting a downpayment is BS as well.
And Saddam was worse than any Al Qaida member out there. He was worse than Osama. He was interfering with Kuwait, where we get our oil as well. And it is you liberals that insist we buy there in the first place. We could drill in Alaska, which would solve that problem, but no, you liberals don't want to drill.
Actually, the recent budget actually had a set-aside for health care. Lol we liberals insist we buy there? Are you NUTS? We're the ones who are looking to get OFF of oil, so we won't have to depend on foreign imports. You really think that drilling in Alaska can provide for ALL of our domestic requirements? Lol, max it will give us is 6 months to one year's worth of oil. In addition, that oil will go into the global market, not domestically
We will never find an alternative source of fuel, so give up. Thats never going to happen.
And you do not know how much oil Alaska has, so you cannot just say it will be 6 months to 1 year. And when you don't want us to drill, there is only one other option, and that is to buy in the Middle East.
Uhm - ever heard of the electric car? WInd, solar, hydro are all waiting to get a boost - the technology is there, the money and the will isn't. I have a friend who is able to live mostly off-grid with the solar panels in his roof. Might be more than 1 year, but not much - Department of Energy stats: Oil consumption - 21 million barrels a day, Artic National Wildlfe Refuge estimate (where they want to drill) estimates - 16 billion barrels - comes to 2 years worth.
(cont'd) and that is just the raw material - then you have to go into refining, etc - might lose some of the oil along the way, get less out of it. Also, I wasn't just typing about alternative energy - was also typing about it in COMBINATION with energy efficiency, which can go a LONG way.
As if everyone in America is going to buy a new electric car so they can drive for one day. That will increase the electric bill tremendously. That doesn't lower the price of anything.
And solar panels are junk. My friend has them too, and they are nothing but crap. And an estimate isn't always correct. They do not know how much is in there. And by the way, wildlife groups lie so they can support their habitat. Look at PETA, Green Peace, Al Gore, etc.
Drive for one day? Wtf are you typing about? That would be their normal car. You wouldn't have to plug it in at home and increase your electric bill, you could potentially plug it in at various stations, where it would be easier to charge up. Anyway, you're basically saying that the Department of Energy is pulling this information out of their ass? Don't you think it's in their interest to accurately assess the amount of oil they have left?
The electric fuel would not last nearly as long as the gas fuel. I used to live in San Francisco, and those electric buses ran out of electricity constantly. They run out of energy in about 5 hours. By the way, do you know how long it would take to charge them. One bus is about 8 hours. NOBODY is going to want to spend 8 hours charging their car at a random station. And whos going to pay for all those stations to be set up. Oh yeah- us.
hmm - funny - I used to live in Cali (not SF), and never heard of any problems with buses. You don't even explain where you got this info from. Oh yeah, and fueling up a bus is not the same as fueling up a small car. Finally, you know who has been able to have ethanol stations set up everywhere? Brazil - and they're doing well with them there. If Brazil can set up alternative fuel stations, creating jobs in the process, so can we.
1. You mean SF is the only city in CA with electric buses - anyway, I wasn't say that it wasn't the only city - just didn't want to get into where I lived - just saying I lived close enough to where I would know if it was in the news if there were major problems with SF buses
2. Hearsay is not a reliable source
3. Brazil uses sugarcane ethanol, which doesn't affect food prices like corn does and actually has a more efficient production. Also, I was typing about prior to this crisis.
(cont'd) Oh yeah, and Brazil was doing so well prior to the global economic crisis that they not only were able to grow enough sugarcane to meet their domestic ethanol demands but they were also able to export their ethanol to many countries, including the US.
1. I lived in the city itself for 5 years. I think I would know. I have lived in several ci
2. It's not? That is the best source because they are the people who actually work with the buses. What better source is there?
3. Your rught about that, but sugar affects food prices as well. And like I said, not everybody in America is going to throw their car in the dump to buy an electric car. They wouldn't be able to sell it, because nobody would use it.
1. See my answer below regarding hearsay - you don't have any real sources
2. Do you even know what hearsay is or what it means? Hearsay evidence is not allowed in court because it is inherently unreliable
3. You didn't even know Brazil used sugarcane ethanol, now you're going to change the subject - real nice. Also, you could make an argument that almost anything would affect food prices in some way - that is not the point
1/2. Come on. You go to San Francisco and ask the bus drivers. Any random one. They will tell you the same thing I did.
3. Obviously it is. I am talking about money, and the fact that our cars do not have the ability to switch to ethanol, regardless of what it is made of. And by the way, all ethanol uses food in some sort of way. And that will cause our high food prices to go even higher, which is what you liberals blame Bush for constantly.
4. Your phone's battery is a piece of crap compared to the batteries that would be in those cars. Also, the stations would be able to provide more power than your everyday outlet, thereby charging the batteries quicker.
4. The batteries in those cars would charge slower if they had more power in them. And not only that, but it would not take as quickly to charge an electric car as it would a gas car. Thats just common sense.
The MONEY is there?? NO international funding organisation could come up with that money. I exaggerete ofc, but wind power ios super expensive. The future is NUCLEUR. don't even talk to me about chenobl (however you spell it) because I know exactly what went wrong with it, and I know that is is impossible with todays technology. The beaty of modern reactors is that they need nothing to keep them safe, if some bad shit happens, they close down themselves, not by complicated switches, by gravity.
I said the money isn't (currently) there, the technology is. If we had subsidy programs for alternative programs instead of oil, they would be less expensive I'm not saying that nuclear power is off the table.
Ahh ok, sorry I misread it a bit there. All these renewable sources will take a very long time to get going perfectly (except for hydroelectric and tidal, which are amazing), in the meantime we need to use Nuclear. if we say that Nuclear is the right way to go, then the others are the wrong way to go.
(cont'd) Combo of alternative energy and efficiency will lower demand of oil enough so that we will not need to import any of our oil from the Middle East.
YoungTurks - no disrespect, but ... when are you going to GET it?
The Republicans have failed. The Democrats have failed. They ALL have failed and are directly responsible for the mess we are in now....half of them have been in office for decades. Stop this Republicrat nonsense and kick them ALL OUT.
As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.
Jim Bunny is incoherent. Cenk is incompetent. It's just that simple.
meccaturbo 1 year ago
bunning is the consumate republican : "tough shit; i got mine, fuck you..."
tyrannosaurusinf14 1 year ago
@tyrannosaurusinf14 as opposed to the consumate Democrat: "tough shit; he doesn't have his, give it to him, fuck you..." If we are goign to oversimplify we might excel at it right?
Closetscholar 1 year ago
You smug holier than thou cocksucker. What you and every other liberal out there faill to realize is that these bastards diving this country into the dirt work for us, the American poeple. And guess what you are not doing your job so YOU ARE FIRED. Get your shit and get the hell out.
You will not take this country from us. We will not go quietly into the night. we will fight and you will see that the giant that you have awaken is extremly pissed off.
robzilla19731 1 year ago
Democrats are great at crying about unjust wars and once in power maintaing the UNJUST WARS. Democrats are great at spending trillons of our tax dollars with no remorse.
Fishstix9000 2 years ago
to quote Fight Club:
"Where you are now you can't even imagine what the bottom will be like. "
briandoom 2 years ago 2
hes just mad cause republicans have been more looked at for the past 50 years or so.
securityteam1 2 years ago
what the fudge do you mean securityteam1
rexzre 2 years ago
yeah. 50 years or so, its about 44. since like regan they've been looked at alot more which i know must have been less than 50 years. i dont know just google it.
securityteam1 2 years ago
As someone who grew up a Phils fan, Jim
Bunning was a boyhood hero. It's sad what a clown he turned to be.
billchew450 2 years ago
I totally agree with you Turk, remember a couple of weeks ago, Michael Steele all but guaranteed a victory in the election in up state New York and the GOP lost another seat....GOP in exile? We report you decide......HAHAHAHA
UBUICounterAttack 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
who is this homo turkish guy?? and how come i never heard of this news show or seen on tv, besides on youtube. what a FAGGET!
rigdriver2626 2 years ago
So cause he isnt mainstream he doesnt count.
So sorry that he is not owned by the big-time corporations cause who do you think controls the biased media idiot.
haicien 2 years ago 9
@rigdriver2626 Its a you-tube news channel hes a professional only on you-tube!
zxcvbnmjhgfdsa1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The only time this fat guy knows what he is doing is when he sits on the pot and one of his young turds comes out.
donottake 2 years ago
haha i love watching the young turks but your comment was too funny
haicien 2 years ago
The republicans represents a stringpulling society were money opens all doors.
That`s all there`s to it.
Schwarzenagler 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yet the Democrats are giving billions of tax-payers money to "bail-out" banks and companies who deserve to fail for spending to much and making to little. Where is the video "the democrats have no clue what they are doing?"
Frink14 2 years ago
That was actually Bush's idea, remember? And, what happens when the banks fail? If we let the banks fall, the United States economy would collapse due to a lack of Commercial Line of Credit and business investment. Even though they deserve to fail, we can't let them, because the economy will be dragged down as well.
TheSynesthetic 2 years ago 3
The Democratics in Congress passed the bills.
Frink14 2 years ago
Out of my entire argument, that's the only thing that you make a response to?
TheSynesthetic 2 years ago 2
Republicans have yet to bottom out they still heading downward. Ive never seen a party in such disaray. Most Americans dont like them and during the elections they alienated their base (conservatives and whites) and they voted for Obama. This is similar to when the Federalist were swept out of power because of poor leadership.
thetuffknight 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah conservatives are coming back and when we do it will be a much better America, but first we have to get these nuts out of our government Obama and all of his jokers, along with the weak republicans, who are so corrupt you dont know what side they are on. The government is to corrupt, it is time we as American's stand up and demand, new government figures, Obama is not change he was the same tired old liberal agenda, and of course the Republicans werent too much better.
sloth1992 2 years ago
of course....that's all we need.....some conservative religous looney tunes in power again....Turn america into a Christian Kalifate....The White Taliban
ionthegravity 2 years ago 2
This is so true. WE republicans need to move closer to the center and show America we are more toleratant. Im sorry but conservatism does work anymore. The center is the best place because u can stay mostly conservative with some liberal views. Becauase they are not doe
thetuffknight 2 years ago
So if we Republicans are Rightists, America is in the Center, where does that leave Obama as a leftist?
Doesn't make sense to me...
alchemistamnael 2 years ago
WebMD
Article titled "45.7 Million in U.S. Lack Health Insurance"
And that is in 2007, so it has only gone up.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let's see here: cheap beginning animation, absence of theme music or jingle, a few gray panels and underthought logos, and a desk. Not counting your wardrobe and...comic (?) delivery I could recreate this "show" in less than 100 bucks. And from there adopt the ideas and morals of one rediculous, biased, unfortunately generalized political party and blindly take jabs at the other rediculous, biased, unfortunately generalized political party without missing a beat! Set idea: hang Colbert poster?
butth0Ie 2 years ago
Well sure. But you have to take into consideration that TYT is really a radio show, so most of the time they could just show up in their sweat pants and t-shirts and not have anyone give a damn. Plus, it's not like Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media are any less rediculous, biased, angry, or poorly funded than TYT. Why don't we just scrap the entire media and start over again.
GeeYouAreYou0001 2 years ago
I agree. I am a dyed in the wool conservitive...but then there was Bush, then there was Palin, then there was all of the jackasses following them just blindly in the party. The longer all of that went on, the more I realize I am a moderate!
WhiteBull 2 years ago 12
Yeah, really. What happended to the "smart" Republican party? McCain was Ok, but Palin screwed his reputation, Mitch McConnell and David Boehner are just mindless GOP puppets controlled by Limbaugh, Bush was a dumbass from the begining, Jindal is humorously similiar to Kenneth the Page, Michael Steele is a clueless dork who is unequal to his task, and 90% of the other congressional republicans have been perverted beyong repair by Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity. What happended to Lincoln's party?
GeeYouAreYou0001 2 years ago
@WhiteBull You are a real Republican that is willing to look at the issues of the day with some sincerity. Kudos to you for looking at your party in an honest way. We need people in government who want to govern not just people who want their ideology to WIN. Again, kudos to you.
soda1yes 1 year ago
@WhiteBull Actually you still are a dyed in the wool conservative. What changed, is that the current GOPers are far-right corporate crooks with a few insane talking heads thrown in the mix. You dindn't change. They did.
bellaggio1770 6 months ago
Rush
(when he flunked out of college as a freshman)
Please, Professor, would you re-read my paper & consider giving me a higher grade?
Professor
What you've written is the most insanely idiotic paper I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent statements were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Anyone who reads your paper will be much dumber for having read it. I must award you an F- and may God have mercy on your soul.
DillonX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberals have no brain. Simple as that.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Maybe the solution to the economy is not giving illegal aliens social security benefits...
hawtdog79 2 years ago
hawtdog: .. if they can document that they have worked here in the United States year round for ten consecutive years, then guess what .. they *are* entitled to Social Security benefits 'cuz they worked just like everybody else .. you xenophobic Republicans still don't get it .. do you?
milkgodnl 2 years ago 2
Speakin of racist assholes, How bout that Reverend Jo Lowery? White aint right!!
hawtdog79 2 years ago
Hannity should see if he can get Victoria Jackson to run for Congress ... she & Hannity think so much alike.
DillonX 2 years ago
Can I short the Republican party?
Footbal550 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nancy Pelosi is the worst person in politics. She's worse than any republican nowadays. She is for censorship and would love to Democratic party turn into a facist party.
flyingtorpedo 2 years ago
Who do y'all think should be the GOP Candidates for Pres/VP?
Sarah Palin/Piyush Jindal
Rush Limbaugh/John Boehner
Rudoph Ginliani/Michael Steele
Which of those 3 would be best?
DillonX 2 years ago
I think a Palin/Limbaugh ticket would be perfect. The Dope and the Doped Up.
sachaput 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They didnt go right, they went left. thats why they lost. Whats Cenks definition of right?
war isnt right...its left!
Free trade = left!
Illegal aliens = left!
Bush and the neocons are too left..thats why we lost. Learn about politics before speaking Cenk...you sound like a fool.
calimar28 2 years ago
Victoria Jackson - the new voice of the Republican Party.
Anyone believe they'll put her up for public office?
DillonX 2 years ago
Palin - Jackson '12! Hahaha!
VanadiusRex 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obama will be no better thats what you need to see. They are both horrible because they do not have the peoples best interest at heart, they support big business first not you.
Issypt 2 years ago
No, Congress is the problem here. Every time he wants them to pass something they change it and fuck it up.
rainsan 2 years ago
Completely agree Cenk
cinesimonj 2 years ago
The real error is that Republicans are hypocritical and liars. I don't see that changing in the near future.
saadasim 2 years ago 2
Add delusional, stupid and incompetent. Else somebody would have had some ideas to oppose Obama's. Simply say NO didn't work for Nancy Reagan then and it is not going to work for the GOP now.
xhagast 2 years ago 2
The Republican party is dead, they just haven't realized it yet. There like ghost wondering around trying to have an effect on the material world when they're nothing but apparitions. Bumping and knocking on things in order to get people to pay attention and take them seriously.
Blac13 2 years ago 4
I can't because I am blind and mute.
p12psicop 2 years ago
What a crock. Everyone knows, especially Cenk Uygur, that Jim Bunning doesn't actually exist.
p12psicop 2 years ago
Are you prepared to look in your mirror and say his name three times at midnight and find out?
billthebutcher2 2 years ago
Well based on what we like to laugh at on TV, doesn't mean that's who we want to see running the country.
Shisho2k 2 years ago
Conservatives say they want to progress yet they go for the Republican party. As for democrats they're nanny state bolstering bubble boys who shouldn't be taken seriously either. Republicans and Democrats = Two losers screaming and making accusations at each other, realizing little who identical they are to one another. As for this guy he's just a smug partisan pendehoe.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
I would love to hear what your solution our nation is then. Any ideas on some policy changes? Oh please, do tell.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
Why do I have to offer a solution every time I present my opinion? Oh that's right, you're just sneering. If I don't offer a solution that makes the Democrats and Republicans, parties of progress which we should keep supporting. Another appeal to authority bullshit argument.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Not being able to provide a basic opinion or even a tiny solution to perceived problems with government preempts your reasons for criticism. You may not like Dems or Reps, but at least provide your reasons for not liking either. Just simply saying that you don't like authority hardly solidifies your position on anything. I'm not sneering, I'm just calling it like I see it. For example, I had a friend who claimed to be an anarchists, but he couldn't identify the "machine" he was raging against.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
Democrats have always had a pro gun control stance, pro big government and safety net funding. It's not only what they do but what they don't do. They haven't repealed the Republican's Patriot Act (Which Obama supports), TSA, or drug war. As for Republicans, Benjamen Franklin's quote applies to them: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.". Republicans are also a bunch of religious wack jobs who pork it out like the Dems.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Okay there we go. Now you're making some great points. As for the Patriot Act as it pertains to Democrats, that is a far-reaching policy that is hard to reverse in the beginning of a presidency. Rest-assured, much of the secret mandates of the Patriot Act will be opposed because they go against Obama and Democratic policy. I see no problem with gun control. The drug war is something that will likely be turned into a state issue... As for the Republicans, I totally agree with your assessment.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
I do see a problem with gun control. Without going into the meticulous details it's identical in its failure to the drug war. When I say Drug War though I don't think drugs such as Meth and PCP should be sold or trafficked.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
The problem with the gun control issue is that people in the suburbs and rural communities can obviously handle guns with responsibility. They go hunting and protect their expensive homes. Typically these areas have no issues. The gun control that I want to see pertains to the obvious gentrification of the ghettos of America. There are gun stores and liquor stores on everyone corner in urban communities; this is an obvious problem that needs to be controlled.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
I've seen it take place in Australia and Canada which just like the Drug War, screws over the citizens and makes the criminals happy with glee. I can't stress how retarded gun control is in Canada for one obvious reason that I'll let you guess what it is. Times are getting tough and there will be a revolution of some sort. When people lose everything they have nothing to lose and they lose it. Then gun control is obviated.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
As for the Iraq War, I'm with Christopher Hitchen on the issue.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
I'm not familiar with his position on the war. I'm against the way however I do want victory for our troops. To be honest, I care more about the Afghanistan situation. I feel that it has more implcations related to global terrorism. At least from what I know.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
He's for it and goes into meticulous detail about it. The failure of Hans Blix of the course of the decades, inspecting Iraq. WMD program found during the Iraq War. How it was inevitable and that Saddam broke these four condition more than once: Genocide, WMD fooling around, harbouring terrorists, and unwarrented invasion of other countries. The only self criticism he made was that he didn't get the nuke before invading Kuwait. It was either dealing with him now or later.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Well I do recognize all of those things. I just don't feel it was worth it to go to war in Iraq considering the huge tasks we still had yet to complete in Afghanistan. The war was obviously a huge cost to the American people, and was part of our economic tailspin. It also strained our relationships with some key allies. Plus, you can't say that other countries weren't just as much of a threat if not more of a threat to the U.S. Iran/Syria for instance harbor terrorist and have weapons.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
Yeah but Iraq had broken those four conditions over and over again. Al-Qaeda has been destroyed and discredited in Mesopotamia and Saddam is dead. We have to focus on America. Though at the same time I share the Shiva philosophy in which chaos must occur in order for prosperity to spring up. Delaying natural selection with bail out for dead beat banks and home owners isn't progress. Prison system needs serious reform and fighting gangs needs to be a top priority.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Iraq was a huge mistake, except for Cheney's friends at Halliburton/KBR, they made out like bandits. Funny how that worked out after he pushed for us to go in there, then handed them a huge no-bid contract. No WMD, evidence of no WMD suppresed by Cheney, no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded but he kept trying to revise history and say there was up to the very end. I hope every republican up for re-election loses.
Bubba186 2 years ago 3
This is what happens when Donald Trump opens his mouth... He drives people like Bubba here into being disingenuous.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Donald Trump? does anyone actually pay attention to him?
Bubba186 2 years ago 2
Apparently you do.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Is that some kind of dumbass republican logic?
Bubba186 2 years ago
I guess it must be since every time a Democrat/Republican rubbed the wrong way by someone they accuse them of being Republican/Democrat. I'm sure you can agree that both sides are the epitome of asinine. How can you not when you spew lies such as there not being any Saddam terror connection. Credulous fool.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.
LOL @ YOU
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Actually, all that was debunked, Cheney lied repeatedly and still does. Iraq had nothing to threaten us with, but they do have oil. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan has nothing but terrorists and sand, which is why we largely ignored it after invading for revenge, even though most of the 911 guys were saudi. Naturally we played down the Saudi connection due to the oil.
Bubba186 2 years ago 3
lol you didn't even read what I wrote. Christ.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Oh I read it, and I have seen it before, and it is bullshit.
Bubba186 2 years ago
If you want some real fun with Republicans. Check out the video and comments section in the link I'll send you on your profile. Look forward to turgid abuse of Godwin's Law.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Lol, sounds fun.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
As for drugs, weed needs to be legalized, it is less harmful than alcohol. People are generally calm and relaxed when on some good buddha. But then again I love weed. PCP, Meth, Heroine Cocaine, etc etc have no business being legalized. They are waay to dangerous and addictive. People will abuse those substances excessively if they are legalized.
nnamdi247 2 years ago
why do you think they would?
I wouldn´t take "hard" drugs if they were legal, as almost everyone else wouldn´t.
Why should someone?
It´s like when Bill Maher asked and it was 4 out of 4 who wouldn´t take them if they were legal.
I had enough posibilities to take LSD, Cocaine... and the legality of the stuff wasn´t in my mind at all when I decided not to take them.
Drug education would be far more helpful, but people are afraid of a real drug education.
BMWizardofOz 2 years ago
Burn Rome Burn. Death to Paxamericana.
kathicII 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cenk, I'm sorry, you and your show is moronic. The democratic party spends and spends and spends, and then they blame it on the republicans. Democrats are just plain liars.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Name one President George W. Bush veto against raising the federal debt ceiling?
Name one Republican filibuster against one of the 9 increases in the federal debt ceiling during the George W. Bush presidency?
winonatechie 2 years ago 6
Umm, Universal Healthcare.
That will put our economy in an absolute hellhole.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
and the last eight years of spending was done by who again when rethugs controled the house and senate.
luvangel330 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. The democrats owned the house and senate the last 2 years.
2. The economy was fine for the first 6 years.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
dion1tj 2 years ago
3. But they didn't own the Presidential veto.
seamoremonster 2 years ago
The veto can be overturned with a 2/3 vote.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
That's right! And they didn't have a 2/3rds majority!
seamoremonster 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They did on the issues of abortion and increased welfare. That happened and our taxes went up TREMENDOUSLY.
Same with farm animals. The LIBERAL congress came up with propositions to increase hospital bonds, build a highspeed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and a farm animal proposition that will put small chicken farmers out of buisness and double meat prices.
Guess what? They passed with flying colors.
And Guess what else? California is now on the verge of going bankrupt.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
They "owned" the house and the Senate? How large was their "majority" in the Senate in 2006 again? One seat! Oh yeah, and who threatened to veto anything a Democrat had touched? Oh yeah, that's right - Bush. Who was spending trillions in Iraq while keeping the cost off the books? That's right - Bush. Shall I continue?
technicschic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They had it 51 to 49, which means they owned the senate.
And, if you knew your branches of government, you would know that the senate can overturn the presidents veto. And Universal Healthcare is going to cost 3 times as much as the war in Iraq, WHICH OBAMA SUPPORTS.
The war in Iraq is not a bad thing. It is much better than the alternative..
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Again, a 1-vote majority is not "owning" the Senate, especially when you have to kow-tow to the President - Repubs threatened filibusters many times, and you need 60 votes to overcome that - the Dems didn't have that. Then, of course there is the veto - you need a 2/3rds majority to overcome that, meaning the Dems would have needed 15 Repubs on the veto - not going to happen. Finally, Obama "supports" the Iraq war so much that he is withdrawing - and he was one of the first to speak against it
technicschic 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What difference does it make. The democraps have total control of the senate and congress with that one vote advantage. Do you not know the definition of own?
And the congress is owned by the democrats and they control the economy. They did so much for the economy by supporting abortion, welfare, etc.
And Obama supports universal healthcare, not the Iraq war. I was not refering to Obama supporting the Iraq war. And whats wrong with the war. It only helped our contry by eliminating a threat.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
I do know the definition of "own', and it isn't a one-vote advantage when you need at least 60 votes to stop a filibuster and 67 votes to overturn a veto - did you even read what I typed earlier? CAN you read? What does abortion and welfare have to do with the economy? Those aren't their economic solutions - do you have brain damage or something? Finally, please provide PROOF that healthcare would cost three times as much as the Iraq war - fact is healthcare is cheaper in other countries.
technicschic 2 years ago
Owning is having possesion of something, which the liberals DID have possesion of the senate and congress
Abortion facilities cost money and are set up for idiot teenagers and crackheads who choose to have sex and get pregnant.
Welfare come out of OUR money and given to lazy drug addicts to help support their habit.
Fact: Both take money out of our country and our people.
Look at all the lazy asses who need healthcare. 99.9% of them are stupid bums who can't get off their ass and work.....
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
(cont'd). They may get the insurance at a reduced price due to a group plan, but sometimes that is still too expensive, therefore they decline it and even though they are working, do not have health insurance. Also, studies have shown that the nationalized healthcare you can find in other countries actually costs less than our system today.
technicschic 2 years ago
I don't know where my previous comment disappeared to, so I will try retyping - "Abortion facilities" are private and therefore do not take "our money". Welfare reform was pushed through by Clinton, creating work for pay programs, and has nothing to do with giving money to drug addicts. There are many who work but do not get health insurance as a benefit, they still have to purchase a plan - which can be too expensive for them. You obviously have mental health issues,
technicschic 2 years ago 4
Nationalized healthcare would cause lazyasses who cannot pay for health insurance to have the ability to go into any doctors office and be treated- for free. It costs money for the hospitals to pay for these people, thats why they charge us whenever we see the doctor. Cancer treatment is a ton of money for doctors offices, and these lazy bums will get it for free. And maybe if the people who cant afford healthcare stopped smoking crack, maybe they will be able to afford it.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Uhm - you are freaking CRAZY -the cost is not going to be on the hospital, since the hospital will have its cost defrayed by the government - instead of having to FIGHT the insurance companies - THAT is why "they charge us" whenever we see the doctor - because of the insurance companies, you freakjob. Did you just NOT read what I typed, you freak of nature? People who WORK (not smoking crack - perhaps YOU have done too much of that) still cannot afford medical treatment.
technicschic 2 years ago
The government has no money. How will they be able to pay for it. Spontaneously?
"freak of nature"- Better than a liberal wimp. And I am only preventing the most idiotic thing Anerica could ever do, so call me whatever you want.
And people who work can afford health insurance. They have paychecks for a reason smart one. Healthcare is the number 2 priority behind food, and if they can't afford that while working at the same time, then theyy are just liars- simple.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Obama has already set aside a "down payment" towards the health care fix, getting out of Iraq will save billions, he will increase taxes on the top 5% slightly, and once the economy gets going again, that will help move us forward again. Their paychecks aren't always enough to cover rent, food, other items AND thousands in healthcare costs. Just because you believe that a paycheck magically takes care of everything doesn't mean it's true.
technicschic 2 years ago
We still have war in Afghanistan, which contributes to a lot of the 600 billion you said earlier. And the governmet would still be in debt, regardless of the Iraq War. And you said they need to pay for other items. Like what? What other items would be more important thaan healthcare.
We have no money, so Obama starting a downpayment (which is BS, he never did), would be coming out of our money
Fact: Every single thing that the government spends on comes out of our paycheck. Simple.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
"the government would still be in debt, regardless of the Iraq War". Funny how Clinton left Bush a budget surplus, and Bush continued to run deficit after deficit after that - yet the government would still be in debt? When you live in NY, rent and food can eat up your paycheck real quick - might also need to buy a few clothes so that you are not walking around in torn rags. Not every paycheck is going to cover everything - don't know why you can't understand something so simple.
technicschic 2 years ago
Forget clothes. Healthcare is far more important than clothes. Working at McDonalds can get you a healthcare check. Joining the army can earn you a healthcare check. You can have just about any job and earn enough to afford healthcare.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
lol - please do tell me how someone making $5/hour can afford hundreds (if not over a thousand) in rent, god knows how much in food, car payments (or public transportation), etc. Clothes aren't important? You walk around in clothes with huge tears in them? LIke I said, just food and rent can eat up your paycheck.
technicschic 2 years ago
1. Minimum wage is $8.50 an hour.
2. If you work 12 hours a day at minimum wage, you make $102 a day. Work 6 days a week, you make $612 a week. There are four weeks in a month, sp thats $2448 a month.
You could move in with a friend to save the rent issue.
Food is about $1000 a month.
And public transportation is about $600.
That leaves enough for healthcare.
Like I said, healthcare is the most important responsibility to have. I've got my own healthcare to pay for.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Bahaha - even with your inflated bs, it STILL doesn't make it. First of all, exactly how many people are working 72 hours a week, which is what you claim they would do? I'm talking about the normal, 40-hour work-week - say you make $10/hour, that would be $400 a week, $1,600 a month, not enough under your rubric even if you have ZERO rent. And again, how many live free with their friends? Renting a room in an apartment - $800/month - one bedroom apt would be over $1,000.
technicschic 2 years ago
If it was to pay healthcare, I would do it.
But then again, I graduated high school, and made it through college, so what do I have to worry about.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
So say you DO work 72 hours a week and make 2448 a month - your rent would be at least $800, food $1,000, public transportation $600 - still wouldn't be enough. Get rid of public transport and how would you get to work?
technicschic 2 years ago
Walking, bycicle, a friend, jogging, theres plenty.
And by the way, they could join the military, which provides healthcare, food, shelter, and space. And that is a job that never stops hiring.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
90% of the people in need of welfare are drug addicts, so it is the same thing.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Prove that statistic.
technicschic 2 years ago
And doctors get paid by people who can pay for healthcare. It will increase our taxes by 50%. Not only that, how do you think the hardworking doctors feel who spend 8 years in school and want to get paid for their works will now work for a free clinic and anyone who walks in can be treated. Fact: If any person got off their ass and worked, then they should be able to afford healthcare.
BTW: Why don't YOU tell me where you got the fact that the Iraq war costs trillions.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Wow, you spout some pretty silly crap.
Is your brain directly plugged into Fox News?
DrakeMagnum 2 years ago 2
Give up, you're not witty or funny. OOHOHOH LOOK HE DISAGREES WITH ME OR MAKES A VALID POINT THEREFORE HE WATCHES FOX NEWS. Partisan hacks, left or right, form of debate. I'm sure we should all tune into MSNBC or some other partisan hack network.
RessurectedPenguin 2 years ago
Fox is the only network that is not liberal biased, and you complain about it .
CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are far more biased than Fox, and are filled with lies and liberal scum on their network. Liberals think they are going to bring down terrorism, but they can't even face Fox News. How sad.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
First of all, doctors get paid by the insurance companies, and they have to FIGHT the insurance companies right now to get money. With nationalized healthcare, they woudn't have to fight anyone, and also they would NOT be forced to work in a free clinic - they will get their salaries (doctors in England do pretty well) and not have to fight the insurance companies for every claim. Check out National Priorities Project - real time cost of the Iraq War - in the 600 billion range
technicschic 2 years ago
There are 45.7 million people in America who don't have healthcare. Say the average person pays $5000 for healthcare per year. Do the math, that is $237.5 billion per year we will be spending for these people. We have payed roughly 600 billion, you say, for the Iraq war. Okay, so we have payed about 100 billion per year for the Iraq war.
Yeah your right, its not 3 times the amount of the Iraq War, but who am I kidding. 2.375 times the amount of the Iraq war isn't a lot, right.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
First of all, people are allowed to continue on with their plans, therefore it is not necessarily a fact that every single American is going to be on the government plan. Thirdly, you have no basis for claiming that the cost, under the government plan, will be $5,000 a year for every single person.
technicschic 2 years ago
It can be even more than that. And your job includes healthcare, so they pay for the healthcare. You think that there is no money involved if your job pays for healthcare, don't you?
You are pathetic. Change your age from 29 to 12, and maybe people will actually understand why you act the way you do.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
"your job includes healthcare so they pay for the healthcare" = in fact, there are many jobs that DON'T offer it is a benefit - i.e. they will NOT pay for it for you - you COULD buy into a group plan at a reduced price through your employer, but many decline this option because it is too expensive even at the reduced price, and end up going without healthcare. There was just an article the other day on young 20-somethings not getting healthcare through their WORK.
technicschic 2 years ago
(Cont'd) Finally, I never said the cost of the war was in the trillions, YOU said that it was a third the cost of healthcare, which is complete bs - I provided my statistics, now you provide yours that it is a third the cost of healthcare - by the way, some DO say that the cost could easily rise into the trillions, as the cost is over $300 million a day. Finally, you freak of nature, Obvious Troll is obvious, so go play somewhere else.
technicschic 2 years ago
"Who was spending trillions in Iraq while keeping the cost off the books? That's right - Bush. Shall I continue"- You are a pathetic liar. I don't even have to try to proove this one. But then again, all you left-wing idiots are the same.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
I apologize - I had gone back to try and look at my comment and misread it - wasn't trying to "lie". In any case, my point stands that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war while our country is crumbling around us, while Obama is spending in order to try and alievate some of the harm that Bush has caused through his policies.
technicschic 2 years ago
The war was necessary. Better than another 9/11. Saddam was evil, and he needed to be stopped.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
There was no immediate threat, and in fact it is now a perfect recruiting tool. Better than another 9/11? There is no indication that another 9/11 would have occurred if we had not invaded Iraq, since there is no link between Saddam and 9/11.
technicschic 2 years ago
Iraq had several thousand Al Quida members/supporters in Iraq. A lot of them fled before we invaded.
And it doesn't matter if there were ties to 9/11 or not. Fact is, Iraq had been threatening us, so we went to war. And several people supported the war when we invaded, and I find it funny how that has changed from people watching CNN
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Please provide evidence that Al Qaida was a force in Iraq prior to the invasion - fact of the matter is that Saddam was a secular ruler - and Osama didn't like that. How exactly was Iraq threatening us? Oh yeah, and the only reason people suppoted the war was because of the false yellow-cake and WMD allegations - once people found out that there were no WMDs, and Bush started JOKING about not being able to find them, THAT is when they stopped supporting the war.
technicschic 2 years ago
Why do you keep telling me to provide evidence when you have contributed nothing to your cause.
And there are members of Al Qaida in Iraq, just like any other middle eastern country. You think that members of Al Qaida just avoided Iraq, even though there are members all around it, and that it is smack dab in the middle of the middle east. That just takes common sense to answer. But then again, liberals have none so that doesn't surprise me.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
I keep asking you to provide evidence because you keep throwing bs out there, bs that has been disproven several times over. Yes, there ARE (currently) members of Al Qaida, but Al Qaid was NOT a FORCE in Iraq prior to the invasion. You think Saddam, with his iron fist, would have let them have major influence in his country?
technicschic 2 years ago
Yeah, just like Obama starting a downpayment is BS as well.
And Saddam was worse than any Al Qaida member out there. He was worse than Osama. He was interfering with Kuwait, where we get our oil as well. And it is you liberals that insist we buy there in the first place. We could drill in Alaska, which would solve that problem, but no, you liberals don't want to drill.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Actually, the recent budget actually had a set-aside for health care. Lol we liberals insist we buy there? Are you NUTS? We're the ones who are looking to get OFF of oil, so we won't have to depend on foreign imports. You really think that drilling in Alaska can provide for ALL of our domestic requirements? Lol, max it will give us is 6 months to one year's worth of oil. In addition, that oil will go into the global market, not domestically
technicschic 2 years ago
We will never find an alternative source of fuel, so give up. Thats never going to happen.
And you do not know how much oil Alaska has, so you cannot just say it will be 6 months to 1 year. And when you don't want us to drill, there is only one other option, and that is to buy in the Middle East.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Uhm - ever heard of the electric car? WInd, solar, hydro are all waiting to get a boost - the technology is there, the money and the will isn't. I have a friend who is able to live mostly off-grid with the solar panels in his roof. Might be more than 1 year, but not much - Department of Energy stats: Oil consumption - 21 million barrels a day, Artic National Wildlfe Refuge estimate (where they want to drill) estimates - 16 billion barrels - comes to 2 years worth.
technicschic 2 years ago
(cont'd) and that is just the raw material - then you have to go into refining, etc - might lose some of the oil along the way, get less out of it. Also, I wasn't just typing about alternative energy - was also typing about it in COMBINATION with energy efficiency, which can go a LONG way.
technicschic 2 years ago
As if everyone in America is going to buy a new electric car so they can drive for one day. That will increase the electric bill tremendously. That doesn't lower the price of anything.
And solar panels are junk. My friend has them too, and they are nothing but crap. And an estimate isn't always correct. They do not know how much is in there. And by the way, wildlife groups lie so they can support their habitat. Look at PETA, Green Peace, Al Gore, etc.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
Drive for one day? Wtf are you typing about? That would be their normal car. You wouldn't have to plug it in at home and increase your electric bill, you could potentially plug it in at various stations, where it would be easier to charge up. Anyway, you're basically saying that the Department of Energy is pulling this information out of their ass? Don't you think it's in their interest to accurately assess the amount of oil they have left?
technicschic 2 years ago
The electric fuel would not last nearly as long as the gas fuel. I used to live in San Francisco, and those electric buses ran out of electricity constantly. They run out of energy in about 5 hours. By the way, do you know how long it would take to charge them. One bus is about 8 hours. NOBODY is going to want to spend 8 hours charging their car at a random station. And whos going to pay for all those stations to be set up. Oh yeah- us.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
hmm - funny - I used to live in Cali (not SF), and never heard of any problems with buses. You don't even explain where you got this info from. Oh yeah, and fueling up a bus is not the same as fueling up a small car. Finally, you know who has been able to have ethanol stations set up everywhere? Brazil - and they're doing well with them there. If Brazil can set up alternative fuel stations, creating jobs in the process, so can we.
technicschic 2 years ago
1. California is the only city in California that I know of with electric buses.
2. I asked on of the drivers of the buses about it several years ago, and he told me all the info I said in my previous comment.
3. Ethanol is corn oil, which causes food prices to go up. And Brazil is not doing fine with their economy either. No country is.
4. It takes me over 2 hours to charge my phone. Think about how long it would take to charge a car.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
1. You mean SF is the only city in CA with electric buses - anyway, I wasn't say that it wasn't the only city - just didn't want to get into where I lived - just saying I lived close enough to where I would know if it was in the news if there were major problems with SF buses
2. Hearsay is not a reliable source
3. Brazil uses sugarcane ethanol, which doesn't affect food prices like corn does and actually has a more efficient production. Also, I was typing about prior to this crisis.
technicschic 2 years ago
(cont'd) Oh yeah, and Brazil was doing so well prior to the global economic crisis that they not only were able to grow enough sugarcane to meet their domestic ethanol demands but they were also able to export their ethanol to many countries, including the US.
technicschic 2 years ago
1. I lived in the city itself for 5 years. I think I would know. I have lived in several ci
2. It's not? That is the best source because they are the people who actually work with the buses. What better source is there?
3. Your rught about that, but sugar affects food prices as well. And like I said, not everybody in America is going to throw their car in the dump to buy an electric car. They wouldn't be able to sell it, because nobody would use it.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
1. See my answer below regarding hearsay - you don't have any real sources
2. Do you even know what hearsay is or what it means? Hearsay evidence is not allowed in court because it is inherently unreliable
3. You didn't even know Brazil used sugarcane ethanol, now you're going to change the subject - real nice. Also, you could make an argument that almost anything would affect food prices in some way - that is not the point
technicschic 2 years ago
1/2. Come on. You go to San Francisco and ask the bus drivers. Any random one. They will tell you the same thing I did.
3. Obviously it is. I am talking about money, and the fact that our cars do not have the ability to switch to ethanol, regardless of what it is made of. And by the way, all ethanol uses food in some sort of way. And that will cause our high food prices to go even higher, which is what you liberals blame Bush for constantly.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
(cont'd)
4. Your phone's battery is a piece of crap compared to the batteries that would be in those cars. Also, the stations would be able to provide more power than your everyday outlet, thereby charging the batteries quicker.
technicschic 2 years ago
4. The batteries in those cars would charge slower if they had more power in them. And not only that, but it would not take as quickly to charge an electric car as it would a gas car. Thats just common sense.
ILOVELIFE3113 2 years ago
The MONEY is there?? NO international funding organisation could come up with that money. I exaggerete ofc, but wind power ios super expensive. The future is NUCLEUR. don't even talk to me about chenobl (however you spell it) because I know exactly what went wrong with it, and I know that is is impossible with todays technology. The beaty of modern reactors is that they need nothing to keep them safe, if some bad shit happens, they close down themselves, not by complicated switches, by gravity.
MysticWhizz 2 years ago
I said the money isn't (currently) there, the technology is. If we had subsidy programs for alternative programs instead of oil, they would be less expensive I'm not saying that nuclear power is off the table.
technicschic 2 years ago
Ahh ok, sorry I misread it a bit there. All these renewable sources will take a very long time to get going perfectly (except for hydroelectric and tidal, which are amazing), in the meantime we need to use Nuclear. if we say that Nuclear is the right way to go, then the others are the wrong way to go.
MysticWhizz 2 years ago
(cont'd) Combo of alternative energy and efficiency will lower demand of oil enough so that we will not need to import any of our oil from the Middle East.
technicschic 2 years ago
What's wrong with the war? Fuck I wish people like you were the ones getting your shit blown up.
monsterbater 2 years ago
so many videos now.. lol
fcirc 2 years ago
Man, the far right in this country is in deep shit.
zzzxxyy 2 years ago
lol
MsKay718 2 years ago
YoungTurks - no disrespect, but ... when are you going to GET it?
The Republicans have failed. The Democrats have failed. They ALL have failed and are directly responsible for the mess we are in now....half of them have been in office for decades. Stop this Republicrat nonsense and kick them ALL OUT.
cv1122 2 years ago
Palin/Bunning 2012!
KataVideo 2 years ago
As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.
-Karl Rove
Nimb88 2 years ago
let the repubs eat themselves alive.......they are their worst enemy.
remember the old quote, "theres no honor amongst theives"
crowdaddy13 2 years ago 4
The best way to achieve success is to watch your opponent self implode.
ekbrogan 2 years ago 3
Man Utd 2-0 Inter Milan
hahahahha
WKaliber1 2 years ago
FUTBOL!!!!
GreenGoody 2 years ago
Go Man United, your next Liverpool Scousers!
redmustang03 2 years ago 2
As long as there is moderate economic improvement by 2012, Obama will be reelected.
Cheshirecatmeow1 2 years ago 8