A Civil Political Discussion, If this is Against the Rules, Apologies

Okay, I'm not sure whether it's the political debate itself that's against the rules, or the potential flame war resulting from it. So I'm sorry, Lying, if it's the former.

This is meant to be a friendly examination of all sides of politics. I'll focus on America, because I'm American, but talks about other areas are welcome. I'm interested to see how one side feels about the other. So a few questions I have, to anybody interested in answering:
The oil spill. Are you among those who say Obama is to blame, or do you rest the blame on other shoulders?
The Bush presidency. Sure, it's old, but we still feel its effects today. What are your feelings about the fraudulent 2001 election? The two wars?
Climate Change. Enough said. Hoax? Manmade? Evil scheme of the Greens' to hurt the economy? :P

Again, if this is against the rules I'll immediately delete it. And if it gets out of hand I'll immediately stop, without even a parting shot.

The rule section only tell us about signature length so I'm guessing Lying won't mind political discussion :)

Hmm, I really know nothing about Bush or any oil spills but I do blame humanity for the Climate Change.

Politics are not really my area of expertise :P

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

Controversial?

I'd say the American Health-care but I'm probably wrong...

It's just, you have to pay!? That makes no sense!

Also I'm not sure it counts as political :P

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

Controversial?

I'd say the American Health-care but I'm probably wrong...

It's just, you have to pay!? That makes no sense!

Also I'm not sure it counts as political :P

Oh, trust me it does.

the idea is, it's like Auto insurance. If you go to the Emergency Room, but don't have the money to pay, people lose money. Likewise, if you ding up somebody's car, and can't pay them, they just lost money.

Personally, it's the one thing on the Reform bill I'm not sure of. I like the other stuff, though. Like how the companies can't deny you based on pre-existing conditions.

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

Controversial?

I'd say the American Health-care but I'm probably wrong...

It's just, you have to pay!? That makes no sense!

Also I'm not sure it counts as political :P

Oh, trust me it does.

the idea is, it's like Auto insurance. If you go to the Emergency Room, but don't have the money to pay, people lose money. Likewise, if you ding up somebody's car, and can't pay them, they just lost money.

Personally, it's the one thing on the Reform bill I'm not sure of. I like the other stuff, though. Like how the companies can't deny you based on pre-existing conditions.

I see what you mean. My problem, however, is that money is at all considered when lives are at stake.

Maybe it's because Denmark has free health care (and free Universities, free money for the unemployed, free-you get the idea) but it just sounds... evil to demand money from people who were run down by a car and who might not even be able to keep their homes because you just took what little they have.

No harm meant, just my viewpoint :)
Feel free to laugh at it :P

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

Controversial?

I'd say the American Health-care but I'm probably wrong...

It's just, you have to pay!? That makes no sense!

Also I'm not sure it counts as political :P

Oh, trust me it does.

the idea is, it's like Auto insurance. If you go to the Emergency Room, but don't have the money to pay, people lose money. Likewise, if you ding up somebody's car, and can't pay them, they just lost money.

Personally, it's the one thing on the Reform bill I'm not sure of. I like the other stuff, though. Like how the companies can't deny you based on pre-existing conditions.

I see what you mean. My problem, however, is that money is at all considered when lives are at stake.

Maybe it's because Denmark has free health care (and free Universities, free money for the unemployed, free-you get the idea) but it just sounds... evil to demand money from people who were run down by a car and who might not even be able to keep their homes because you just took what little they have.

No harm meant, just my viewpoint :)
Feel free to laugh at it :P

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. You're criticizing the fact that you have to pay, not that it'll be mandatory.

Yeah, there was a Single-Payer system which Obama gave up on behind closed doors at the beginning of the debate. Certain other issues, like the 'socialism' name-calling, scared Democrats away from the Public Option. So we didn't really accomplish anything besides a few regulations.

The fact is, I'm not antagonizing either party, but the Republicans act strong. The Democrats tend to act cowardly. So in this debate, the Democrats kept compromising, and the Republicans kept refusing. The lefters lack the guts to act 'partisan', which is also how Guantanomo was 'forgiven' and how Bush sent us to Iraq. Meanwhile, the Republicans always have the guts to get it done. It's why the Republicans usually win elections, unless their candidate makes SUCH a mess of things (like Bush Junior).

They aren't for most people. However, I was exposed to a lot of political content at an early age, so all it takes to set me off on a five-hour rant is to mention something controversial.

Controversial?

I'd say the American Health-care but I'm probably wrong...

It's just, you have to pay!? That makes no sense!

Also I'm not sure it counts as political :P

Oh, trust me it does.

the idea is, it's like Auto insurance. If you go to the Emergency Room, but don't have the money to pay, people lose money. Likewise, if you ding up somebody's car, and can't pay them, they just lost money.

Personally, it's the one thing on the Reform bill I'm not sure of. I like the other stuff, though. Like how the companies can't deny you based on pre-existing conditions.

I see what you mean. My problem, however, is that money is at all considered when lives are at stake.

Maybe it's because Denmark has free health care (and free Universities, free money for the unemployed, free-you get the idea) but it just sounds... evil to demand money from people who were run down by a car and who might not even be able to keep their homes because you just took what little they have.

No harm meant, just my viewpoint :)
Feel free to laugh at it :P

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. You're criticizing the fact that you have to pay, not that it'll be mandatory.

Yeah, there was a Single-Payer system which Obama gave up on behind closed doors at the beginning of the debate. Certain other issues, like the 'socialism' name-calling, scared Democrats away from the Public Option. So we didn't really accomplish anything besides a few regulations.

The fact is, I'm not antagonizing either party, but the Republicans act strong. The Democrats tend to act cowardly. So in this debate, the Democrats kept compromising, and the Republicans kept refusing. The lefters lack the guts to act 'partisan', which is also how Guantanomo was 'forgiven' and how Bush sent us to Iraq. Meanwhile, the Republicans always have the guts to get it done. It's why the Republicans usually win elections, unless their candidate makes SUCH a mess of things (like Bush Junior).

A~Nd it's right about here that I lose track. I don't even know the anthropomorphised personalities of Denmark's political parties (may be related to there being about ten to twenty of them) let alone the US' :blink:

I do want to say something meaningful however, so I will: :P

Is it just me or are the politicians of America trapped in the Cold War? Over here we have both communist and Socialist parties but I hear so much about legal changes being called socialist (as if that was bad) in the United States of America's middle piece of land.

Feel free to laugh and inform me about the conspiracy that I missed while scratching my ear :P

Officially, the Cold War is over and we won. And it was about communism, by the way, not socialism.

But yeah, Socialism and Fascism apparently frighten a lot of people. Lately, I've been seeing extremist right-wingers like Sarah Palin (shudder)dodge the facts a lot to make somebody look bad.

There was this one idea a Democrat had. A doctor should be required to discuss end-of-life options with critically ill patients. Sarah Palin came up with 'Death Panels'. A bunch of scary government men deciding whether poor old granny had to go.

Google 'death panels'. The first two answers are reasonable articles about the myth. The three after that...
:blink:

I know, I'm just commenting about people using communism and socialism (which communism is a version of) as if they were the worst things imaginable ;)

Don't know who that is but that sure do sound bad.

No man* should get to choose whether another man lives or dies, that is solely for that man themself. IE: I don't like the idea of death panels, or death punishment for that matter.

I got mostly results about Bill Gates, is he trying to kill me! :blink: :P

*Using the gender-neutral archaic meaning of the word.

I know, I'm just commenting about people using communism and socialism (which communism is a version of) as if they were the worst things imaginable ;)

Don't know who that is but that sure do sound bad.

No man* should get to choose whether another man lives or dies, that is solely for that man themself. IE: I don't like the idea of death panels, or death punishment for that matter.

I got mostly results about Bill Gates, is he trying to kill me! :blink: :P

*Using the gender-neutral archaic meaning of the word.

Sorry, again I was unclear. There are no death panels. The end-of-life options was just the doctor being required to make all option clear to the subject, including ones that would result in a, some say, more peaceful death than what is otherwise likely. Sarah Palin, our resident crazy extremist, told her Facebook followers that these were 'death panels', and this whole thing came about. It's all slander.

I know, I'm just commenting about people using communism and socialism (which communism is a version of) as if they were the worst things imaginable ;)

Don't know who that is but that sure do sound bad.

No man* should get to choose whether another man lives or dies, that is solely for that man themself. IE: I don't like the idea of death panels, or death punishment for that matter.

I got mostly results about Bill Gates, is he trying to kill me! :blink: :P

*Using the gender-neutral archaic meaning of the word.

Sorry, again I was unclear. There are no death panels. The end-of-life options was just the doctor being required to make all option clear to the subject, including ones that would result in a, some say, more peaceful death than what is otherwise likely. Sarah Palin, our resident crazy extremist, told her Facebook followers that these were 'death panels', and this whole thing came about. It's all slander.

It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel :P

Still not a good thing to do, sounds like she had something against those who made the idea.

So... Any important political topics that are me completely unknown? :P