Quote:<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="boudreaumw" data-cid="489071" data-time="1431560891">

Propaganda? I think that's stretching it a bit but it's understandable to think that way when you already dislike the guy. It is however, the best case ever made for not allowing prayer in school and I didn't even have to say it myself.

Let's be honest, if a buncha white redneck kids in Kansas were singing "George Walker Bush, Mmmmm, Mmmmmm, Mmmmmm" the Left would be apoplectic.




I think an argument could be made that natural resources belong to the country by extension of the citizens and ought not belong to private industry to exploit and be the single recipient of the profits from them. Now I don't know that I would agree with that, I just think it's a bad example to use. In addition you specifically used taking land as your example of progressive policies being equal to brutal North Korea.

Your Progressive buddies DO make that argument. Their current implementation activities are limited to places like Scotland, India and the Philippines. But make no mistake, the American version is chomping at the bit for their turn.



This idea that it's a disaster is very divisive because republicans say it is and democrats say it is not. Both have different points that are both true and false. I personally know several people that have benefited in immense ways due to the ACA and I have not been impacted in a negative way at all. I also know people who's premiums went up are lost their plans that they liked that I would term garbage. I'm fairly negative on it since it did nothing to reign in the insurance companies and that's something I feel they are the real issue with the medical system in general.

Did you know that 39% of the policies selected on an Exchange have a minimum deductible of $6,000? Did you know that family expense for healthcare increased by 14% last year to almost $10,000 per family? The ACA is terrible law and an even worse industrial paradigm. All those people who became insured are spending their money on premiums and can't afford to use the insurance or get no benefit from it.



I still would like to hear the explanation for the conspiracy theory of how limiting or removing money from politics is targeting the GOP's ability to win elections in a way that does not effect all parties.

Because it won't be "removing money", it'll be "removing my opponent's revenue streams." Your "choosing to see it differently" is merely fooling yourself that your guys are different. They aren't.