http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid...amp;id=65201211

I hope this brings a reaction to all that view it. While you may not agree with the war, you don't burn our troops in effigy. This is disgusting and a moral outrage.

This is the extreme left taking over the Democratic party.

WTF does this rally have to do with the Democratic party, or "Democrates"?

Sure, this out-of-context photo is bad. These idiots have the freedom to do this, just as the idiots in the KKK can have a rally. Note that they also won't show their faces, which says to me that it's just as possible that these guys are plants by the opposition to make a peaceful rally look bad -- and I have seen this happen before. But does the rest of what's going on there strike you as un-American? American flags waving -- not burning, people gathering peacefully, speaking their minds, sharing ideas? They may not be the ideas you agree with, and they may not even be that well thought-out. I don't know. I wasn't there. But if you look at all those photos, that's America in practice, in its ugliness and at its best all at once.

you're hilarious.

Tell me, is that somehow different than the perceptions from the partisan apologists from the other side saying "the radikal (sic) Religious Right" has taken over the Republican Party?

"Political Fear Mongering! Catch it!"

Funny how people on the Left FREAK THE TOTAL !@#$ OUT that Tom Dobson is involved in GOP causes, or that the Right courts the Christian base, but when you point out the freak factor that THEY embrace or sweep under the rug, they get all defensive.

Its like bitching about the garbage you noticed in your neighbors yard while taking a piss off your balcony.

When you woke up this morning, did you eat a bowl full of paint chips? Thats the only reason to explain this post.

Okay, this IS a fringe element...even I can admit that, but the concept of the extrmee left taking over the Democratic Party is pretty well-documented.

Then who runs the GOP, if not Focus on the Family?

and the extreme right is taking over the GOP, so whats your point?

link? biblography?

what is the political platform of the extreme left? is it constitutional?

because for argument sake, infusing church and politics IS NOT.

and just to be a smartasss- burning the flag IS constitutional....

Your answer to me pointing out that its not insane to make the assertion that the fringe is becoming the mainstream (regardless of party) is to say "but they do it to?"

Nice spin....and partisanship, AS USUAL.

what are you basing this on!? where is the extreme left (socialism) apparent in MAINSTREAM politics?????

Thought youd NEVER ask:

Micheal Moore was the guest of honor at the DNC Convention

John Edwards hires two extreme left bloggers and supports them. The same Edwards bows out of a Fox debate and then crows about it...on "Daily Kos"?.

"Celebrity" members of the left like Jessie Jackson and other rub elbows with hard core socialists like Hugo Chavez.

Moveon.org claim they now "own the Democratic Party."

The entire Democratic Party bails on Joe Lieberman and supports Ned Lamont.

Two words: HOWARD DEAN

National Health Care for all, funded by taxpayer dollars is NOT a form of socialism?

Look...Ill even back it down a bit.....the fringe element is CREEPING IN to the mainstream.

Better?

Ralph Reed never gave a speech at an RNC convention.

RNC never uses Newsmax to deliver "news."

James Dobson has absolutely no say at the GOP.

Shall we go on?

no, i wasnt justifying anything you said about dems, merely pointing out that what you were screaming about is going on over there on your side as well. Frankly, as someone in the middle of the road, i really hate both parties more and more.

(Note: regarding the GOP, my problems arent necessarily with republicans so much as they are with bush)

"but they do it to"

Yeah...like.....no $$hit.

Who ever claimed "they DIDNT do it, too" ?

AGAIN...I KNOW THAT. I dont think I personally have EVER stated that "my" party has clean hands.

not a socialist...at least not one that adovcates socialism as a preferred method of governing



the bloggers = moderately relevant, but bloggers write for other blogger who share their opinions. blogs do not equal 6:00 evening news



Jessie Jackson- not a politician
Heads of state in Spain and Sweden (just to name two biggies) = socialist. We rub elbows with them all the time...



who cares?



because the Democratic Party has united against the war policy..?




????

Saying "they do it too" doesn't make your point any less shallow.

for the record the US is the only industrialized nation WITHOUT nationalized health care.

And how would you pay for it?

I'd rather my taxes guarntee me healthcare than support a war I don't agree with...

but that's just like my opinion, man

I said nothing of the war. Stay on the question. In what way would you tax All americans for your healthcare utopia?

Yet, a disproportionate advancement in medicine is coming from the US. Imagine that.

That's simply not true



that link should answer your question too...but if I really had the answer as to how to restructure the national AMERICAN health care system, I wouldn't be working in sales.

But yet you'd want a FREE health care system for all Americans regardless of any repercussions.
Stay in Sales.

Ya, health care will destroy us! That's silly. We can do it and it won't be the end of the world at all.

It would be helpful if you understand the difference between "medical advancements" and the WHO report on how healthcare funds are spent relative to public health.

Go away and play with your blocks...the adults are having a conversation.

What is really funny is the title of the photo gallery...PEACE RALLY.

Nothing more peaceful than burning effigies of people and their flags.

Works much better than hand holding and sing alongs

IM NOT SAYING "THEY DO IT, TOO."

YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy sh--........

OK, how would you propose it be done then?

I am? I was the one defending Brokes' post by introducing evidence that the left loves to throw James Dobson's name to prove right wing's domination of GOP?

How, exactly, is exercising freedom of speech a disgusting abusing of a First Amendment right?

jokes on you, pal because we were TALKING ABOUT HEALTHCARE not medical advancements.

whoa whoa whoa, I used the word nationalized. NOT FREE!

So essentially we BOTH misunderstood each other.

Carry on.......

<Voice of Don Adams>

It seems obvious to me that Republican agent provocateurs are burning flags and efigies at peace rallies to try to discredit the peaceniks and their Democratic croneys.

ARE REPUBLICANS PROUD OF THIS? How could they sink so low?




(yes I am joking..... I liked Get Smart as a kid)

Try again palie. I made a comment about medical advances in US, despite the lack of nationalized healthcare. You came back with a non sequitur.

You threw out a comment about about US being the only industrialized nation without nationalized healthcare. So, what is that supposed to mean? Are we supposed to guess that by nationalizing healthcare, Americans' health would be better in the aggregate? Will that wean people off high calorie foods?

You also said this "I'd rather my taxes guarntee me healthcare..."

You do realize that there are millions and millions of people that pay no taxes, right. That sure sounds like Free health care to me.

The number is over 40%, actually. More "free lunches" on the backs of the middle class.

Health care is really important, as long as you don't have to pay for it, all the while stuffing your face and not exercising. You know, because it's criminal not to treat people who won't spend a single minute taking care of themselves.

Peace, brotha, peace.

On page 1 of this thread, it was said that National Heath Service was a form of socialism. I said responded by implying that if that's the case, then most of the world is socialist. To which you said, yeah but our medical advancements are better. To which I indicated that the WHO ranks us 37 (behind at least 30 "socialists") I also posted that in response to skepticism over how it's paid for because the article mentioned we are getting very little for our dollar. I don't believe it was non-sequitur because I think it speaks to the over all quality of American health care. One has to believe that medical advancements contribute to that; but did the article directly address your claim? no.

Now if you want to talk about private funding for medical research I am all for that. this of course, would have to be monitored by the government to prevent some wack job from bank rolling science experiments in the name of medicine.

Would nationalized health care make American's healthier? that's an interesting question. may be. It depends on where the money goes. For example, you asked, "will it wean people off high calorie foods?" there's a possibility that yes, with better funding medical technicians with an expertise in nutrition might have greater influence over America's eating habits.

yeah I guess. you do realize that making money in this country and not paying taxes is...illegal? people like that get a lot more than health care for free.

could you please clarify everything you just said?

This is where your age is getting the best of you.

How many people stopped smoking 20 years ago, when their doctors said that smoking will kill them sooner than later? How many people will buy a diet book and put it on a shelf, instead of changing their lives to try to eat less and exercise more?

What didn't you understand?

40% of adults in this country pay little or no federal income tax. There is no debate.

A ridiculous percentage of Americans only care about their health (and their fat ass kids) when it comes to paying for it. They eat crap, don't exercise at all, then are apparently surprised when that leads to preventable (and expensive) diseases like Type II diabetes.

But really, I understand the solution of "All the compassion of the IRS, all the competence of the DMV", as if somehow "single payer" health care won't end up in a Walter Reed situation. Because I believe in dreams, too.

You don't actually understand the difference between "public health" and "universal health care", do you?

hahaha okay now I understand everything but the IRS, DMV and Walter Reed parts...

in regards to people who do and don't pay taxes: of that 40%, how many pay NO taxes and how many pay SMALL taxes? There's a big difference. Also, is that 40% of Americans or 40% of American adults? And does that 40% also include the retired and the unemployed..?

I only ask because it seems like a large and problematic figure for reasons beyond health care.

I mentioned neither, only nationalized, but do enlighten me please.