Sarah Palin's death panel a reality

Ariz. Budget Cuts Put Organ Transplants At Risk : NPRFirst Death Panel Comes to Arizona – Man Dies | BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!http://www.scienceprogress.org/...11/death-panels-in-arizonaLike I said many times before, morally superior my ass.

Good old Conservatives.Always targetting the poor.

If they would target the Rich they would target themselves.

But the majority of conservatives aren't rich. The sad thing is they actually believe they have the moral high ground. So, they needed to cut some of their budget. Instead of stop giving tax breaks to the richest members of our society, they decide to cut off life support for the poorest members of our society.The question is doesn't the bible have something to say about this? Or is it more convenient to ignore the bible in this case?

You guys are taking most of this out of context, and applying broad generalizations about a whole group of people.Frako: The Conservatives are not the rich in the United States, your nation may be different

But the rich are mostly conservative. Are you saying the poor or middle class are the conservative in the US?If so please back up with evidence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

if you are saying the contrary please back it up with evidence, otherwise you are full of shit.

Commentary | Pew Research Center

Income in $K	Rep%	Dem%
<20	18	43
20-30	24	37
30-50	30	34
50-75	35	29
75+	39	28

This was found in about 8 seconds and I haven't performed any in depth analysis but it seems that the trend is that the richer you are the more inclined you are towards Republicans and away from Dems. I think this is the kind of thing being said by frako etc.

No we dont have conservatives we have incompatents, greedy incompatents, Incompatents with a nother party name, incompatents for the retired, incompatents for the youth and so one but i guess you can see the pitcure.We have a party syistem where each party gets votes from the people and the % of the votes they got gets them the number of seats, then a few build a coalition to get the majorety they then elect the "prime minister" who builds a rulership he negotiates wit the other parties in the coalition who gets a minister chair. Then the list of ministers goes to a vote if at least 46 of the 90 in the National Assembly approve they can start working on making the country worse.The president is the only one voted directly by the people though when you vote for a party you know (you get a list) who they have in mind for the chairs in the assembly.Usualy the 2 bigest paries get from 25-35% of the votes the rest is divided on smaller parties to 2,5% the smallest number needed to get a chair. Interestingly only the leader of one of the smaller parties who gets from 5-10% has always held a chair from the birth of slovenija in 25.6.1991And you cannot truly divide them in to conservative parties and others because they are all mixed up. Sometimes we use the frase Comunists and democrats though the term communists does not apply because they are not communists at all not even close at least not the kind of communism we had in yugoslavia definitivly not something like the ones they had in russia or china or anything close.So back on topicIn our form of "communism" witch was more socialism this kind of thing would not happen even to a bum (if you could find one), one of the first places the money went to was health care.This is what i hate about the capitalistic syistem the goverment always looks out for the mayor players and companies and the people are only on their mind when election year comes. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

You still don't get how this works do you?
When you make an unevidenced assertion someone is going to call you on it. I called you on it.As is typical you refuse to back your assertions and respond with attacks and profanity.Again I will ask

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Some additional data: Richer Americans are Democrats

It depends what one means by "rich". For example, according to the New York Times exit poll, in the last Presidential election Obama got (the majority of) the votes of people earning less than $50,000 a year or more than $200,000 a year, with McCain getting (the majority of) the votes of the people in between.We seem to have wandered somewhat from the topic.

That data is very tenuous at best. In order for this to be a sound argument, you would have to equate all democrats as liberals and all republicans as conservatives. This is a faux news meme that seems to have gained significant traction.Barack Obama is no liberal he is a moderate.Lets look at the first blurb. No mention at all about liberal or conservative. Coming from the Heritage foundation, I would want to look at the raw data. There is a definite conservative spin to everything they do. They will acknowledge that because that is the purpose of their existence.The second blurb is from Thomas Sowell a noted libertarian. His remarks and interpretation of data has been highly critcized in the past. Again, I would want to see the raw data before I believe anything that comes out of his mouth. Criticism of Sowell

quote:

---

Many of Sowell's remarks have been criticized by liberal-progressive groups such as Media Matters.[57] These include Sowell's claims that Obama's speech to students is similar to the "Hitler Youth" [58] and that the Democratic party uses race baiting and that this could lead to Rwanda-like "slaughters".[59]

​

The work of many economists such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and University of California, Berkeley professor and former International Monetary Fund adviser Barry Eichengreen often contradict Sowell's claims of government interference in issues such as price gouging [60] and protectionism [61] (respectively). In addition, some studies claim that welfare systems often reduce poverty,[62][63] contrary to Sowell's claim that welfare generates poverty. (see Welfare's effect on poverty)

​

Furthermore, while Sowell is critical of the use of household or family income as methodologically flawed in "The Vision of the Anointed" and "Economic Facts and Fallacies", he uses such data in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" to demonstrate that black families had declined from being 87% below the poverty line in 1940 to 47% below the poverty line in 1960 as part of his argument that the black community was climbing out of poverty before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty.

---

None of this answers my question. I guess no one is getting what I am trying to point out. Our society is much more complex than Artie is trying to make it out to be. Blanket statements like his do not reflect reality and do nothing to move along the political discourse

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I'm off-topic so I won't pursue this but . . .A moderate? I usually agree with your excellent posts Theo, but I think your stretching the definition of moderate here.Obama is following the George Bush Jr. playbook, and Bush Jr. is NOT a moderate:1. Expanding wars. There's STILL a 8-10 PERMANENT US military bases in Iraq that aren't going anywhere. There's STILL 50,000 US "counter-terrorist" (combat) troops in Iraq. There's another 100,000 mercenary troops employed by the US in Iraq. The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world, the size of the vatican, and is not going anywhere. US involvement in Iraq is far from over. And like Afghanistan, the US government/military is looking for "legal' ways to extend our presence there past the "expiration date".2. EXPANDING military budget.2. Back door deals with pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and removal of public option, shows, if anything, Obama is more fascist, than "moderate".3. BillionS dollar bail-out for wallstreet. Again more fascist than moderate.4. Continues Bush policy of torture and extraordinary rendition against majority of US and world opinion.5. Further removal of human rights/liberties. The naked airport x-rays and the man-handling of CHILDREN by security goons at airports takes the cake. What a cowardly bunch of people Americans have become. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their grave to know their experiment in democracy, government controlled BY THE PEOPLE, failed so spectacularly.

Haha there is no such thing, it is elected by the people yes though not controlled.Sure you cen demmand erly elections to form a new goverment though the new one would still not be controlled. They would only do more work to hide the bad stuff they want to do from you.Like a new law for the public state owned tv channel (we have private channels too lol ) in slovenija the law is exactly the same as the old one only one line is different employies on that network are not public employies witch would not make them apply to the rule of wages for public employies and allowe them to set their wage as high as they like.They have hidden this in a verry simple way the law is 6 pages of booring dull text mostly covered by other laws and somewhere in the middle a 6 word sentance changes the status of the employies.The only way a true goverment controlled by the people would work is by some on line form of referendums, the goverment makes a decision it is posted on line and anyone can say yes or no to that decision. And anyone can poste a sugestion of a law owr wat to do and it alyo can get voted on.