Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Bush has my vote for 2 reasons

Kerry is also correct when he says his plan can "lower . . . premiums" for health insurance, though he fails to mention that most of the savings would result from shifting the expense to federal taxpayers. The heart of the Kerry plan would have the federal government pay health plans 75% of the cost of "catastrophic" medical bills -- roughly those over $50,000 a year for one patient -- in return for which the plans would agree to cut the premiums charged to workers by 10%. Thorpe estimates that Kerry's reinsurance plan alone would cost the government $257 billion over 10 years. Thorpe estimates the cost of the entire Kerry healthcare package at $653 billion over 10 years, even after subtracting estimated savings from such things as increased use of computerized medical claims and requirements for more aggressive "disease management" of such expensive ailments as congestive heart failure and diabetes.
From Fact Check.
Taxpayers pay so premiums get lowered?
No. Ill tell you my fucking plan- All these frivilous lawsuits cost doctoers insurance costs to go up- which costs more money and premiums rise.
And his running mate- Edwards- that fucker made his living chasing ambulances- hes one of the reasons healthcare costs are so high.
If there was a healthcare reform- it needs to start with the courts- not with taxes.Frivilous lawsuits raise insruance costs for doctoers malpractice- and the " man with the plan" john kerrys running mate is a fucking ambulance chaser
kthxbye

Sorry for the delayed response.

Not talking about Bosnia here, try to stay on subject. I said the WMD threat was the only legitmate reason to go to war. You're asking "legitmate according to whose opionion?" suggests that you don't think it was a legitmate reason to go to war or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

In case you forgot, Osama and Al Quada were the ones responseable for 9/11. They're the ones who attack the US, not the ones Saddam may have been funding. I don't want my fucking tax dollars going into taking out terrorists that were created due to another nation's war (ie. Russia's czech terror problem).
And I have yet to see on mainsteam news any proof Saddam's reigme were funding any terrorists at all. I think that pretty much scraps that reason.

You won't catch me voting to go to WAR and risk American lives and tax dollars over another nation's "civilian persecution" problem. UN can handle it. You say it's in our national interests... is that because of the oil? Honestly things were a lot better before the war with oil. Now we have a bunch of muslims and arabs trashing the oil pipelines and gas prices have skyrocketed since the war.
Either explain to me how it was in our "national best interest" or I'll just assume you're full of shit and just blindly following your party's propaganda.

One nation does not go to war with another nation and risk thousands more lives over Prisoners of War and "stolen property". That's ludicrous.
And I'm asking you now, have we even found any PoWs still in Iraq from the gulf war? I didn't think so. Another bullshit reason.

I'm sorry... what weapons? You mean the completely outdated weapons that the US army was able to overtake in Baghdad in less than month? Or the weapons of mass destruction that were never found?
And Iraq has no-fly zones just as every other fucking country in the world has no-fly zones.

Please.. it's pathetic watching you try and defend reasons that you and I both know had no shred of legitamacy in them. The WMD threat was the only legitmate reason to go to war. Did you ever think that maybe that's why Bush didn't let the weapon inspectors finish thier job? If they ended up not finding any WMDs we wouldn't have had any legitimate reason to go to war.

NT

#1. Like I said, according to whose opinion was WMD the only legitimate reason? Yours? That's pretty laughable.
#2. 9/11 was not the only terrorist attack in the world. Do you understand that the Global War on Terrorism is a global war on more than just Al Qaeda? I don;t hink you understand that. This is not just retaliation for 9/11 you moron.
#3. Like I said, the UN doesn't handle it. All you can come back with is, the UN can handle it? Duh?
#4. The POW's and stolen property were part of the cease-fire from 1991. This is not a new war, this is a resumption of hostilities. Yes, nations do go to war when one side breaks the terms of a cease-fire.
#5. "Iraq has no-fly zones just as every other fucking country in the world has no-fly zones". This made no sense. What other nations on Earth do you see whose airspace is restricted and patrolled by foreign nations? Who else did you see firing SAM's at our aircraft every day? Was that not an act of war? Was that not against the terms of the cease-fire? Yes, I think you know it was. How do you think he bought the SAM's? They are not cheap. How do you think he built his new palaces, they are not cheap either. You can thank France and Russia for those.
We didn;t let the inspectors stay longer because they were there for about 8 years already. What makes you think that after 8 years of playing bullshit games, they would be able to "finish" any time soon? It would be the same shit over and over again, Saddam laughing his ass off while he plays games with the inspectors.
Where were you for the last 13 years? What makes you think these inspections would do any better than before?
Moron. If it were up to people like you, Saddam would still be in power. That's the bottom line here.

reason (1) Your a retard
reason (2) You are infertile

Jobu, maybe they tossed a couple more around in YOUR media world, but when Bush asked us in Canada to goto war, it was to stop Sadam from keeping his WMD he could give to terrorists, since he was in leauge with them.
Both false.
10 years sanctions, comstant bombings, threat of war, Sadam was a neutered dictator.

Saddam was not in league with the terrorists?
#1. harboring Abu Nidal
#2. harboring Abu Abbas
#3. harboring Abdul Rahmn Yasin (1993 WTC bomber)
#4. Paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine
#5. Zarqawi being treated in Baghdad for his wounds suffered in Afghanistan and then setting up shop in the city months before the war started in Iraq.
#6. harboring Khala Khadr al-Salahat, Pan Am 103 bomber
#7. Even the 9/11 commission says Iraq had a decade-long list of meetings with Al Qaeda. Whether they eventually cooperated together we don;t know, but we do know they had lost of meetings. I doubt they were discussing crop rotation.
etc. etc.
Oh by the way, every one of these things I listed were in violation of UN Resolution 687 and therefore were grounds to resume hostilities.

Offical STATUS was Iraq was NOT supporting Al Qaeda. That was what the commision said.
You basically say anyone that was or is a terrorist or has them in their nation is a threat. Best go bomb Brittian and Pakistan and France and Turkey and Iran and ....

They let the guy into Washington to bomb the space needle on New Years Day. Those damn Canadians are dupes of political correctness and religious moral relativism. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> no border is safe my friend, and thinking they ever will be is sillyness... SILLY I SAY !
We got pot going down, guns coming up , mexicans running at fences , boats dropping loads and beavers building dams on disputed land. You show me a safe border [ other then the North / South Korean one since it has 1000's of troops ] and I'll show you GW Bush making a speech at Harvard that went well.