People are dumb as rocks

[EasyEJL]

"The polling data backs up our subjective view that to make health care reform work, you need a public option," said Schumer.

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

 

[bigrobbierob]

It reminds me of this done during the election...

YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters

And Glenn Beck did something similar. He just came out with a new book called "Common Sense", the idea here was to send a reporter with no identifying logo's (so people wouldn't know he was from FOX) and find people that identified themselves as liberal/left. The reporter read excerpts from the book and asked if they agreed or disagreed. Well...

YouTube - Is Glenn Beck's Common Sense Non-Partisan?

 

[CDB]

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

You don't understand, it's all a matter of obedience. All we need to do is elect the right people and have them say, "Let there be..." and follow that with whatever we want, and magically it will appear. Free health care, well manicured lawns and houses for everyone.

In large part, this is what happens when you give the government default control of the education system and let net tax consuming leaches teach kids that the government is the source of all good things. Hard work, productivity, and property rights? Bah! What good has any of those things done us in the past...

 

[EasyEJL]

I wouldn't have expected much common sense in NYC honestly.

 

[duffmt6]

(cant post links yet so manually quoting)
"url

And Glenn Beck did something similar. He just came out with a new book called "Common Sense", the idea here was to send a reporter with no identifying logo's (so people wouldn't know he was from FOX) and find people that identified themselves as liberal/left. The reporter read excerpts from the book and asked if they agreed or disagreed. Well...

url"

these are extreme examples and occur on both sides of the political spectrum. believe it or not, public opinion is pretty important in the legislative process

 

[EasyEJL]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

 

[saludable24]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

And no term limits on the morons helps the whole process too. Also, the fact that they are a "self regulating" body. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Also isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result? The rediculousness of our government's actions will not cease until we stop electing the same morons into office.

I suppose there will be no rediculousness or conflicts of interest in any of the insane proposed government programs coming like cap and trade, government health care, and card check. Oh no, everything will be different this time, they promise...

 

[JDK5386]

The same polling data that showed that more than half the obama voters didn't know which party was in control of congress. Or well, pick your choice of things, the same public group that isn't smart enough to read the "Truth in Lending" disclosures with their loan? Thats data that shows we "need" a public option in healthcare? all it will do is make healthcare less affordable.

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:

Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

 

[EasyEJL]

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:

Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

But you have to consider we have the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest obesity rates, high number of premature births (which in many of those other countries would be marked as stillborn), high average miles driver per day, and high gun related incidents. 1 infant born at 22 weeks can cost over a million its first year.

Teen births and obesity are by choice activities, no change to a healthcare system will change those. so you can't compare $ spent in healthcare in a vacuum. And do you realize that the expansion in health care costs has largely come with (gasp) an expansion of medicare, medicaid and other government programs ?

 

[CDB]

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall. One of the reasons there's so little 'spending' in foreign countries is because there's so little supply, and because there are price controls. Now we can institute price controls here on X, Y, and Z in the health care market, watch supplies fall through the floor, and as a result we'll spend less on health care. I doubt our system would rate as more efficient or that people would be better off though.

You are right though when you say we've managed to implement the worst of pboth systems, though I'd say fascism and lefty socialism. We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

Although I share your concerns about the potential pitfalls of health care reform, I'm relieved that we're at least addressing the problem. We have by far the least efficient health care system in the world. It needs reform, as at the moment our system has managed to combine the worst of both socialist and market systems.

I personally don't particularly care whether we reform in the direction of planned health care or market health care, but the current system is a total cluster****:

Note that this is from 2001 and 2002, most disparities have widened considerably since then.

 

[JDK5386]

But you have to consider we have the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest obesity rates, high number of premature births (which in many of those other countries would be marked as stillborn), high average miles driver per day, and high gun related incidents. 1 infant born at 22 weeks can cost over a million its first year.

So your argument is that obesity, teen pregnancy and gun related incidents are what explains the fact that the US spends about twice as much per person on health care as the international developed country average? What about smoking? Its the single most expensive personal choice from a health care perspective, and the US has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world.

Although I think poor personal choice partially explains the disparity, I'm pretty skeptical that its doubling average world costs.

Teen births and obesity are by choice activities, no change to a healthcare system will change those. so you can't compare $ spent in healthcare in a vacuum. And do you realize that the expansion in health care costs has largely come with (gasp) an expansion of medicare, medicaid and other government programs ?

Government spending in the US on health care has been and is flatly dumb. Its all been about creating ever-higher levels of demand when supply is almost nearly perfectly inelastic. That one government's intervention in the market has been dumb does not mean that intervention is generally dumb, as it seems to me that Europe is getting a comparable product for substantive health problems for about half the price. The only losers in European systems relative to ours are hypochondriacs and insurance companies.

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall

Ceterus paribus, higher levels of supply means lower prices and more output. We are seeing roughly double the median international developed expenditure. I don't think we're getting anywhere near double the output, hence "world's least efficient."

We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

I agree with this statement, hence why I feel reform is needed.

 

[EasyEJL]

So your argument is that obesity, teen pregnancy and gun related incidents are what explains the fact that the US spends about twice as much per person on health care as the international developed country average? What about smoking? Its the single most expensive personal choice from a health care perspective, and the US has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world.

Although I think poor personal choice partially explains the disparity, I'm pretty skeptical that its doubling average world costs.

like with any system where there is a curve though, its the outliers who cost the most. a 22 week old infant delivered costs into the millions of dollars. That happening here, where in another country the child is listed as stillborn makes a $5,000 dollar difference per person over the next 2,000 people... And teen births are far more likely to be premature, underweight and have other issues. You simply can't compare just average overall cost per person. Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc. Otherwise its like using a study on elderly castrated men to prove that a supplement would help build muscle in bodybuilders

 

[AE14]

If you believe that, I have some land to sell you. The problem with congress and senate is that if you vote for something that is good for your local constituency, no matter HOW bad it is nationally, you get re-elected. This is what pork barrel and other favoritism spending is all about. So as long as you make the morons in your home district feel good, thats all that counts.

and they all do it, regardless of party (sadly)

 

[CDB]

Ceterus paribus, higher levels of supply means lower prices and more output.

Yes, higher supply does mean lower prices. However double supply does not mean half price. The two aren't in direct proportion to one another. Especially if you have an inflationary economy.

We are seeing roughly double the median international developed expenditure. I don't think we're getting anywhere near double the output, hence "world's least efficient."

According to the WHO report, when you sift through the BS, we have some of the best survival rates and the best responsiveness. That means, for the most part, if you're sick you're usually better off here, and you on balance get care much quicker. Couple that with lifestyle issues Easy mentioned and higher supply, you start to lose the ability to be truly indignant about the cost.

 

[CDB]

Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc.

I would VERY much like to see that study if it exists.

 

[EasyEJL]

I just want to add that when we go back to looking at lifespans and other measurements of quality of care, that single 22 week old that is delivered in the US, and only survives a few weeks vs delivered as stillborn in most other countries drops average lifespan by 1 year for the next 77 babies... Just goes to show how with averages you have to keep a sharp eye out for outliers. As with my cost of 10 common procedures, i'd like to also see average lifespans compared for adults already age 35. That would be a lot more representative i'd think, as its also beyond the average age of military service.

 

[JDK5386]

like with any system where there is a curve though, its the outliers who cost the most. a 22 week old infant delivered costs into the millions of dollars. That happening here, where in another country the child is listed as stillborn makes a $5,000 dollar difference per person over the next 2,000 people... And teen births are far more likely to bepremature, underweight and have other issues. You simply can't compare just average overall cost per person.

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not.

I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

Try cost per a specific set of 10 procedures that are the most common procedures, something along those lines - wellness checkup, standard annual blood test, etc. Otherwise its like using a study on elderly castrated men to prove that a supplement would help build muscle in bodybuilders

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=156022

The R-squared on unit hospital costs and income is pretty high - until you get to the US. Granted this is hospital use only and isn't health care generally, but its another piece of the puzzle.

Yes, higher supply does mean lower prices. However double supply does not mean half price. The two aren't in direct proportion to one another. Especially if you have an inflationary economy.

In a functioning market and with inelastic demand for health care, double the supply would mean a fraction of the price and lower total expenditure even at double the output. But then again, its not a functioning market, and supply isn't the issue.

And what WHO report are you referring to?

 

[EasyEJL]

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not.

you are simply wrong. different population groups have different needs and you cant arbitrarily compared averages. How about average soy consumption, average cost of gasoline, average cost of a gallon of vodka. Supply, demand, and sevices rendered all have their effect. nobody can state what effect a 50% obesity rate has without specifically subtracting those effects. in the uk, doctors are not allowed to attempt to save or revive infants 22 weeks or younger. 1 such infant in the us can raise average cost significantly as its care is in the millions.

I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

without being able to specifically account for the differences, comparing averages is only an emotional argument, not a logical one
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=156022

The R-squared on unit hospital costs and income is pretty high - until you get to the US. Granted this is hospital use only and isn't health care generally, but its another piece of the puzzle.

and if we have on average more advanced equipment in hospitals, and more available blood and other diagnostic tests, it will (gasp) cost more here

and did any of you who keep calling it double to cost look at that graph? we're double the lowest, only 50% more than most tho - again making mostly an emotional argument, not a real statistical or logical argument...

how about on that chart compare average post-federal taxation income with the healthcare costs? or average home ownership rates?

 

[CDB]

As populations are sufficiently large, yes you can. Your argument is that because there are some differences between US population and the rest of the world, the fact that we spend twice as much is meaningless per person. When it comes to comparing the effectiveness of industries - and thus the need for reform - its not. I don't deny that population differences exogenous to the system are an influence, but its not the whole story.

Yes, it is. One, looking at total cost is taking a budgetary look at the issue, which means one is assuming a central planning problem/solution to begin with. The relevant question vis a vi total cost is, is it high because people are being charged more than market prices? There answer to that here in the US is yes for several reasons, all of them due to government interventions. But the real issue is, two, having populations that are sufficiently large doesn't negate the massive effects that differences in population make up can cause, especially with regard to health outcomes because as Easy points out the outliers are where the major cost hikes are. A population with significantly large portions of young and old people will consume more health care services and thus cost more.

Is it the whole answer? No. But it's present enough to make the existing numbers essentially meaningless.

In a functioning market and with inelastic demand for health care, double the supply would mean a fraction of the price and lower total expenditure even at double the output. But then again, its not a functioning market, and supply isn't the issue.

And what WHO report are you referring to?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Just out of curiosity, where do you come to the conclusion that demand for health care is inelastic?

 

[BodyWizard]

Highest spending doesn't mean least efficient. If a country has twice as many carrots as another and people spend more on carrots there, does that mean their market is inefficient? No, it means higher supply leads to more spending on the good overall.

Interesting that supply-side economics should fail so spectacularly without more general comment. I fear your remarks here are anti-economics.

We've got a hefty single payer portion of the system, and the rest is on balance controlled by the suppliers with the consumer getting squat in terms of representation.

By "suppliers" you mean of course the HMOs/insurance companies, not the actual health-care providers themselves - who are after all, only "labor"...and therefore a cost to be minimized.

 

[CDB]

Interesting that supply-side economics should fail so spectacularly without more general comment. I fear your remarks here are anti-economics.

It's not 'supply side' economics, it's a simple matter of fact and meant to explain how such figures can be made to 'lie'. If people are buying more, more will be spent. That doesn't necessarily mean anyone is getting ripped off or there's something wrong with the system. For example up until they expanded beyond our borders Americans spent more on McDonald's burgers than anyone else in the world, even if you tallied up the entire rest of the world's expeniture. Did that mean our fast food market was somehow 'broken' or 'unfair'? No. In fact it meant just the opposite; people elsewhere wanted those burgers and fries but government obstacles were in the way of delivery. When comparing how much people spend on product or service X in the aggregate, more spent in country A could just as easily be indicative of a shortage in country B as a systemic rip off or inefficiency in country A. The devil is in the details, not the averages.

For further examples read more Henry Hazlett. He was big on pouring over official stats and showing how easily they could be misinterpretted and/or used to support conclusions very different from what the mainstream drew from them.

By "suppliers" you mean of course the HMOs/insurance companies, not the actual health-care providers themselves - who are after all, only "labor"...and therefore a cost to be minimized.

No, they are the suppliers of the end product. The HMOs and insurance companies are payers and government mandated rationers, and as such get to squeeze the system for all it's worth at the expense of others. If the government didn't screw with wages during WWII, and subsequently make employer paid benefits tax deductible and then pass the HMO Act and essentially force corporate America to subsidize a third party payer system, those HMOs and insurance companies would not have such an artificial advantage. As it stands though, they are in the favored position in a managed market.

 

[purebred]

i'm failing to see this s-called 'stimulus'. i'm seeing a lot of 'spending' but not much 'stimulus'.

 

[EasyEJL]

Create or save 3.5 million jobs! its nice to put forth a target that you can't actually measure. Why he could claim to have saved the whole 3.5 million already, and that unemployment would have been far far worse had he not

 

[D3vildog]

i'm failing to see this s-called 'stimulus'. i'm seeing a lot of 'spending' but not much 'stimulus'.

Its a magic trick from President Obama! Wait for it!!! I hear there is an awesome ending, something about a Cool Red Flag replacing our current one!


I'm so excited...

/Sarcasm

 

[CDB]

i'm failing to see this s-called 'stimulus'. i'm seeing a lot of 'spending' but not much 'stimulus'.

That' because spending ain't stimulus. Not only are these people Keynesian and wrong, they are vulgar Keynesians. Every government official, appointee, elected stooge, etc., thinks it's their God given commandment and responsibility to keep that macro economic artifact called GDP expanding by some arbitrary minimum during their tenure. As such, if the citizens are cooperating by spending like idiots, the government will damn well do it for them. As to whether or not GDP is even worth a damn at all, much less a proper measure of what is characterized as economic growth, but which is usually only spending, that's an issue for another day.

 

[Distilled Water]

(cant post links yet so manually quoting)

these are extreme examples and occur on both sides of the political spectrum. believe it or not, public opinion is pretty important in the legislative process

Yes but it's much worse with the liberal/democrats. Because conservatives actually follow a moral code and are not a catch all party so when you present them with a question, usually, they can depict an elephant from a mouse.....unlike other people.

 

[rubberring]

Because conservatives actually follow a moral code...

 

[Distilled Water]

View attachment 28959

Really dude? Really????? Give me somthing that democrats stand for in a moralistic sense? There isn't any! To say they're not a catch all party is absurd.

 

[DAdams91982]

View attachment 28959

You never really contribute do you? You don't debate topics, or issues. Your best defense is "At least we aren't under a dictatorship like the last 8 years"

Useful like pockets on a jock strap are useful.

 

[rubberring]

You never really contribute do you? You don't debate topics, or issues. Your best defense is "At least we aren't under a dictatorship like the last 8 years"

Useful like pockets on a jock strap are useful.

First off, you obviously have me confused with another poster, because I've never said anything close to that. Second, do I really need to debate the statement that only conservatives have morals? :no: This thread, along with the other 27 kindergarten "wah-wah, the Democrats are winning" threads are pointless... but I'll admit, very entertaining. I'll leave you clowns to your... debate.

 

[DAdams91982]

First off, you obviously have me confused with another poster, because I've never said anything close to that. Second, do I really need to debate the statement that only conservatives have morals? :no: This thread, along with the other 27 kindergarten "wah-wah, the Democrats are winning" threads are pointless... but I'll admit, very entertaining. I'll leave you clowns to your... debate.

Not your words, but your intentions. I am not complaining or whining what so ever.... America voted for who is there now, and we are seeing the radical changes people wanted. I am personally a conservative libertarian... so I guess I have even less morals, since I want to repeal welfare, medicare, medicaid, HMO subsidies.

Your posts just never contribute, instead has a better than though air.

 

[rubberring]

Your posts just never contribute, instead has a better than though air.

Okay, you lost me there.:dunno:

Look, I'm not going to contribute by defending Obama or the democratic party, because I too have issues with them. I responded only to the sentiment that conservatives have morals and democrats do not... which is just juvenile. Sorry, that attachment bothered you, but I thought it perfectly illustrates how some people feel when rhetoric like that is posted. It's a tired argument that serves only to sidetrack any real discussion.

You're judging the quality of my posts when you and I are rarely in the same threads. Your first post in this thread was an attempt to call me out! Should I criticize you for not contributing? Outside of the sports and politics forums, I think my posts are usually articulate and helpful. I usually just scan through these threads for entertainment purposes. If something asinine jumps out at me... sometimes I'll highlight it.

C'mon DA, don't you think you're being a bit pretentious here? Are you Quality Assurance for the politics forum? If so, I'm the least of your worries.

 

[DAdams91982]

Okay, you lost me there.:dunno:

Look, I'm not going to contribute by defending Obama or the democratic party, because I too have issues with them. I responded only to the sentiment that conservatives have morals and democrats do not... which is just juvenile. Sorry, that attachment bothered you, but I thought it perfectly illustrates how some people feel when rhetoric like that is posted. It's a tired argument that serves only to sidetrack any real discussion.

You're judging the quality of my posts when you and I are rarely in the same threads. Outside of the sports and politics forums, I think my posts are usually articulate and helpful. I usually just scan through these threads for entertainment purposes. If something asinine jumps out at me... sometimes I'll highlight it.

C'mon DA, don't you think you're being a bit pretentious here? Are you Quality Assurance for the politics forum? If so, I'm the least of your worries.

The image was asinine. I wasn't defending or negating any statements here. It just annoys the **** out of me when people run something juvenile such as that.

And wait... there are other portions to this board other than politics and sports? News to me!

 

[rubberring]

Okay, I get you as far as posting the attachment. I rarely do it, and I realize (thankfully) this isn't bb.com. Just thought it was humorous and got the point across.

Oh yeah... there's a General Chat section as well. Meet you there!:lol::lol:

 

[EasyEJL]

Look, I'm not going to contribute by defending Obama or the democratic party

well thats a plus, because in general, its the politcians against us, not so much which party against us. Just that the democrats tend to do more long term financial damage than republicans by creating entitlements (although bush sure ****ed us with medicare part D)

 

[rubberring]

because in general, its the politcians against us, not so much which party against us.

AGREED. However, almost every political thread here turns into a two-party hatefest. Even if someone chimes in with, "I'm an independent," it's usually not received well. What annoys me most is when the morality card is played. It's senseless to make that judgment on an entire political entity. Most politicians in either party by definition aren't exactly the most moral of individuals after a few years of service, as it usually doesn't contribute to political longevity.

 

[EasyEJL]

basically you choose a stick in the eye, or a stick in the ear. I believe that McCain would have been different, but who knows for sure.

 

[JW32Hoops]

fwiw, I got a kick out of the facepalm image. Your contributions are welcome rubberring, you seem to have a decent head on your shoulders from the little I've read so far.

 

[Distilled Water]

AGREED. However, almost every political thread here turns into a two-party hatefest. Even if someone chimes in with, "I'm an independent," it's usually not received well. What annoys me most is when the morality card is played. It's senseless to make that judgment on an entire political entity. Most politicians in either party by definition aren't exactly the most moral of individuals after a few years of service, as it usually doesn't contribute to political longevity.

The statment was made because the Republican party has a set of guide lines most stick to. I didn't say all....most. Unlike democrates, that is a catch all party. Thats all I was saying. You took what I said out of context and instead of responding with "rehtoric" you posted that video.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

basically you choose a stick in the eye, or a stick in the ear. I believe that McCain would have been different, but who knows for sure.

I suppose both are better than a stick in the bum?

 

[rubberring]

The statment was made because the Republican party has a set of guide lines most stick to. I didn't say all....most. Unlike democrates, that is a catch all party. Thats all I was saying. You took what I said out of context and instead of responding with "rehtoric" you posted that video.

Okay, you keep saying "catch-all party"... but I'm not sure you're clear on what that means. Catch-all indicates a party's willingness to represent multiple viewpoints. It's also referred to as "big-tent." And DW, it's big-tent politics in both parties. Dude, it's a TWO-party system... they both have to be. Some dems oppose abortion, some republicans support non-interventionist foreign policy, etc., etc., etc. Appealing to multiple voters is no doubt a goal of both parties.

Now, if you want to argue that the democrats are more of a catch-all party... then you may have a point. But it's nothing to do with morals, and it's not an adjective exclusive to non-conservatives.

 

[EasyEJL]

I suppose both are better than a stick in the bum?

Right, thank god i'm not in canada

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Right, thank god i'm not in canada

Why? You and your life partner could get legally married, then!

 

[EasyEJL]

people can do that in a couple of the states

 

[Distilled Water]

Okay, you keep saying "catch-all party"... but I'm not sure you're clear on what that means. Catch-all indicates a party's willingness to represent multiple viewpoints. It's also referred to as "big-tent." And DW, it's big-tent politics in both parties. Dude, it's a TWO-party system... they both have to be. Some dems oppose abortion, some republicans support non-interventionist foreign policy, etc., etc., etc. Appealing to multiple voters is no doubt a goal of both parties.

Now, if you want to argue that the democrats are more of a catch-all party... then you may have a point. But it's nothing to do with morals, and it's not an adjective exclusive to non-conservatives.

I'm 100% clear on what it means.

Yes, much more. Usually, by listing information, you can tell who is a repuclican, usually....a large majority of democrats it's more of a guessing game as their backgrounds and beliefs vary a lot...while republican's do not that much, to a degree.

There is always exceptions. If you were too look at my information you would almost 100% bet I was a democrat, but no chance.

See how much more we got accomplished with talking and not posting video's :laugh2:

 

[DAdams91982]

Kill em all and let God sort them out.... or you have an alternative....

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!