Liberals are doing their absolute and demented best to ram their we're-all-going to-die Warmist theology down our throats. At the same time, they still insist on not letting us have the one real world energy source that doesn't produce any carbon: nuclear power. Which of these mutually contradictory theologies are they going to have to give up first?

"One article that manages to bring out the global warming denialists and the anti-Apple trolls?"

I'm a pro-Apple troll, but I can still acknowledge that the Gates Foundation is doing great work developing technology for the poor. Flaming Gates because he doesn't support your favorite crackpot doomsday hypothesis is like flaming Obama because he doesn't embrace Scientology.

"Actually we should blame fat people. They are exactly the irresponsible equivalent of drug addicts, smokers, and alcoholics."

...is perfectly embodied in this quote. Socialized medicine inevitably means that government clerks will be making value judgements about which people are "worthy" of being saved. It will be Auschwitz for the fat, the old, and the crippled. I'm already hearing leftists use terms like 'worthless breeder' for the social classes they don't like.

I applaud Obama's signing of the stem cell order. It's a triumph of science over religion.

So now can we pry open Yucca Mountain, whether or not we have to use Harry Ried's dead body to grease the railroad tracks? Or does this science-over-faith thing only go so far?

I'm not defending the existing system here. The "pre-existing condition" scam is primarily why the general public supports socializing medicine. Medical treatment, including the cost of insurance for those who have it, has simply become too expensive for the average person to afford. Now that so many people are being laid off and losing their savings, the medical system will be next to crash.

On right-wing boards, I keep lobbying for opening up medicine to the free market as a last-ditch way of avoiding socialization. But for the most part, other posters won't buy it. The right believes that even John McCain's commonsense plan, part of his '08 platform, to allow consumers to shop worldwide for prescriptions will bring on the Apocalypse. Medicine has successfully convinced the public that the human body has some mystic 'sacredness' that gives medicine a special exemption from the laws of economics. They would rather let the field be socialized than allow the free market in.

So we're inevitably going to socialize. I'm just pointing out that today's problem of unaffordability will be replaced by the new problem of rationing. The ostensible reason will be limited budget, but for the hidden real agenda, read the other posts on this thread: vegheads driipping resentment over the social classes they despise will now be in the position of deciding which of us will live. And sadly yes, I have actually seen the term "breeder" used in this forum. When we replace the current mess of heartless, arbitrary insurance companies with one big insurance company for all, will that be a real improvement?

Obama missed the opportunity to send the public a clear, rousing message aimed over the heads of Congress, focused on a few key infrastructure initiatives. It could have been a message like "within ten years, America will be energy independent! This bill will clear the way..." Instead, we got a larger and porkier version of that reviled Republican ISTEA of a few years ago. This will get as bogged down in Congress while the way is still open for lawyers to kill off any actual big new construction. If we can't ram through that power line to connect California's new desert solar plants to the coastal market, what hope is there for that dream of a nationwide new smart power grid?

"I am terribly concerned when I see (daily) my fellow Democrats engaging in the "smear and silence" tactics they purport to abhor. The venom and vitriol hurled at Paglia, Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli, or anyone else that DARE question or critique the Obama administration is frightening."

This violent hatred from the Stalinista fringe doesn't surprise me at all. They wanted new new administration to bring back Maoism in full, reorganizing American society the way it was when they last had people paying attention to them, which was about 1968. Anything less, and they throw a tantrum.

Mainstream Democrats are just hoping for Obama to put them back to work building electric cars. Don't confuse them with these lunatics.

"Liked your article. I am wondering why no one EVER complains about Keith Olbermann. That man spews venom every single night that he is on"

That's an easy one: Rush has an audience. Olbermann gets a few viewers on those nights that the state hospital warden happens to turn the lunchroom TV to that channel.

Having more fun with libtards than anyone should be allowed to have...

I've been managing my money online for the last eight years. If banks can handle data with a reasonable expectation of privacy, it's time for medicine to drop those quill pens and retrain the manuscript illumination monks to do data entry.

And while you're at it, can we get doctors to start using email? This alone would save a huge amount of staff time spent getting routine questions answered.

"did they think President Obama would go "viola!" and it would all go away?"

I thought he played the sax. Or was that Clinton?

"cunt like communist Jew Paglia, who's whole life as been dedicated to creating division amongst the American populace manage to stay in print?"

"How do you reackon that asshole was a "liberal?""

I can tell right away by the meth-boosted tone and the choice of adjectives that has not changed since 1968.