So this could be our savior to save us from George Bush?

[enRo]

I really dont know who i would be voting for come election time. Although, I would NOT want a president with a name relatively close to Osama.

[Anti_Rice_Guy]

Scandal from Clinton, Inc.

Here is the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_po/clinton_video


Here is the video that is mentioned in the above article:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyKane

I really dont know who i would be voting for come election time. Although, I would NOT want a president with a name relatively close to Osama.

Ha. Sounds like me- I'm not voting for anyone southern.

[shane27]

Originally Posted by mtnhopper1

Would that be such a bad thing? The best plan would be to revamp the entire insurance industry.

its not bad at all in this country, its just expensive because of all the lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that make the prices get jacked way up.

[mtnhopper1]

Originally Posted by shane27

its not bad at all in this country, its just expensive because of all the lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that make the prices get jacked way up.

True true. Blame juries who grant $20 mil awards to sympathetic victims. Blame the media for not telling potential plaintiffs looking to hit paydirt that most of those ridiculous awards get reduced to a fraction on appeal. Blame litigous patients who sue evertime the get sick. All these things are problems with the system. My biggest beef, though, is with the insurance companies that make it their business practice to spend every dime that YOU PAY THEM in litigation costs to disclaim coverage of the very things that they are paid to cover.

The bottom line is this: People pay for insurance to protect their own assets. Insurance companies, though, are in the banking business. INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE INJURED! You need them and they know it. You will pay for coverage and they know it.

Basically, insurance is like the lottery. You buy a ticket every time you send in your premium. If you get "lucky," you'll be injured and will get back more than you paid. If you are not, at least you had the peace of mind of knowing you were covered. The what burns my balls is that the deck is stacked. In order to get them to pay out, you need to fight them for it. Litigation costs money. They have money. You do not (you sent it to them to use against you).

I'm just getting started. I won't bore you with more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

[SteveR]

Originally Posted by mtnhopper1

True true. Blame juries who grant $20 mil awards to sympathetic victims. Blame the media for not telling potential plaintiffs looking to hit paydirt that most of those ridiculous awards get reduced to a fraction on appeal. Blame litigous patients who sue evertime the get sick. All these things are problems with the system. My biggest beef, though, is with the insurance companies that make it their business practice to spend every dime that YOU PAY THEM in litigation costs to disclaim coverage of the very things that they are paid to cover.

The bottom line is this: People pay for insurance to protect their own assets. Insurance companies, though, are in the banking business. INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE INJURED! You need them and they know it. You will pay for coverage and they know it.

Basically, insurance is like the lottery. You buy a ticket every time you send in your premium. If you get "lucky," you'll be injured and will get back more than you paid. If you are not, at least you had the peace of mind of knowing you were covered. The what burns my balls is that the deck is stacked. In order to get them to pay out, you need to fight them for it. Litigation costs money. They have money. You do not (you sent it to them to use against you).

I'm just getting started. I won't bore you with more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

and insurance companies wont pay doctors, hospitals, and private practices the cost for procedures. My ex ran one of the departments at St. Barnabas and she said the insurance companies would pay maybe 20-30% of the cost of ALL claims. So if you got in a car accident and needed $10,000 in medical treatment, the insurance company would only pay the hospital $2000-$3000. They know the hospital doesnt have the time or legal resources to sue them for thousands of claims per week, so they keep doing it. Then, in turn, the hospital doesnt want to go out of business, so they raise the cost on all procedures 70% to cover their losses, which in turn screws the patients. And since the insurance companies are large political lobbiests, they are protected . Its not just medical insurance either. A friend of mine bought a house three years ago. About eight months after he moved in, the house burnt down. It was because the smoke alarms were installed improperly by the company that built the house for him, but thats a whole other rant. Anyway, he filed it with his homeowners insurance, and they dropped him and told him they werent paying a dime. Luckily he had money and a great lawyer, but it took two years and $60,000 in legal fees to get his insurance money. Meanwhile, he had to rent a house, buy a new car, and replace his belongings out of pocket. The insurance companies know that you are in a bad situation when you submit a claim, so they know they can take advantage of you. Its a huge scam.

[qwikz28]

if she wins, all our presidents from the span of 1992-2012+ will be from the bush and clinton family

[Anti_Rice_Guy]

And there will have been a bush or a clinton on the ballot from 1980 on

[enRo]

Originally Posted by qwikz28

if she wins, all our presidents from the span of 1992-2012+ will be from the bush and clinton family

Umm... George Bush Sr was president from 88-92 as well you noob lol

[qwikz28]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyKane

Umm... George Bush Sr was president from 88-92 as well you noob lol

really? we elected that retard for two terms?


waaaiiiittt.... we elected the other retarded bush for two terms as well. (but only because of lack of a better alternative)

[Blacdout96]

Originally Posted by qwikz28

really? we elected that retard for two terms?


waaaiiiittt.... we elected the other retarded bush for two terms as well. (but only because of lack of a better alternative)

No, Bush was Vice president to Ronald Ragen i believe, and he ran the first time in 88, and won, and then ran again for the next election, but lost to billy. So from 1988-2008 have been ran buy clintons and bushs.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

It's a circus. Nobody on the list stands out to me as somebody who can lead us out of the slump we are in. I'm betting that somewhere there are people who can but they aren't running since they don't have the money or popularity or want to deal with all of the BS surrounding the election.

It is for those very reasons that Mark Warner (former Governor of Virginia) chose not to run. What he did in VA was unheard of. He would've been the best person for the job...

As for Hillary, her campaign is a smoke-screen: everyone ought to know that if she got elected, it would be Bill that would be running the country (again).

and IMHO, that would be a great thing. 8 years of peace & prosperity.

I'd be thrilled to see that again...

[qwikz28]

Originally Posted by Blacdout96

No, Bush was Vice president to Ronald Ragen i believe, and he ran the first time in 88, and won, and then ran again for the next election, but lost to billy. So from 1988-2008 have been ran buy clintons and bushs.

that would make sense because i know clinton went into office in 92. and speaking of reagan, he wasn't an awful president. he was victim of circumstance in my opinion with the whole economy crisis

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by shane27

btw i think its comical people think we need to be "saved" from Bush. I thought more people were pro-national security...guess not.

"Those who would sacrifice their Freedom for Security, deserve neither."

-- Benjamin Franklin

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by 1_Hot_SOM_WS6

If she gets in office...we are doomed!!

I have a feeling Gore is going to declare his candidacy any day now...

Once that happens, the nomination is his

[Tru2Chevy]

Originally Posted by JohnG

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Fixed.....

- Justin

[H82GOSLW]

Originally Posted by JohnG

It is for those very reasons that Mark Warner (former Governor of Virginia) chose not to run. What he did in VA was unheard of. He would've been the best person for the job...

As for Hillary, her campaign is a smoke-screen: everyone ought to know that if she got elected, it would be Bill that would be running the country (again).

and IMHO, that would be a great thing. 8 years of peace & prosperity.

I'd be thrilled to see that again...

Ask any economist worth his/her salt and they will tell you the only reason Billy Clinton was able to enjoy 8 years of peace and prosperity in the economy, and hence have the majority of people happy, was because of the economic policies set forth by President Reagan. Clinton was just a better speaker than Bush is. They're both crooks.

[H82GOSLW]

Originally Posted by SteveR

I grew up in NY when that scum bag was mayor. Do you want to know how he "cleaned up the streets"? Simple, HE MURDERED THE HOMELESS! It's true. The cops would go around to all of the abandoned houses and buildings in the city in the middle of the night and knock the buildings down with all of the innocent people in it. And to make sure noone got out alive, they'd place one of the giant steel plates that they put down on the road to cover construction holes over the doors on the first floor with cranes. Saw it myself. If that murderous piece of crap gets elected, Im moving the hell away from north america.

Step away from the crack and nobody will get hurt. Don't you think that if he was murdering homeless people, and ordered cops to do it, that just ONE of those cops would have come forth by now and said something? When one runs for president, those who have dedicated their lives to digging up dirt will do whatever it takes to find skeletons in the closet. I'm gonna guess this would be a pretty big skeleton, if it were true. By the way, don't make promises like "moving away from North America" unless you're really going to follow through. I"m still waiting for Alec Baldwin to move out of the country.

[qwikz28]

john mccain!!!

[Tru2Chevy]

Originally Posted by qwikz28

john mccain!!!

- Justin

[Dark_Knight7096]

I would vote for colbert and stewart in a heartbeat, they are being written on my ballot!!!!

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by H82GOSLW

Ask any economist worth his/her salt and they will tell you the only reason Billy Clinton was able to enjoy 8 years of peace and prosperity in the economy, and hence have the majority of people happy, was because of the economic policies set forth by President Reagan. Clinton was just a better speaker than Bush is. They're both crooks.

Reagan/Bush I = Budget Deficit

Clinton = Budget Surplus

Bush II = RECORD Budget Deficit

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Reagan/Bush I = Budget Deficit

Clinton = Budget Surplus

Bush II = RECORD Budget Deficit

Clinton had some luck on his side. Bushie has not been the fiscal conservative at all (he spends like a drunk democrat), but "the federal deficit narrowed in fiscal 2007, the third straight annual reduction, as the continued economic recovery helped the growth of tax receipts outpace the growth of government spending" (WSJ 10/12).

[johnjzjz]

most just spend 10 seconds on the issues -- and the take from the bias drive by media is what they conclude is the truth -- shame of it is the decision you make now will impact your kids if you have any -- reason Reagan was elected what he did took 6 / 8 years to un do and we were dead into Clinton - but the deal is different today - than we had not been attacked and a war was not on - not knowing anything is the reason you think bush cant handle the country's money - but who else that we have running - either side who had the task of 911 besides bush and Rudy hello -- who can do the job not talk about what they want you to believe someone didn't DO - and they never say what they in turn would have done different - just point the finger - look at the young guys who are defending our freedoms over seas - do they think it was an inside job building #7 - or its we want their oil thats why -- and yep NO WMDs - BUT who was in charge for the previous 8 years and could not find white water papers that ended up on a desk in the hall way of the white house -- you expect their appointments to be spot on in nation intelligence - they were making it look like they knew what they were doing YA THINK -- it never happens your boss screws up and you get blamed yea right -- so blame someone else in charge - as an independent i pick who i think can do the job with the country's best interest at heart and you should do the same -- jz

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Reagan/Bush I = Budget Deficit

Clinton = Budget Surplus

Bush II = RECORD Budget Deficit

Yes, BUDGET. At least you got it right. Half the wackos out there thinks Clinton got us out of our national debt. No he didn't, not even close.

Yes, our spending right now is out of control. What would Clinton have done during any of the wars the Bush's faced?

BTW, widespread corporate fraud was normal under Clinton's watch. How many companies were caught cooking the books while under his terms?