[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="SnappyService"] Let the right one was more of a love story with vampire themes. And Psycho is a psychological thriller, A big a building block for the slasher genre but really I wouldn't consider it one. Both great movies though.SnappyService

The Toxic Avenger. A true cult classic.

I think it's B.S. The Nazis targeted gays, blacks, Jews, immigrants, Communists, and the mentally impaired. That seems far more like a policy that Republicans would be partial to...

Anyway, I suppose the comparisons are in Hitler's national welfare program. Of course, it didn't cover any minorities, which more closely resembles our current system here in the U.S.

What do you guys think? (please, let's be rational)...

You know people, in some ways Obama did lie or go back on promises (which politicians do) and in other ways he's telling the truth (from what we know).

On3ShotOneKill

No President ever lives up to their promise, but I agree with you on this one. Obama was my guy after John Edwards dropped out (poor guy...:cry:), but now he keeps wanting to work witrh Republicans when the conservatives did absolutely nothing during the 8 years Bush was in power, and back during the Reagan/Bush 41 era it was just as bad. Obama has a mandate to rule, and he should be moving us forward, or else we're going to get some lackluster legislation that doesn't solve anything and will be endlessly criticized by the conservatives/Libertarians.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]Aww man I made this thread worse :(. Damn you politics :cry:MgamerBD

It makes use turn on eachother. We're suppose to be a family. That's it, give me a hug :oops:

lol :lol:

Yeah. I think she knows you want some, but it really looks like she found someone else. Sorry :?

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

28 Days Later.

LiftedHeadshot

Evil Dead II, Braindead, Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Army of Darkness all beat it, IMO.

Evil Dead II. You will not be disappointed. If you can't get that, then get Braindead. If you can't get that, get The Toxic Avenger (all are hilariously grusome). :D

Sounds kind of individualistic to me. I thought LaVeyan Satanism was all about indulgence at the expense of others. I suppose this is a different sect of Satanism...:roll:

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

I agree with you, but many Americans are ardently against helping others, be it through healthcare reform or being witness to a crime and doing nothing.

MarcusAntonius

This is sheer nonsense. People have no problem helping others. We'd just appreciate it if it weren't done via coercion with a gun to our heads. Your matter of fact context here is appalling. It's easy to be big-hearted when you're doing it with other people's money. Ever heard of private charities?

Considering the fact that humans are social animals, and research into the human brain done by prominent psychologists, it has been concluded that individualism is unnatural, unhealthy, and most of all, unnerving. The Libertarians/Republicans who are against all forms of supporting their societies, and therefore their countries, are stuck in the past, and unfortunately contradict themselves to a disturbing degree. They call themselves 'individualists,' but then go online and engage in groupthink on their conservative discussion forums - supporting each others lopsided, deluded thinking. That's collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Conservatives/Libertarians just won't face the facts, and it saddening to see such a large gap between the rich and poor as a result. I just don't want the United States, which had such promise, to turn into a third world country, where the poor live in slums with no government benefit programs to help them through their daily struggle, as the fat cats on Wall Street continue to rake in the cash. :?

Hot-Tamale

Aren't generalities and stereotypes fun? Oh yeah, I love how you lump Conservatives and Libertarians together. As if other points of view don't exist?:lol: Prominent psychologists? Like who? Post the links. I like seeing fradulent "experts" further discredited.

I don't think you know what you're talking about here... Libertarians and Republicans both oppose Obama's hc plan for pretty much the same reason - they don't want to have to pay for anything. Of course, the proposal will save vast amounts of money in the long run, but that isn't the issue here. As for prominent psychologists who have researched individualism and proven it to be unnatural: Donald Campbell, Saul Kassin, Willhelm Reich, and Carl Hoveland come to mind, and arguably Sigmund Freud himself. Of course, this thesis has crossed into the political realm as well, with such brilliant political figures as Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone is a godly book) and even Keynes, to an extent (yes, the unparalleled economist).

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.

And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.

tycoonmike

Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).

Even though, according to a BBC article, the majority of British people sorely underestimate the time they would be on waiting lists for operations?

Not to mention that, according to the UK Department of Health (follow the links on the provided page for the spreadsheet files), the number of people put onto waiting lists, both for inpatient and outpatient treatment, has been steadily rising since this past April.

Furthermore, an UK organization states that it can often take upwards of four weeks for people diagnosed with cancer to begin radiotherapy because of a shortage of the machines and personel required to operate them.

Can you really deny these figures? What you've said doesn't challenge my point, that being according to Pelosi's and Reid's own words if even one person is put on a government waiting list for treatment the program will be a failure. They think they can make lead into gold when not even the examples they hold in high regard are able to do so.

The livelyhood of 46 million may be important, but the livelyhood of 300 million is even more important. Whether temporarily or not, putting the lives of every single man, woman, and child deliberately at risk is unacceptable, and if these waiting lines to appear (as I predict they will), that is exactly what will happen.

Not to mention that, generally speaking, those 46 million uninsured Americans seem to be doing just fine without insurance. Why should those who don't desire insurance have to pay for it? Because the government mandates it?

Ha! There are no hard numbers anywhere in there, aside from a poll of a measly 1,000 people. I'm not going to base my entire outlook on this issue on a tiny biased poll...