oh wait...but the big corporation bloodsuckers who have all the political power
(money) who buy the laws they want through lobbyists, who slant the tax code to favor and subsidize their massive cash cow operations (ie. GE) are NOT dependent on the government?

Let me start by disabusing you of the notion that I "alledge" anything. Try re-reading my post. Nowhere do I say I expect it (a European style Socialized Medical System) to work in America, (it clearly will not.) You do not provide any evidence to support your statement that (it) "is proven time and time again that socialized medicine is very inefficient". (And the current American Medical "system" IS efficient????) No, it is the most expensive and cumbersome system in the world and presides over the non-delivery of affordable health care to somewhere north of 40 million americans. In a country so wealthy, so blessed of so many other resources, this is simply disgraceful. The government giving "free" things to it's people fosters an unhealthy dependency over time, but here we have the opposite extreme, where the government takes in huge amouts of money in the form of taxation from it's citizens and spends it disproportionately on war toys and bloated beaurocracies of governance.

The point missed in many of these posts is that if all the energy wasted on sniping at the kenyan commie muslim Prez and his little health care bill was somehow constructively channeled into a real solution, different from other systems, capitalizing on the best ideas from both sides ,but ultimately better, ultimately American, a uniquely American solution would arise. America has done it before and can do it again. We just need the will.

I am indifferent to the origin. My point still stands for either side

The only problem with this paranoid model of thinking is that anybody who does not agree with you is the "enemy" and must be destroyed. I agree with you that passion is a good and positive force but acting out a misplaced passion about the moral rectitude of your position to the point of exterminating a whole class of people (ie. "Liberals) from the face of the planet, as some have advocated on this site puts you in the hallowed company of Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Pol Pot etc. With regard to the latter, I went to Cambodia after the fall of the Khmer Rouge and visited an old school that had been made into a Detention Center that tortured and killed thousands of men, women and their children. Their "crime"? They were educated (the liberal
intellectual class of their culture at that time) and anybody with an educational level above high school was suspect. (An estimated 4 million people died in this atrocity.) This dystopian hell was begun with a catchcry of your neighbor is your enemy. We see some of this same mentality at work in some of these posts.
If we are all americans then we are all neighbors. Diverse perhaps but in the end we are not enemies.

I would concur. The junkyard dog drive-by garbage throwing that sometimes passes for political discourse on this site needs more sane moderate voices like this.
A vigorous debate is welcome and necessary, mindless petty mudslinging and poisonous invective is not.

Great! That means I am at least half right. :D

Never heard of "Prog talking Points". Is it a Blogspot or website of some kind?
I carry no water for either major party my friend. I just call them the way I see them. Let the (researched) facts speak and let the chips fall where they may.

From "time to time"? That sir is high praise. I salute you.

Nice parachute you have there. You are clearly not going to provide any rebuttal other than criticize my presumed sources. Bit like saying "you are wrong because I don't agree with you."

Hmmm...sticks and stones. This is such a target rich environment it is hard to know where to start. Benghazi has petered out even as a news story because it was widely perceived by the media and even some on the right to have no legs. Of course it is tragic that these good Americans lost their lives but every President has presided over a catastrophe like this. Hardly grounds for impeachment of Obama although it is clear heads should roll in the State Dept. and other relevant places.

NSA? Clearly out of control. They need a trimming.

2nd Amendment violations? Why is it that when someone says something must be done about gun violence there is this presumption that all guns are going to be confiscated? Are you one of those people that looks in the refrigerator and falls on the floor in hysterics because that egg on the second shelf could hatch into a giant chicken that could eat Chicago? This leap from fact to absurdity is very entertaining but not backed up by either the evidence or any reasonable prognosis. (Rounding up all the guns in America...good luck on that one...)

Using the IRS to target conservatives? The President has no authority constitutionally to do any such thing. If it can be proved some overzealous IRS people did something like this they should face criminal charges or at the very least lose their jobs although there is some evidence that liberal groups were scrutinized in the same fashion. It should be noted it is the IRS's job to question the legitimacy of so called "non-profit" groups if their corporate foundation structure looks shaky. As a result of Obama winning in 08 there was apparently a slew of right wing so called "foundations" launched to fund various "superpacs", much more so numerically than from the left.

War crimes against Libya? It seems the Libyans were immensely grateful for the Wests help in eliminating Ghaddafi...did I miss something?
Syria? I withhold judgement on that which has not happened.

If Obama is a War Criminal then who will accompany him to the dock and in what order? All the way back to the Bay of Pigs and beyond you can make a case for war crimes against the US. for various episodes of slaughter. I'm assuming that in the interests of fair play Cheney and Bush will precede Obama to the dock.

A socialist? I grew up in one of those european style "socialist" cultures and I can tell you Obama, based on his policies and actions is center-right (just to the right of George Bush). Anyway being a socialist is a crime?

Born in Africa? Even Fox News' Bill OReilly flatly stated he thinks Obama was born in Hawaii. (Isn't this thing dead yet?)

...and lastly the treason charge. (His supporters too.) So all the people who voted for him should be thrown in jail along with the President? Would you really turn this country into a vast gulag for socialist malcontents like some tin pot african dictatorship? (I would congratulate you on solving the unemployment problem by creating all those prison guard jobs.)

"The biggest savings from the Affordable Care Act come from reductions in the future growth of payments to hospitals — about $415 billion over 10 years. That’s Medicare Part A. Income for Part A comes mainly from payroll taxes. If Medicare doesn’t need to spend that income immediately, it’s credited to Part A’s trust fund, and Medicare gets a Treasury bond that it can cash in later. Anytime Medicare needs to cash in that bond, Treasury must pay it. Even if Treasury spent the original money on something else, it must pay the bond.
So, campaign claims that imply that Obama has taken money out of Medicare, and Medicare won’t ever get it back, are simply not true.
At an Aug. 21 campaign stop in West Chester, Pa., Ryan said Obama and the Democrats “turned Medicare into a piggy bank to fund Obamacare. They took $716 billion from Medicare to pay for their Obamacare program.” On the other hand, he added, Republicans are “being candid with our current seniors” and “saying stop the raid on Medicare.”
Unfortunately for Medicare there isn’t $700 billion in any kind of “piggy bank” to “raid.” The trust fund doesn’t have anywhere near that much money — the Part A trust fund only contained $244.2 billion at the end of 2011. And the president can’t actually take money out of the trust fund. Medicare holds those Treasury bonds, and, as we said, it can cash them in anytime it needs the money.
The problem for Medicare is that the trust fund isn’t going up — it’s declining year after year. Some voters may get the mistaken impression that money they paid in to Medicare will pay their benefits once they retire. But as a practical matter the program functions as a pay-as-you-go system. And current income isn’t enough to pay all current benefits.
Without the spending cuts in the Affordable Care Act, the Part A trust fund was expected to be exhausted in 2016. With the ACA cuts, that date was pushed back to 2024.
That makes the RNC’s bankruptcy clock a bit curious. If the federal health care law hadn’t included those cuts to spending, there would be even less time left on that countdown." (FactCheck.org)

Interesting how you keep answering my question with another unrelated
question Old Gringo. You are like a mexican jumping bean. Can you speak to ANY of these issues I raise?

Actually the far left wanted a full public option and are almost as disaffected
by ACA as you are. Can you provide evidence of this "coal raking" at town hall meetings you speak of? I mean media articles from a reputable source...anything will do. Exaggerations to reinforce your opinion may be emotionally satisfying but like fast food may not be sustaining in the long term. Again I invite you to point out the alternative. As you yourself has noted in previous posts Medicare is being trimmed and if that is the trend where will all this end? If you are trying to make a case for the dismantling of Obamacare
without a viable alternative you are failing to make your case.

Obfuscation is not your usual MO. You failed to address both the letter and the spirit of my post. I am disappointed.

And Eden's what? Can you kindly clarify?

It may not turn out to be viable in it's present form but perhaps you can direct me to a "viable" alternative? Some Republicans have pointed out that their party has failed to provide an answer to ACA and that it is hurting them in the polls. Too bad they have been silenced by the screaming ranting sackcloth ripping ashes mob on the far right.

"We" kimo sabe? You were there right? The war of Independence pitted in many cases family member against family member just like in the Civil War.
Colonists did not drive out a an invading country. At that time most colonists
were of English Irish or Scots heritage. It was a lovely little family row.
I fail to see the comparison with todays political situation. This kind of wild-eyed rant is what is keeping the right in the political wilderness. (usurper, traitors, indeed....)