Eating outside? In a dog park? Edit: In a dog park with a posted "no food" policy? Without masks in a state where masks are mandatory in public?
Somehow I think this isn't telling the whole story. When it starts, the man is standing up, touching her, not calmly eating. I need to see the 2 minutes before she sprays them to decide who's the nutjob here. Almost always it's the anti maskers who rush up and cough on people after being called out, that's assault with a deadly weapon, mace is perfectly reasonable as a defense.
Edit: After reading a few reports, it seems the sprayees can't keep their story straight...in some interviews they say she came up to them ranting, out of nowhere, yelling about food and masks, spray in hand, and just started spraying them. In other interviews, they say she came up yelling, went to her car to get the spray, then returned and just started spraying. Not a good sign.

I'm withholding judgement. It's sounding fishy.

We need a national policy, enforced, like most countries that got control of the Trump virus, with heavy fines or arrests for being unmasked in public spaces. Sadly, thanks to a lack of leadership, we have instead a top leader claiming masks don't work, the virus is a hoax, go about your business, and no national plan at all.

Live Action public relations:
"AUSTIN, May 29 -- Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled "Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America," exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

"I see that you're saying that you want to terminate if it's a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?" a counselor named "Rebecca" offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. "The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks," explains Rebecca, "and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it's a boy or a girl." Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to "just continue and try again" for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, "Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy."

"The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe," notes Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. "Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant."

Six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of "missing girls" in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not. On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

"Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real 'war on women'," says Rose. "Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls."

The complete, unedited video and transcript can be viewed at www.ProtectOurGirls.com, a hub of research and information on sex-selective abortions.

Live Action is a youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending the human rights abuse of abortion. They use new media to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.

For further information, please contact Dan Wilson or Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920 and email at media@liveaction.org"

My government spends LESS TAXPAYERS money than the US government spends on healthcare. Every single country with public healthcare does, and everyone is covered. Now explain that.

The U.S. currently spends 23% of its federal budget on Medicare and Medicaid which only covers 15% of the population. These two programs alone rack up 700+ billion a year. That's $2,333 for every man, woman & child. As a family of 4, I could get a peach insurance plan with that $9,300 in my pocket. For refernce, military spending is 21%.

So why indeed is not 'everyone covered'? Do you have to ask? Medicare & Medicaid are grossly inefficient, rampant with corruption, run by cronyism, and waste 65+ cents on the dollar. In exchange for this wonderful spending efficiency they are able to puke out substandard care. People on Medicare/aid routinely deal with long delays, denied coverage, and onerous bureaucracy. They are flawed, expensive, ineffective programs so of course they can't cover everyone. Obamacare is (essentially) nationalized Medicare. Why would any sane person want that as thier national plan? Now explain that.

Instead of raving on about how publicly run healthcare will be hundreds of times more expensive than the private ones, look at the numbers.

Looking at the numbers is WHY I am saying publicly run healthcare will be more expensive. Duh.

You strike me as a person that has never really considered these questions, and whether perhaps the answers you were told in grade school might be mistaken in some way.

Meh - your perceptions - like your political philosophy - are inaccurate. I've pondered these issues long and deep, and arrived at conclusions as opposed to opinions. Goods & services have real costs in time & resources. It is fair & necessary for such things to have requisite prices affixed.

What if the thing that motivates people has more to do with a sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment than actual remuneration?

Such persons still need food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and dozens of other necessities to survive & prosper. Feeling accomplished or fulfilled does not create goods & services. Work & resources do, and both of those require $$$ on Planet Earth.

I had a serious illness a few years ago... YOU ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE...!

It is a hallmark of liberalism to brainlessly demonize those who have valid but politically different points of view. I reject such foolishness. I also reject big government as a solution. Just because you may believe big government is 'more compassionate' does not make it true. There are many approaches that work just fine and DON'T involve government. Only a small percentage of people need real help. Everyone else merely needs to budget properly and plan. Those who need help can easily obtain it without a 1.3 trillion government program.

Nice anecdote though. I've got one too. I had medical costs over $250K. With my privately purchased insurance and wisely planned cafeteria plan my total out of pocket was $5K - all which was tax free. No government. Catastrophic medical is easily affordable & widely available with family plans for less than $100 a month & individual plans for less than $40. It works just fine, and that's why over 86% of all Americans (and over 70% of the NON-INSURED) are 'satisfied' with their current medical care. "But some can't afford it...!" True. Such persons can be assisted by state, municipal, and private aid. This tiny percentage does not require a 1.3 trillion national plan to address its needs.

What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit.

Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).

Liberals are merely taking the profit they malign so much and transferring it to government - an entity that needs it the LEAST and will abuse it the MOST. Medicare alone loses over 30% of its revenue every year in fraud, abuse, and waste. That'll happen with Obamacare X10. Evil, rich insurance fatcats can be dealt with if they commit real abuses (as opposed to your personal objections over their profits). You can also go with any number of competitors if you don't like a company. Good luck trying once government is in charge.

The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare

Aaand so that means we should increase the federal budget by a further 1.3 trillion? Specious reasoning, especially when you consider that with medicare/medicaid the government is already spending hundreds of billions on medical care.

What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around?

You - like Obama - offer a false choice. Health care costs are increasing. This is true. Something should probably be done to help reduce costs. This is also true. What is NOT true is that the proper, correct, wise course of action is to accept Obama's plan.

In fact, it is something of a misnomer to even call it "Obama's Plan". Obama doesn't really have a plan. For all his rhetoric and his speechifying, Obama has never once put forward a concrete, solid "plan" that is written down on paper for people to discuss. The plans we are discussing today are the House plans (of which there are 4 or 5 different ones in 'draft' form) and to a lesser extent the Senate plan (which is largely unknown and unwritten).

Now - there are some pretty alarming provisions in the House bill. Page 18 is a provision that will essentially put private insurance offerings out of business within a few short months to years. Page 838 has language that suggests government will be required to visit the homes of new parents to advise and consent on educational and social choices. Page 22 mandates audits of all companies who self-insure. Page 30 establishes a government committee to decide on patient health care options. Page 59 gives the Federal government involuntary, uncontested access to your personal checking accounts in order to draft for payment. Page 65 ensures taxpayer subsidization of Union health care in perpetuity. Page 72 and 84 forces all private insurance to use the government's rules, and also forces them to be 'part' of the government system (effectively making 'private' insurance an 'in name only' option). Pages 95 turns ACORN and other liberal interest groups into an army of 'enrollers' to recruit people into the plan. Page 102 automatically enrolls any Medicaid qualifier into the national plan. Page 124 shuts the door on suing the government plan for malpractice, price fixing, or any other consumer recourse for mistakes & constested decisions. Page 127 gives the government panels the right to set doctor wages. Page 145 forces all companies to auto-enroll employees in the system whether they participate or not. Page 149 forces all companies to pay health care for part time employees and family members. Page 150 forces anyone with a salary of 250K+ to pay a 6% tax if they don't participate in the national "option". Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.

Now - the neolibs of Congress and the Senate are defending the umbrella term "health care reform" by saying that the bill really DOESN'T do all these things. The problem is, there is concrete language right there in the bill that says YES the government IS going to get involved in these things. The American people have seen it, and they don't like it. The language in the bill is vague, indeterminiate, and smacks of the 'public option' really being a Trojan Horse to a nationalized, mandatory, compulsory system. And what is more - Barak Obama (and the neolibs) have for YEARS said that what they are really after is a nationalized system. Why in the world should we believe them when they say they DON'T want a national system when (A) the bill is leading towards nationalization and (B) they have said that's what they want?

The fact is that the Health Care plan that is going through Congress is a horrible plan, and the American people have seen it for what it is. They don't want it. And they are NOT satisfied with politicians who make vague, non-committal excuses that the bill really ISN'T what the people think it is (when all evidence contradicts them). Should health care be reformed? Probably. Should the government be solution to the problem? Pht - not in a BILLION years.

The demand being made by Obama and the neolibs that THIS PLAN be passed now now now now now NOW over the objections of the majority of the American people is not flying. There is no reason to be so hasty. It makes the neolibs look shifty, desperate, and untrustworthy - and the American people as a whole are not falling for it. If it is SOOOOOO all-fired important, shouldn't Obama have a plan on paper? Shouldn't Congress be willing to address the SPECIFIC objections over language in the bill rather than just whining "No no no - you're wrong!" Can't we just admit the House bill is crap and broom the whole thing and start over with a bill that DOESN'T contail all these suspicious provisions? If you're answer is "NO NO NO - we need THIS bill NOW!" then I have no choice but to conclude that you're a partisan zombie. Something this important should be done slowly, carefully, with rigorous testing, and with the consent of the majority of the American people.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
Deregulation is the answer? Has this not been de-bunked a thousand times over yet?
How about the US actually make something that the world wants to buy, wouldn't that be better?


not really.
i think the death is in the details.
regulations have literally brought americas manufacturing to its knees.
they could not compete with so much regulation weighing in against their profit margin.
this is where the financial district became so appealing.
so where GM would offer a 3% on avg return,it was the DEREGULATED financial institutions who could offer up to 20%.
while unrealistic in the long run,you cant blame an investor for jumping on the bandwagon,anyone of us would have.
im not saying that the regulations in finance should be blanket,just the safegaurds that were slowly,over twenty years,picked away and brought us the disaster we find ourselves in today.
glass/steagle to be specific,but there were a myriad of safegaurds that the financial institutions lobbied to excise.
i agree with schiff on many things.
giving financial institutions free reign is not one of them.
the biggest thing i DO agree on is america needs to go back to manufacturing again.
in peter schiff's book "crash proof" he does not make it sound like that is going to be a walk in the park,but it is utterly vital that we sacrifice and start making the changes now.
article 76 of the federalist papers,alexander hamilton laid out an industrial nation plan.which america followed until the late 70's.
it was a outline that had america importing more raw material,manufacturing and lending more than ANY other nation in the world.
those statistics have literally flipped.
by definition,america is a third world nation.
one of the worst shifts in the american philosophy was going from "making/building stuff was good"
to...
"greed is good".
now..milton friedman said greed was good but that was based on the assumption people were playing by the rules of the free market.
and those rules have been ignored for almost thirty years.
we do not have a free market,we have an oligarchy of corporations.
the free market works.
this is a main reason why i am for a single payer system.
bring in the health insurance that will force the industry to cut its fat,and lower prices.
everybody wins.
thats my 2c's anyways.

Blah blah Fox News

It's fine to rant about Fox News. They are slanted right. However, I don't see you being equally outraged at the fact that NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, and just about every other so-called 'news' agency on the planet is slanted left. You can't whine about 'propoganda' from FOX and then go on to smugly pretend that everything else is just hunky-dory. The success of FOX news exists because it fills a HUGE gaping hole in the 'propoganda news' marketplace. As the only news agency that slants conservative, it appeals to a huge market. If you're a neo-lib, then you've got about 10,000 other news programs competing for your attention.

But all news is propoganda today. The neo-liberal left wing news media dominates the cycles. For people to get so excised about the existence of ONE alternative news channel that communicates the other side of the story seems to me to show a high degree of insecurity.

Blah blah propoganda on health care

So far I see no propoganda. I see a different opinion on how to solve our health care cost issues. Obama wants socialism. Other people disagree. That's 'propoganda'? Oh - I see - it's propoganda because they are 'slanting' the way they communicate? Oh... How awful. How could anyone (COUGH COUGH OBAMA) do such a horrible thing as to exaggerate the negatives of what they oppose while communicating only the positives about their own plan? What a dastardly approach! :eyeroll:

Obama's plan isn't the only solution. There are strong arguments against a socialized system. America is NOT a small European country. It is much more highly populated, much more geographically fragmented, and far more demographically complicated. What works in Po-Dunk'sVille Eurozakistan will not necessarily work here. Obama's plan should not be implemented hastily. It should be rolled out SMALL in one or two test markets. Then if it actually works (as determined by the CBO) then it can be rolled out in a large market or two to see if it works there. Then we'll learn about what does and doesn't work, and what issues to be aware of. Then (IF it works according to CBO) ONLY then should be pass a 'law' making it a national plan. There is no need to pass this massive change now now now with no testing, no plan, no discussion, no transparency, and no testing to verify its capacity for success. Executing a plan this large purely on 'theory' is a terrible idea. Slow down.