tried reading his "unfreedom of the press"

literally nothing everyone doesn't know about the media, couched in republican partisanship thicker than pitch resin

"Saudi Arabia getting attacked means trouble for the World's Oil"

Who gives a shit, we're energy independent

Mark Levin? Ewww is that like Ben Shapiro's apprentice

Anyways time to find his tweet and respond to it

Ok this guy is like hur hur Iran killed American troops

When was the last time that happened

1980s?

And yeah i know about their bs in Iraq but that would have never happened if US nevrr invaded

Iranian ammunition hasn't been discharged toward american military since before the turn of the millenium. Meanwhile, 3000 american citizens and countless troops are dead as a result of the machinations of the House of Saud.

Iran is simply on the wrong team

with Russia, Syria, and such

Does the support iran gave to shia militias in Iraq count

No, because us sticking our dick in a religious schism/civil war is no one's fault but ours

Ok yeah

its seriously about teams

ours: US, Saudis and Israel, theirs: Russia, Syria and Iran

Iran and Syria needn't do anything to earn our ire, realistically. By dint of their non-aggression toward Russia, they're on the wrong team

>inb4 Iran is a theocracy and syria is a dictatorship
Yes, and we give weapons to another, arguably worse theocracy, and an apartheid oligarchy. we're not fighting them over government ethics, clearly

Mark Levin has his moments but he's hypocritical talking about partisan politics then referring to the federalist papers where it talks about the dangers of faction.

^

yeah, he's not necessarily inaccurate, he's just tribal as fuck

very first chapter in his book is full of exclusively referring to america as a *Republic*

not even nation or country

beyond that, nothing he had to say about the media was shit people couldn't figure out for themselves

@Jokerfaic

Yes it is a fallback. A fallback being a worst case scenario nobody wants to end up in. So when you suggest putting *everyone* in that worst case scenario civilized people reject it. I'mnot callingit a "moral failing". I'm calling it an awful idea. People prefer walk-in emergency services because you won't have to wait for care.

"Everyone being covered by health insurance is a worst case scenario"
still unsure if trolling

Americans problem with health insurance is the expectation of qaulity.

We could all have health coverage, but at a significantly lower qaulity, and not raise taxes.

Demanding the best for everyone isn't moral its bullshit

What the fuck even is low or high quality healthcare? If a cunt comes in needing something fixed. FIX IT. how fucking complicated does that have to be?

if you go in for a broken leg, and they only "half" fix it, that's not "low quality care" thats fucking malpractice

Well do you want a private room, your own doctor, do you mind if you're treated by staff with only technical certifications, do you need air conditioning, do you need paper materials, etc.

Qaulity is more than cleanliness.

I'm sure if someone needs a lifesaving drug or wants to know what that strange lump on their ribs is they won't much care about fucking air conditioning

I don't think we're addressing the same concerns

No but we haven't had real discussions about quality and it's the otherside of the coin in regards to health insurance.

I doubt anyone's expecting god damn star trek med bay accomodations. People just want to be able to go to the god damn doctor without risking financial ruin. And no, simply sitting there and saying "thats never happened to me" is not an acceptable response.

I've never had a tree fall on my house, I still see the merit of having insurance for it.

I moved to concierge recently. Here's what I expect A doctor whenever I need a doctor. A procedure whenever I need one. If I change my diet/ exercise routine I want new blood work. I do not want to wait on anything health related. Not having this is a worst case scenario.

Outside moral outrage there is no actual defense of medicare for all.