When McCain voted for the $700 billion bailout of all the banks, effectively nationalizing 9 private banks against their will, he lost all credibiity as a fiscal conservative. For the record, when Cuba nationalized all of our assets in Cuba between 1959 and 1961, the total tab was $2 Billion 1961 dollars (source: http://www.vii.org/papers/cuba.htm) or  $14.1 billion in 2007 dollars (source: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)

So I could say that McCain voted for a nationalization, within the borders of our country rather than on the foreign soil of another nation, of a magnitude 50 times greater than was expropriated by Castro during a communist rebellion, and I would not be lying.

You dont get to playa hate someone as a socialist, then fly to washington DC and approve a $700 Billion plan to nationalize our financial system.
Sorry, you fail. "Epic Fail", as they say in the vernacular.

You must think we are all idiots to not notice.

I'm against the nationalization in principle because its probably the most socialist act of our government of all time, and one of the largest acts of nationalization by dollar value in the last 70 years, out of any country, including the USSR.

However i do admit it will probably be the quickest path to resolution and although Obama voted for it, he at least is not pretending to be a lassisez faire capitalist like McCain and every other republican who voted socialist did.

I agree with him that a modern nation needs to expand its social services, such as with healthcare. Its almost like saying paying for highways should be optional, "I CAN RIDE MY HORSE AND BUGGY IF I WANT THROUGH THE WOODS TO GET TO GRANDMAS HOUSE, NO WAY I SHOULD BE PAYIN' FOR SOME BROWN GUY TO DRIVE DRUGS FROM MEXICO ON A HIGHWAY MY TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR!"

It's ludicrous, to consider life in the US without access to highways and the affordable products they transport to our citizens is an absurd arguement at best and completely intellectually dishonest. Yet this is basically the same arguement against providing a basic level of healthcare for everyone. I feel that at this point in history, we are at the turning point where the automobile and tractor trailer became ubiquitous and inseparable from our daily lives, (somewhere between 1930s and 1950s) with regards to healthcare. People 50 years from now will look back on the 1970s through today as the horse and buggy days of health care and how backwards we were for the way we used to provision this ubiquitous and inseparable component of our daily lives.

I'd like all of you who are against healthcare reform to refuse treatment the next time you are struck with an uninsured spiral fracture in your leg, because that shit will probably cost you about $40,000 in treatment, you should all be real republican men and just, you know, walk it off or something. That would be a good start. Another thing you could all do is vote to change the hippocratic oath that our doctors take upon completion of their schooling, and just prior to being granted their license to practice. Because that oath is what insures that they serve everyone who enters a hospital in need, regardless of their ability to pay. So when someone from the inner city shows up with a gunshot wound and no insurance, guess who pays for the admission and 50 hours of surgery? You do! via local bond acts, state levies to health insurance companies for unpaid services, and other federal relief. Who's to say how many people are double dipping in that fiasco? To say you don't want a structure way to at least organize the bottom tier of our healthcare system while preserving private insurance and services for the rich elite who probably wont be showing up anywhere without being able to pay is like pretending that the 3rd infantry division just could never possibly take down Baghdad in circa march 2003.