http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyJQqDjNSIk&feature=popular
John Voight visits Fox News to spout some political bullshit, and ties Transformers into it. If you have something worth hearing, Voight, take it to some place where someone will at least play the other side, so you don't look like the moron and coward you are for doing it somewhere where anything against Obama is automatically the best thing ever said. You're an okay actor, and you fathered Angelina Jolie which is a big plus, but you're also rich, so you don't know what the middle-class needs.

I don't see anything wrong with what obama is doing, I'd rather lose some freedoms so I feel safe, some freedoms so I can be look after and some freedoms so we can advance as a race. Than have those freedoms and be in a depression, a morally inept soceity and nothing better than thee other animals on this planet.
Also what obama is currently doing is little different than the health of every other advanced country on earth, thus I see no problems with it.

Ehh, like most people labelled as delusional and hate-filled, he's just misinformed. It seems like he's repeating what a much more charismatic and eloquent person told him.
Also, two-way discourse is dead. Let's not single out Voight here, because both sides are equally guilty of running from it, and this video's a perfect example, though not solely for the reason you said. The video name and description are a way to easily score points without making the effort of debating.
And it's this approach that makes me believe that in the forseeable future very few people are ever going to change their mind on anything. For any position you care to name, they'll be able to find a myriad of one-sided justifications for it. It's kind of a shame; today it's easier to listen to competing views than it ever has been, but this ability's being neglected.

Just watched the video and I have to agree with you. Now I don't know the complete ins and outs of Obamacare, but from what I do know it seems to be an entirely sensible solution to the problem of healthcare for the less well off.
Complaining that it is a step towards socialism is a joke, firstly because socialist policies are not intrinsically bad by definition and secondly because US politics is so skewed towards the right wing when compared to the UK and most of Western Europe that over here Obama wouldn't even be left-wing enough to reach the middle ground.
I have also been bemused and amused at all of the recent criticisms from across the pond aimed towards the NHS. As far as I can tell the overwhelming majority of UK citizens are in full support of the idea behind the NHS and since the UK manages to achieve similar health figures (such as life expectancy, which is slighty higher here in the UK IIRC), as the US for only 41% of the cost I find the criticisms hilarious.
I am currently out of work and not very well off and have recently been diagnosed with Agoraphobia. The NHS is providing therapy for me, help which I would struggle to be able to afford myself and thankfully is available free at the point of use. I can't tell you how grateful I am and I wouldn't want any other type of healthcare system. I imagine there are a great many others in the UK who share my sentiments.

Agreed he didnt sound particularly hate filled nor did it really sound like a rant. Just some half arsed lefty heard it, went 'zomg difrent opiniun' then as you said tried to score points with a silly title. The suggestion that the US is turning into a socialist state does tickle me though.
I'm not sure we are a hell of a lot better really.

I'll explain my position better would you like to live in a free society were you had to scavenge for food and kill or be kill?
You have to give up certain freedoms so civilisation doesn't fall.
It's all well and good to be entirely free but without certain freedoms taken away, 80% of the population will be oppressed by the 20% with power.
This is why I support governemnt, support the giving up of CERTAIN freedoms so we can be civilised, live in safety and not beasts as the other animals of this planet.
Also I find qoutely figures of the 19th century to be of little relevence to our present soceity as B. Fraklin was trying to rally is troops for war against the english who had colonised and were protecting amercia for the loss of amercias freedom at the time.
If obama and his healthcare paln plan were an occuping force I'd understand its relevence but because it isn't, it falls on deaf ears.

You best be trolling. What you are saying doesnt really make much sense, we need to give up freedoms because otherwise 80% of the population would be oppressed by the other 20%? i was going to write more but yeh ive decided this is likely a troll post so nevermind.

I haven't watched the video yet, but as someone who would be labeled as a "Fiscal conservative / Social Libertarian" I have ZERO issues with a government run health care system, so long as they don't force me to use it, and it's maintainable as a business entity. If it's done right it shouldn't need any outside funding from taxes or yet another dip into SS, after the initial start up.
Note, when I say that it shouldn't be funded with taxes I should clarify that... I don't think it should be funded with current taxes, or a general tax. I do agree with the idea that business, of a certain size, that DON'T offer medical coverage are taxed to cover the health care costs, or that all business are given a tax break for what they pay for medical coverage for their employees. (I don't think the mom/pop start-up with all of 3 employees including themselves should be burdened with yet another tax, when it's already so difficult to start a business, but something like Walmart....)
What all of this does, is forces the government run health care system to be competitive without having an unfair advantage that other health insurance companies couldn't get. At the same time it forces companies in general to be more responsible and accountable. Finally it gives the citizens a choice, and doesn't force them into a government run system if they can afford or have the ability to get coverage elsewhere (at the point I'm at in my career one of the benefits is really good health care coverage, and I shouldn't be forced into using government coverage if I believe it would be less than what I get now.)

How is this a troll?
What I'm saying is that in an entirely free would without fair government, the power would say in those with the money and money and you would be at there mercy(governments can be somewhat accuse of this but they are more fair than that of a gang.)

Oh I never said I disagreed with you (at least in part), I just found it hilarious and ironic that when something is done by a republican president they're attacked, but when a democrat president does it they're supported.
Edit: cleared up what I was trying to say.

Kind of feels like 1984, doesn't it?

I never said better or worse, just more right wing. Personally i can see the benefits and pitfalls of both the left and right wing and think that finding some common ground between the two is much more important than trying to continuously undermine the other side. I guess that is probably the reason why I frequently find politics exasperating, politicians seem far more bothered about getting elected/reelected and beating the other side than they do actually serving the people.

I'm reminded of a quote from dune... "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." Those that seek power should not be given it, and the power to govern should only be given to those that do not wish to have it.

Yes, that certainly does ring true, great books by the way.