At 11/10/09 08:56 PM, Elfer wrote:

That's really not the main issue with private insurance.

Never said it was.

I just think it's a neat little trick the Government plays.

The main issue is people getting stuck with gigantic medical bills and going bankrupt.

So we're going from a health system with 55% Government Control, Corporate subsidies, rising costs, and where people are forced to pay for other's health care and their own seperately...

To a Health Care system with more Government Control, forced to buy Private Insurance, increased Health Care costs, more Corporate Subsidies, and bigger debt.

Wahoo for REFORM!

Eh...

Well... lookie here.

Radical Libertarian.

At 11/10/09 05:05 PM, fli wrote: Do you really think that you can simplify my feelings for health care to just that one factor?

No.

Because I'm telling you--

I even said it was a half-serious joke.

there is more.

I just find it ironic that someone who comes from an "illegal background" would bring up illegals being covered by other people's taxes. Taxes the illegals aren't paying.

I'm willing to talk about illegal immigrants. It's definitely not a closed subject for me.
but at least come up with a paragraph, actually arguing for a point.

There were several posts of that targeted to various individuals.

Although--
Like I said...
Health Care Reform doesn't include illegal immigrants.

It does when each state is restricted from identifying people as they come in to receive that Health Care.

Loopholes are fun.

At 11/10/09 08:39 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If you get sick it does! And it bankrupts a lot of other people to. And having health insurance is making people poor as well. So, we're talking about both.

What's making people poor isn't that they're paying for insurance.

It's that they're paying for both Medicare, Medicaid, and their own Insurance.

They're getting stuck with 3 bills, two of which a lot of the time doesn't even cover them and they're forced to pay.

Along with a few other things, I just think it's kind of funny that the Government forces people to pay for other people's Health Care through their taxes, then blames the Insurance Companies for people not being able to afford their rates.

At 11/8/09 10:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Remind us why your "total free market" system worked so much better?

Tell me of an instance where more Government Control in Health Care in the US didn't progressively make our Heath Care system worse.

How can you call our Health Care system anywhere NEAR free market when the Government controls 55% of it while we still have these problems?

How much more control does it take for them to have before this excuse runs out: "If only there was more Government control".

At 11/9/09 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Wow, back that one the hell up or I NEVER want to see you pull that sort of racist shit again. Seriously, unless you can show where Fli said that, such a statement should never ever be made. I will cheerfully withdraw my criticism if proven wrong and publicly apologize. But yeah, please to make with the evidence.

He's admitted several times he comes from a background of illegal ancestors several times.

Just go ahead and ask him.

Oh, and btw: Go fuck yourself.

What if it's a situation where the mother's life is threatened?

We ALREADY do give money for that.

And there's no controversy over it.

I understand not wanting to put out funding for a "non-essential" procedure, certainly one as controversial as that but...no money under no circumstances?

Considering we already do it...

Come on...but really, might not be a bad thing for the insurance companies if they're looking to compete (which really is what I'd like to see any healthcare reform do, pressure insurers to be more competitive and offer better care at reasonable prices to the consumer).

How does this bill do that when people are still restricted from buying across state lines (like Car Insurance), nurses are still restricted from performing operations, just as many frivolous lawsuits, and Insurance Corporations are still receiving huge sums of subsidies?

Name calling really helps you're point.

You are retarded.

I make a half-serious joke about his parents "former" (lol) illegal background, and I'm suddenly branded a racist?

Once again: Go fuck yourself.

Oh crap, do we REALLY have to have the debate about how there's all that evidence that says "life begins at conception" is a manufactured by religion and isn't based on fact again?

So when is it?

When the heart pumps blood through the body?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 17 days, making roughly 90% of abortions unjustified (excluding rape, life threatened, ect..).

How about when brain waves develop?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 40 days of the pregnancy, making roughly 70% of abortions unjustified.

And here we have a law passed by Political Judges rather than doctors that say "You can have an abortion for ANY reason within the first 3 months". But as I just showed, the typical liberal argument of "brain development" doesn't even hold up to that.

Oh, btw: cells = life. Embryo = made up of cells which = life. Therefore Embryo = life.

The word you're looking for is Alive.

And I would say the heartbeat would make the most sense of naturally living. Why? Because the heart is the engine of the body and we declare people "clinically dead" by this.

So if someone's death is determined by their heart failing, then it only makes sense to declare a fetus alive by the heart working. Also considering the fact that we still refer to people as "alive" when they're brain dead and on life support.

Hence: It would be the most consistent.

Not to mention as I said, sometimes abortions have to be done as a life saving measure.

And how many times do people like me have to say it: NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THAT.

At 11/9/09 12:56 AM, fli wrote:

My mother is naturalized, and my father is a resident.
They're citizen status stands on the same level as your and mine.

Didn't used to be.

The only people on the same level as "my parents" are the ones who did so "legally".

Not to mention the Native American from my father, so in which case: All you white people - Get the hell out already.

At 11/8/09 12:24 AM, fli wrote:

I'm happy.
(I know loads of you guys won't.)

It's because you're parents are illegals.

At 11/8/09 02:04 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think this was just the house though, again. We're still waiting on the Senate, right?

I'm fine with a majority of it, but apparently they added yet another restriction on abortion so that even private insurers can't pay for them??? WTF? How is that helpful in anyway whatsoever.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

At 11/8/09 02:27 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Its the health care exchanges apparently. I hope that particular amendment gets repealed after the whole thing passes.

You're retarded.

Heh, I mean think about it.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

I'm amazed how people who hate our current and horrible healthcare system would even dare support the bill.

-We spend more on Health Care than most socialized nations and this only increases that cost.
-The Insurance Corporations will now get Billions more.
-The Drug Industry supported the bill and will now get even more money.
-The Government will increase their control of health care from 55% (And the supporters say we have a free market system...) to an even bigger number.

It makes me laugh at how stupid some of you people are.

"Down with the horrible insurance corporations! ...Oh, but we support the bill that they support and which will end up giving them more of our money!"

LOL!

At 11/5/09 02:36 PM, Temariix wrote: Still got a good ways to go, but I have begun! Muahahaha!

I have to fix the mouth, and obviously get the base down for the hair and goggles as well, then I'll really start making this look sexy. Any suggestions appreciated.

Actually, I was going to do that one over. I was getting used to my new tablet and photoshop filters/layers/Opacity ect..

Things are coming out a lot better with it now.

But as for your drawing, I like it!

Only thing I find odd is that the ear on his left looks like it's not going down far enough (or it's too high).

I like how the thread went from the atheist being a asshole-ish jerk in the example to the topic starter going "Yeah! I agree!".

At 11/3/09 07:01 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

You mean, when did it really end in your opinion so that you can make an absurd, absolutely.

So you're saying the solution to our economic downturn is to take almost 100% of people's income while forcing people into war?

Before the the war America had recovered it GDP from before the depression,

GDP means nothing when people are still unemployed and the only amount of growth is attributed to Government spending.

So as I've asked before.

What's the point of a 3.5% economic growth when the "real" unemployment rate is close to 20%?

Recovered its stock market (considering the dollar was worth A lot more [CPI 1929 :17.3 ; CPI 1940:13.3]) the real value of stock market way ahead.

Like our stock market, which it's "real" value accounting for the inflation from last year to today is really only up to 8000 rather than 10k.

The only reason why it is 10k is because of the printing money propping up the numbers.

In 4 years unemployemnt dropped 10%.

No.

The only time unemployment dropped significantly was in 1937 when it hit 14.3%, but then by the very next year it rose back up to 19%. He's been in office then for 5-6 years by this point...

How could anyone in their right mind say what he did worked? He's failed after almost 6 years (by today's standards he only has two years left).

The only time it when down below 10% was in 1941, but that was solely because because we entered a war-time economy and forced unemployed people into the military and counted them as "employed".

The only ugly stat you have, is when treasury sec. raised taxes and pressured FDR to reduce spending prematurely

Oh great.

The good, old, bullshit excuse of "We didn't spend enough". Is there ever an amount of money a nation can spend before that excuse wears out?

Even during his entering office until war-time, economic growth was still below trend.

and a lot of the works programs will cancelled by the supreme court, unemployment rose again, but didn't come close to what it was.

Excuses excuses.

The reason Truman liquidated those assets, was because the economy was healthy again, and that is what you are supposed to do.

The economy was only healthy again because he liquidated the assets.

If what you say is true, then why is it that when we entered a depression in 1920 that was worse than the stock market crash of 1921, and we immediately liquidated the assets... why did that only last a little less than 1 year?

If liquidating the assets meant nothing and Government spending and programs meant results, then why did cutting the deficit by 1/3, lowering people's taxes, and reducing Government spending by 1/2 produce better than much faster recovery/results than ALL the YEARS of Hoover and FDR?

Actually it was British investment in American weaponry that really got it started.

Funny how that doesn't change what I said.

Its REALLY simple. You expand to meet growing demand. Therefore you must first have growing demand. This is fundamental economics,

A politician's excuse to avoid blame and keep spending.

[fixed, no one was ever taxed 97%]

Pardon me for still being in the 90's.

When after tax they still make amounts of money not matched until Bill Gates. yes. But that didn't actually occur until the final year of WW2, when FDR was dead.

Tax rates by year (scroll down a bit).

FDR was president in 1944.

Tax rate in 1944: 94%

Why wouldn't I believe the CBO. We waste a lot of money right now. And there are ways to streamline.

The CBO would be right if the Government were at all capable of doing anything properly and efficiently.

"Might be" right.

Yep, you got me there you tunnel visioned, cynical, twit.

Defend it.

Say right now that you think it would be a good idea to tax people 94% of their income during a borderline depression.

Prices aren't fixed under the house Bill. The government once again has the ability to negotiate prices.

Right, because that's worked out so well...

But wait a minute... if the Government can negotiate prices while the insurance agencies are able to lobby for Billions while having the politicians in their back pockets...

So it is nothing like Bush.

It's EXACTLY like Bush.

You explain to me why the Drug Industry is spending hundreds of millions in ads promoting Obama's "vision".

All you see is "expand coverage" and assume the rest is the same. Its not every facet of the bill is different.

No, it's just an expansion of Bush's proposal.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed.

That argument is not even likely in the bill.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Well that much is true.

I like how you just completely skipped over the part where I call you an idiot for bitching about the price of healthcare while demanding pre-existing conditions be accepted.

I.e. we kept money available to firms who needed it (manufacturing, construction, restaraunts) by allowing their source for capital in operation.

It's only temporary.

You gave them borrowed and printed money.

The only way these can keep going is if you continuous borrow and print money.

But that leads to inflation, which benefits the rich while wiping out the middle class while the gap between rich and poor increase.

I bet those bankers just love you.

Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Fiction

Yeah, the Federal Reserve expanding the monetary supply by 60% during the 1920's had NOTHING to do with the crash of '29.

The big piece of that pie is lowerin lending standards. Reducing oversight in the market, while keeping interest rates artificially low. That is everything in a nutshell.

And yet ALL caused by the Government.

Since it was the Government and their banks who lowered lending standards. And it was the Government who told private banks to do the same while telling them they would be "bailed out should anything happen."

Too mistakes. You can't have government involvment in artificially lowering interest rates and then turn around and reduce oversight to help a "free market". That was the work going on under bush. Obama and the people working with him act under different rules.

Is that why Obama and McCain are ranked Second and Third in most political contributions from banks of any congressman?

Is that why they BOTH voted in favor of giving Bush the money to bail out wallstreet?

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

The last 8 years it hadn' and you wont get an argument from me.

Too bad it's EXACTLY the same.

And the average income is up 4,000% we are still ahead, no?

And yet the gap between rich and poor get bigger everyday while the middle class is wiped out.

Have fun with your corporate consumer based economy!

At 11/2/09 08:01 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

That's a lie and you know it. Everytime we go over this I show you stats and statistics and you still spout the same BS.

Really?

When the recession start? 1929.

When did it "officially" end (according to the Government)? World War II

When did it really end? At the end of the war.

So you have two choices. Either the war fixed the economy (by throwing unemployed people in the military and industry producing war-time products), or it was fixed because the bad assets were liquidated (after FDR's death).

In both instances: FDR didn't do shit.

And the reason why the "war" argument doesn't mean anything is because it's just another Government excuse for their spending.

It's the same lame excuse of "unemployment is a lagging indicator". Bullshit, the economy isn't really recovered until jobs are stabilized. Otherwise, Economic growth doesn't mean squat.

But you tell me. Do you support the Federal Government taxing people 97% of their income?

Roughly 1/220th of when as in the building of the first stage on the Panama canal. And twice as many as the brooklyn bridge (that little thing.) What's your point?

The irony is all.

Lol-o-rang Bloomberg style

The fact that you believe it is truly laughable.

Everything the government touches isn't broke

No, just 90% of it.

Actually no. Bush never recommended a public option,

Right, because expanding medicare coverage where prices are fixed is NOTHING like what Bush did.

or demand regulation prohibiting insurance companies from excluding based on pre-existing conditions, raising rates after illess and cancelling coverage for reasons other than insuree not fulfilling their end of the contract. So I guess it makes sense now...

Now that's what's really funny.

You bitch about denying coverage and demand they accept people with pre-existing conditions. Then you turn around and bitch about the rising prices.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed. Meaning they won't be paying into a pool until the very moment they receive the medical attention.

Guess what that would do to premiums?

Not according the kind folks over at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. They say you are lying.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Hey! That sounds familiar too!

It kept many financial firms from going under and removing the lending institutions large enough to keep those that keep americans employed a means of getting funds. So yes. Additionally, since many of the banks have already paid back ( or started to) it looks as though the gov. may even turn a profit on that. So yes.

Ie. We kept the rich, corporate bankers and business men who fucked up, keep running the show!

Prior to the stimulus spending bush had raised the debt approx. $3.5 T and $2.2 T of that can be traced to military expenditure.

I like how you lumped in Iraq and Afghanistan with overall military expenditure.

Dumbass

Btw, that's $1 Trillion spent on both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, making the money spend on Iraq less than $1 Trillion, therefore...

I win.

I've said this before, The government can't do everything efficiently, and neither can a free market.

Even though the panics of the 1800's were caused by the National Banks and bicentennialism.
Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Even though our current "depression" was the result of our Government and Federal Reserve greatly lowering interest rates, propping up housing prices, lowering lending standards, leaning on private banks to follow suit and telling them that if "anything bad happens, we'll help you out".

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

Strong social programming is a cost effective means of raising the overal standard of living for the nation as a whole, and protecting the populace when the system is sicks. But A strong market is also needed, one driven by capital exchange in which new ideas are incoraged to flurish is also needed. The two act as hands washing each other. There is a balance.

Our dollar today had lost 96% of it's value from 1913. No fiat currency has ever lasted the test of time.

Inflation ftw! What a balance.

Did you read Glenn Beck's book, Arguing like an idiot? You are making superbly weak straw man arguments tonight. Usually your thoughts are at least coherently tied together and somewhat grounded in reality. But not this time.

Glenn Beck?

The hell is wrong is you?

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

Its not as black and white as "spending money" to fix the economy.

Yeah it is.

It is what you spend it on that is important.

Yeah, that's why FDR's efforts to get us out of the Great Depression was a marvelous success... oh wait! He had 13 years to do it and failed! The economy didn't pick back up until after his death when Truman actually decided to liquidate the bad assets!

The government didn't need to fund the hoover dam, but it was a very solid investment, selling that electricity has more than paid for the project.

How many people died as a result?

Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B

LOL!

by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

It make more sense if everything the Government touched wasn't broke.

It would also make more sense if Bush didn't do the exact same thing and didn't use the exact same argument.

I seem to recall him saying we would cover the cost of expanding medicare with "savings". But... oops, the cost went from $400 Billion to $1.2 Trillion.

Bush also passed a hundred billion dollar stimulus package in 2008. Why? To "curb a recession". IT even gave a bounce in GDP #.

Question: Did it work?

When Bush doubled the debt, he did it to turn Iraq into a glass crater.

Iraq doesn't even cover up to a 1/4 of the total amount of debt he accumulated.

No savings, nothing of valie left afterward. Just glass and a region of people who hate us even more than they already did. Difference.

Right, because going from $5 Trillion accumulated debt to $10 Trillion accumulated debt is a fantastic idea.

Here's another question: If the Government can perpetually grow the economy through spending, then why doesn't the Government hire everyone for every job and spend more money?

If increasing the minimum wage is great for the economy, then why don't we increase it to $40 an hour, $50 an hour. Hell, why not make it $100 an hour?

Keynesian morons.

Just one more reason why the Government shouldn't even be involved in marriage.

It amazes me how there are still people who think spending an outrageous amount of money can solve every problem, even after Bush doubled the national debt.

At 11/2/09 12:22 AM, POOPIES wrote:

What Memorize was saying is that we grow dependent on the Gov't spending once we start. However, the stimulus package was created to be a temporary boost -- a "spinach" so to speak, that allows us to surmount the challenge of low consumer confidence and aggregate demand, and which will cancel out these problems and cause the dynamo of the American economy to start up, at which point it will become self-sustaining until the next recession, in however many years or decades that may be.

So... you're saying people should be taking out more loans and spending their money during a severe economic downturn while people are losing their jobs.

So you're saying this "temporary boost" was worth the bankers being bailed out, going into Trillions more in debt, and higher inflation...

Love the logic. How to cure a problem of too much spending and debt? Spend more and go into more debt!

As stated before and by the Government...

The economy grew because the Government spent Trillions of dollars backing cars, homes, and banks.

ie. Unless the Government can spend this amount of money every year on a timely manner... then our growth doesn't mean anything.

Quick pic of Dr. Horrible from Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog.

(Quick note: The image in Photoshop wouldn't let me resize the image, so I had to print-screen it and save it as a .jpg which raped the quality. Yes, I do realize I got lazy with the jacket...)

At 10/30/09 03:18 AM, LardLord wrote:

"Forecasters expect the unemployment rate to continue to rise, to 10 percent in the first quarter of next year, before edging down to 9.5 percent by the end of 2010. "

Yeah, kind of like those "80% of economists" who predicted that everything was fine just a few months before the collapse, right?

So basically here we have two articles stating that economists are saying two different things.

Nevermind their excellent track record so far.

lol.

So you're arguing that the period from 1993-2000 and 2002-2007 were not periods of economic growth?

We are not a producing nation.

Why did our economy "grow" 3.5%?

Was it because people were spending money again? No.
Was it because the unemployment dropped? No.

It was because our Government just spend, borrowed, and printed trillions of dollars the flooded the market with it. Using it mostly on cars and homes.

Therefore making this "growth" nothing short of Artificial which could only be "sustained" with yearly trillion dollar deficits as a result of spending.

But then that would mean a higher debt and higher interest on that debt. As well as higher inflation which would increase prices on an already highly unemployed population.

Excellent plan!!!

Nevermind Lyndon Johnson altering the way we calculate unemployment to make the economy "seem" better.

Our unemployment is defined as the number of people who are in the workforce and actively pursuing a job. This does not change over time. The percentage of unemployment which occurs above the natural rate is a measure of the severity of a recession. Our natural rate in the years leading up to this recession was around 4%, and now is around 9.8%. It will likely rise above 10% for a short period of time and then being its decline due to the aforementioned lag effect which slows unemployment's corresponding decline in the face of an increased GDP.

Moron.

If we calculate unemployment the way we did during the Great Depression...

Depression: 25%
Today: 17%-20%

Why?

Because today, we don't count people who give up looking for work as: Unemployed.
We don't consider self-employed individuals who currently have no work as Unemployed.
We don't consider those who went from a full time engineering job to a part time job as KFC as unemployed.

The ONLY reason why our official unemployment rate is 9.8% is because Lyndon Johnson changed the standards.

So we're very much closer to Great Depression levels (using Great Depression calculations).

The so-called "lagging indicator" is nothing more than a politician's excuse to do whatever they wish to later claim responsibility for the eventual recovery.

Do you know nothing of economics?

Coming from the person who believes our mainstream economists and didn't know of Lyndon Johnson's meddling...

The lagging indicator is a well-documented phenomenon in history.

There is no recovery without increased employment.

Otherwise, a recovery means: Jack-Shit.

Would you prefer a nation with 5% unemployment with 4% growth or a nation with 30% unemployment with 10% growth?

Unemployment reaches its highest rate after an economy has already begun to recover, before reversing course towards the natural rate. See below:

Except that the only reason why our stock markets are "up" is because of the Federal Reserve doubling our money supply which artificially boosts stock prices to reflect the devaluing of our Dollar.

For instance, let's say the DOW is sitting at 8000.

If the DOW increased to 8100 while the dollar loses it's value equal to 150 (based on the DOW), then that means you just made a net-loss of 50.

So you actually lost money even though the DOW went up.

Considering we've doubled the money supply and our dollar has lost so much of it's value, if we calculate the DOW's current 10,000 by how much it's actually worth with last year's dollar value and DOW number, then it would be (for example) much closer to 7500.

In this example: The DOW didn't increase from 6500 to 10,000. It's actual increase is from 6500 to 7500. The only reason why it's at 10,000 is because of the doubling of the money supply (ie. Inflation!).

To give you a better idea...

10,000 = 7500
Link.

So you're sitting here hailing the success of all this spending and that the DOW has hit the breaking 10,000 mark when it really hasn't.

If you adjust for the inflation of this year and last year, the DOW fell from 14000 to 6500 and then increased to a meager 7500.

So congrats on YOUR Recovery!

At 10/30/09 02:50 AM, LardLord wrote:

Most economists say that the unemployment rate a year from now will be markedly lower than it is right now, after a slight increase in late 2009 - early 2010, due to the lag effect which is derived from consumer expectations and confidence not being restored as fast as firms' ability to recover from recessions.

Hahahaha... Really...

"The comments arrive in the wake of government figures revealing that the nation's employers let go of 263,000 more folks last month than they hired, hiking the unemployment rate from 9.7 percent to 9.8 percent - the highest level in 26 years. And, despite some indication that production is slowly on the rise, experts expect unemployment to get worse before it gets better. Indeed, economists of all stripes are predicting jobless rates to flirt with 10.5 percent in 2010, and remain elevated through the entire year - a trend that threatens Democrats in the next election."

our capacity to produce remains the same,

Yeah, in the shitter.

and likewise the long-run Phillips curve has not shifted outward, because the increase in unemployment being experienced right now is almost exclusively cyclical in nature,

Nevermind Lyndon Johnson altering the way we calculate unemployment to make the economy "seem" better.

That's why our official Unemployment is: 9.8%

Real Unemployment: 17%

as opposed to frictional or structural. Only an increase in frictional or structural or seasonal unemployment could shift the long-run Phillips curve, and thus the natural rate of unemployment, to the right.

The so-called "lagging indicator" is nothing more than a politician's excuse to do whatever they wish to later claim responsibility for the eventual recovery.

At 10/30/09 01:30 AM, LardLord wrote:

Actually yes, the building of these things will cause aggregate demand in the American economy to increase over time, which will in turn cause a growth of both real GDP and inflation rates. Higher Inflation rates are a problem we can solve later, after unemployment has been reduced (GDP and unemployment are inversely proportional, so increases in GDP herald decreases in unemployment). This is the whole idea behind fiscal stimulus, and the fact that GDP grew 3.5% in the last quarter signals that decreased unemployment is not far behind at all.

That's why the economists are saying we might have a "jobless recovery" with a "new normal" in unemployment or, at best, having double digit unemployment well into the middle of next year and possibly 3 years from now.

"Due to Government backed spending on cars and housing"

Unless, of course, you seem to think the Government can continue that spending...

Which reminds me...

73% of GOP Voters Say Congressional Republicans Have Lost Touch With Their Base

"Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party's representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values. "

So... the conservatives actually hate their Republican politicians... the same politicians the very people posting in this thread hate so much because, as they claim, they're "too conservative" and should be "moving away from".

Even though the conservatives they claim to hate so much seem to hate those Republicans who claim to be conservative, which would mean that the people on this thread actually hate "liberal" Republicans...

It makes me lol.

lol

I don't get half of the people on this thread.

They're happy the Republicans are straying away from Conservatism, even though it was the Conservatives who were most against Bush and Congress from bailing out Wallstreet.

You would think under this logic, the Republicans should be more like a mainstream conservative.

Then again, the way I've always considered it is like this: There's hardly any difference from the average liberal and conservative citizen. Just as how there's hardly a difference from the average liberal and conservative politician.

What separates the citizens from the politicians is that the citizens are limited Government liberals and conservatives while the Politicians are big Government liberals and conservatives.

At 10/25/09 06:37 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote:

The influence of religion upon current US far right politics is profound. Whether or not I am religious has nothing to do with it.

Uh-huh.

At 10/25/09 10:27 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You can find a very good motivation for that law that has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm glad Chritianity motivated him to that, but that doesn't mean that we should write Jesus's thoughts about Slavery on the constitution.

Damn all that Creator stuff.

I've often argue religions provide a great stable framework for morality since they are supposed to be extremely rigid systems, but they don't belong in secular government. Or rather, a government which governs multiple faiths should be secular.

Right, a secular Federal Government.

And as such, I fail to see why any religious symbol over someone's gravestone is a sign of religious oppression.

And yet, you are dense not to realize I realize that.

Uh-huh, sure you did. <.<

At 10/25/09 12:26 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 10/25/09 09:31 AM, Memorize wrote:

It never ceases to amuse me when the anti-religious are always the ones talking about religion.

protip: God isn't real.

Thank you for proving my point.

At 10/22/09 06:53 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You don't have to pass a law to get around the meaning of the constitution, & to act against the spirit of the grand scheme and make it the norm. As long as no one stops you, you're golden.

And yet I just told you that the very people who wrote the Constitution didn't find it "appalling".

Also, feel free to assume that if its not strictly in the constitution that there should be a total seperation from church and state I would like it to be, the same way women wanted to vote & slaves wanted to be free.

And yet I just told you that Ben Franklin argued against slavery on the basis of a religion.

I'm NOT saying outlaw religion. I'm saying keep it out of government. (but this is now off topic)

Right.

Because the example I gave was horrible. How dare he!

As for Beck, there's nothing more to say about that except that he is an opinionist. A majority of people aren't going to like what he has to say because he represents an extranious fringe. But he does distort and manipulate the truth to his advantage and as the girl may have found out in 1990, he suggests things that are totally innacurate, and while he acknowledges they may not be true (because we don't know he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, even though he could have), the point is he's associating an idea to a person on national tv where a lot of easily manipulated people are.

And yet, it's actually a rumor/joke.

At 10/24/09 07:20 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote:

Frankly, if this week showed anything, it was how unpopular the BNP actually are among most people in Britain. What, I feel anyway, is the chief difference between the British and American far right, is that the far right in America seem to have more support from the public, probably due to religion.

It never ceases to amuse me when the anti-religious are always the ones talking about religion.

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

The first commandment is essentially "Worship one god" That specifically mandates religions of a monotheistic faith yadda yadda yadda.

And yet, no law was passed.

You do realize that there was prayer in schools way back, right?

So... if the founding fathers who wrote "separation of church and state" were A-OK with school prayer, then I fail to see how it can be "unconstitutional" when the very people who wrote the Constitution were fine with it.

It's like saying that Ben Franklin violated Separation of Church and State when he argued against slavery because he used Christianity as a basis for being against it.

At 10/16/09 08:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You still don't seem to understand that even if everyone hates the democrats or doesn't believe in them, they actually have to have a viable alternative and a majority of people still don't have any confidence in the Republican party or any of its leaders.

http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/
10/1

Fox news? No, don't use that, they're bias. But sure, use dailykos, they're legit.

No, they both can go to hell.

I'm certainly up for other poll numbers, but only 18% of people like Republicans according to that, even though democrat approval ratings are also below 50%.

Which is pretty sad that they're basically tied on the generic ballot after Bush's departure.

Sadder still that the Democrats have controlled congress for 3 years and it's approval is in the mid 20's.

When it comes down to it, the Republicans aren't offering anything anyone wants outside of their very right wing base. They can't win an election anywhere where that base isn't strong. Its impossible.

Right. Because Tort reform would've been a huge problem.

You know, fixing it to where lawyers couldn't pursue frivolous lawsuits against doctors where up to 90% of cases are dismissed, which could potentially save over $250 Billion a year.

Oh but wait, who do lawyers have a hold on? Right. The Democrat party!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXsVz5lpC H0Part 1

Part 2